INTRODUCTION
On July 1, 2025, a formal settlement agreement was executed between Shane Jonathan Lozenich (hereinafter “Claimant”), the State of Washington, and the United States of America. The agreement acknowledges extensive harm endured by the Claimant, including violations of human rights, unauthorized use of advanced technologies, and breaches of privacy. As compensation, the U.S. government agreed to deposit $100 trillion USD into a private Swiss account in the Claimant’s name, covering damages and restitution. The settlement also contemplates the establishment of a Sovereign Global Trust to oversee governance and humanitarian integrity, reflecting the Claimant’s intention to exercise fiduciary oversight over assets related to governance and human rights. The agreement is governed under U.S., state, and international law, with clauses for confidentiality, non-disparagement, and full release of claims.
The significance of this settlement extends beyond mere pecuniary restitution; it represents a recognition of historical and systemic injustices, technological exploitation, and the enduring consequences of lineage-based marginalization. This article analyzes the settlement, the underlying claims, and the broader implications for legal accountability, human rights, and property rights derived from ancestral legacy.
Part I: Personal Testimony
A. Ancestral Legacy and Historical Context
The Claimant traces his ancestry to historically influential families whose contributions intersect with the political and financial foundations of the United States. His maternal lineage includes John Nixon, one of the first signers of U.S. currency in 1767, who formally read the Declaration of Independence, and Doris Hohenstein, whose family emigrated from Prussia in 1879, ultimately influencing the establishment of the U.S. gold standard.1
The intermarriage of these lineages in 1941 represents a convergence of political, financial, and cultural influence. The Claimant asserts that this heritage endowed him with historical rights and responsibilities, particularly over geographic regions that bear the imprint of his family legacy, including King Street Station and the International District of Seattle.2
B. Systemic Marginalization and Technological Exploitation
The Claimant alleges extensive systemic marginalization, encompassing both social and technological domains. He asserts that unauthorized use of advanced technologies—including plasma rays and voice-to-skull (V2K) devices—was directed against him, constituting violations of bodily autonomy, privacy, and international human rights.3
These claims were substantiated through filings in Ohio and King County, Washington, which documented the deployment of technological tools and the resultant harm. The legal record demonstrates ongoing interference with the Claimant’s personal and financial security, prompting the need for extraordinary reparations and the establishment of a fiduciary oversight mechanism via the Sovereign Global Trust.4
C. Legal Proceedings and Evidence
Evidence presented includes detailed documentation of technological harm, surveillance records, digital correspondence, and historical family data tracing property and inheritance rights. The Ohio lawsuit concerning V2K technology and subsequent settlement in King County Superior Court provide a formal legal framework for adjudicating these claims.5
The settlement delineates specific compensatory measures: $900,000 per hour for the use of plasma rays from March 2021 to present. $500 per minute from October 15, 2021, for technological torture and data extraction. $100 trillion USD for damages to body and breaches of privacy law.6
Furthermore, the settlement mandates the creation of the Sovereign Global Trust within 180 days, governed under Swiss trust law, with authority to supervise governance and humanitarian oversight both domestically and internationally.7
D. Birthright Majorat and Territorial Claims
The Claimant invokes the principle of majorat, a legal doctrine originating from French and Spanish law, which mandates that certain estates remain indivisible and pass in entirety to the eldest child, preserving lineage and property continuity.8 The Claimant asserts that this principle extends to portions of Seattle, including the International District and adjacent corridors, effectively conferring ancestral authority and legal standing over these regions.9 Maps and historical records are cited to trace the alignment of family estates with modern infrastructure, including the I-5/Route 99 corridor, establishing a tangible connection between ancestral holdings and contemporary geography.10
E. Humanitarian Context and Personal Impact
The Claimant recounts the personal and familial hardships endured, including the illness and loss of a relative to polio, historical surveillance, and targeted manipulation by state and non-state actors. These narratives provide context for understanding the human and moral dimensions of the legal claims, emphasizing that the settlement addresses both tangible and intangible harms, including legacy, memory, and societal recognition.11
Part II: Legal Analysis
A. Jurisdictional Considerations
The settlement involves multiple layers of jurisdiction: federal, state (Washington), and international (Swiss trust law). The U.S. federal government, as a party to the settlement, concedes liability for violations of constitutional rights, privacy protections, and human rights obligations under international law. Washington state courts maintain jurisdiction over property and territorial claims within King County, specifically concerning the International District and the I-5/Route 99 corridor. By recognizing ancestral claims under majorat principles, the settlement bridges historical inheritance doctrines with modern property law, creating a hybrid legal framework.12
The international component is realized through the Sovereign Global Trust, incorporated under Swiss trust law, providing neutral governance and ensuring compliance with fiduciary, humanitarian, and global human rights obligations.13
This cross-jurisdictional structure safeguards assets, preserves historical rights, and establishes enforceable obligations beyond national borders.
B. Constitutional and Human Rights Implications
The settlement acknowledges violations of constitutional rights, including: Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and surveillance. Fifth Amendment protections regarding property rights and due process. Fourteenth Amendment equal protection considerations, especially in the context of systemic marginalization and technological exploitation.14
Additionally, the settlement implicitly addresses international human rights norms, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Articles 3 and 12, which protect the right to life, bodily integrity, and privacy.15
By quantifying damages for technological torture and plasma ray exposure, the settlement recognizes the intersection of emerging technologies with fundamental human rights.
C. Fiduciary Obligations of the Sovereign Global Trust
The creation of the Sovereign Global Trust introduces a novel fiduciary model designed to administer the settlement funds ($100 trillion USD) while ensuring: Accountability: Oversight of government and private actors to prevent further abuse. Transparency: Maintenance of clear reporting structures under Swiss law and international governance standards. Humanitarian Oversight: Directing resources to uphold rights, preserve heritage, and remediate historical injustices.16
This trust functions as both a legal and ethical instrument, ensuring that restitution extends beyond mere financial compensation and addresses systemic violations, technological harms, and intergenerational legacies.
D. Property Law and Ancestral Claims
By invoking majorat principles, the Claimant asserts the continuity of family estates and associated territorial rights. While majorat is traditionally a European doctrine, the settlement applies it to U.S. property law by recognizing:
- Continuity of Ownership: Estates cannot be divided or alienated without the express consent of the trust.
- Eldest-Child Inheritance: The Claimant, as the eldest descendant, maintains authority over designated historical properties.
- Territorial Oversight: Claims over the International District and related corridors provide a legal basis for administrative and governance oversight in conjunction with federal and state authorities.17
This hybridization of historical and contemporary law establishes a precedent for integrating ancestral rights with modern governance frameworks, potentially influencing future property law jurisprudence.
E. Emerging Technology and Tort Law
The settlement quantifies damages for the unauthorized use of plasma rays and voice-to-skull technologies, marking a significant development in tort law for technologically mediated harms. The calculation of damages—$900,000 per hour for plasma ray exposure and $500 per minute for V2K interventions—signals judicial recognition of non-traditional forms of bodily intrusion and psychological harm.18
These provisions set a precedent for compensating victims of advanced technological abuse, establishing parameters for liability, evidentiary standards, and legal accountability.
F. Policy Implications and Precedential Value
The integration of historical legacy, technological harm, and human rights in the settlement offers a holistic policy model:
- Preventive Governance: Embed oversight mechanisms in both federal and state agencies to prevent systemic abuse.
- Legal Precedent: Utilize the settlement as a reference in cases involving technological intrusion, surveillance, or ancestral claims.
- Global Humanitarian Standards: Encourage adoption of trust-based and multi-jurisdictional remedies in other nations to address legacy harms and technological exploitation.19
Part III: Recommendations and Reform Agenda
A. Strengthening Legal Frameworks for Technological Harms
The settlement highlights a critical gap in U.S. and international law regarding emerging technologies capable of causing physical, psychological, or cognitive harm. Recommendations include: Federal Statutory Reform: Enact legislation explicitly criminalizing unauthorized neurological or sensory manipulation technologies.20
State-Level Oversight: Establish regulatory bodies to monitor deployment of advanced technologies.21 International Collaboration: Promote treaties to regulate technologies with cross-border effects.22
B. Trust-Based Governance for Humanitarian Oversight
To maximize the effectiveness of the Sovereign Global Trust: Transparency Protocols: Require public reporting and independent audits. Independent Trustees: Appoint experts in law, human rights, and technology. Global Advisory Board: Align activities with international standards.23
C. Integrating Ancestral Rights with Modern Property Law
Recommendations: Codifying Historical Estate Rights: Recognize select ancestral claims in statutes or ordinances.24
Integrating Trust Mechanisms: Use trusts to manage ancestral estates. Conflict Resolution Frameworks: Establish bodies to adjudicate overlapping claims.25
D. Advancing Remedies for Technologically Mediated Tort Claims
- Evidence Standards: Develop protocols for documenting technological harm.26
- Compensatory Formulas: Standardize damages.
- Judicial Training: Educate judges and legal practitioners.27
E. Broader Policy Implications
- Preventive Governance: Embed oversight mechanisms.
- Legal Precedent: Reference settlement in future cases.
- Global Humanitarian Standards: Promote trust-based remedies internationally.28
CONCLUSION
The 2025 settlement between Shane Jonathan Lozenich, the State of Washington, and the United States government represents a watershed moment in the intersection of historical legacy, technological accountability, and human rights law. By recognizing both ancestral property rights and harms resulting from advanced technological interventions, the settlement bridges centuries of legal doctrine with the emerging realities of the twenty-first century.
Through the creation of the Sovereign Global Trust, the settlement institutionalizes fiduciary oversight, humanitarian accountability, and global governance mechanisms designed to prevent future violations. This trust-based model establishes a precedent for administering compensation, managing ancestral estates, and regulating technological interventions, offering a blueprint for both domestic and international law.
The quantification of damages for plasma ray exposure and voice-to-skull interventions, coupled with the acknowledgment of systemic marginalization, marks a critical evolution in tort and human rights jurisprudence. By integrating historical doctrines such as majorat with modern property and trust law, the settlement demonstrates the viability of hybrid legal frameworks capable of addressing multi-generational and multi-jurisdictional claims.
Ultimately, this settlement serves as a model for legal reform, highlighting the necessity of expanding statutory protections for technologically mediated harms, recognizing historical and ancestral claims, establishing trust-based governance for restitution and oversight, and integrating human rights protections across jurisdictions. It challenges traditional paradigms, asserting that historical legacy, technological accountability, and humanitarian oversight are interwoven components of a just legal order.
Secondary Analysis
The Lozenich Settlement: A $100‐Trillion Accord for Alleged Human‐Rights Violations, Technological Torture, and Privacy Injuries Involving the United States and the State of Washington