Thursday, August 9, 2018
1177-1186: Native Leaders -- Use Your Heads from Lincoln County Watch
By Anna Von Reitz
If I had gone along with the "deal" Chief Fasthorse was promoting, I would have been signing your death warrants instead of welcoming you to the table. Most likely, I would have been signing my
own death warrant, too.
You have to think things through and not just from your own perspective.
There is no way for 15 million
Native Americans from at least 100 different tribes to come in and
establish a superior claim and take away the land rights of 350 million
other Americans without a bloodbath.
Such a thing would create a
reason--- that otherwise doesn't exist--- for the final decimation and
destruction of the Native Nations.
About the time you swaggered up some
guy's driveway and told him that you were the new "owners" of his
property, the same old war would begin, and there is no reason to think
that the results would be any better or different.
Instead, you get to come home to the
land and soil jurisdiction and get out of the "Second Class Citizen"
status you were all stuck in, and are now able to live and stand on the
land again as free men and women.
There are other reasons, too.
The United States of America is the
established lawful government of this country. We have contracts and
agreements with these "High Contracting Powers" that we can exercise
---- and not only treaties, but commercial contracts and trusts that we
are heir to already. We don't have to recreate any wheels, fight any
wars, or cause any problems. All we have to do is invoke what already
exists and operate the General Government already owed to this country.
Any sort of new Native Super State
would have none of that in place and would be prey to any number of
foreign alliances coming against it and all sorts of traditional tribal
squabbles and internal power struggles, on top of having 95% of your
neighbors mad at you.
What chance would such a new "Indigenous Nation" have?
Not much.
You cannot hope to address
injustices that occurred in the past by creating new injustices against
other people in the present. Number One --- that doesn't work. Number
Two -- all it does is create more injustice.
Injustice against anyone is a form
of violence and violence just begets more violence. So if you want
peace and plenty in your lifetimes, give justice to others who have paid
their dues to be here, too, whose bodies have come from this land, and
whose bodies will return to it when they die, just the same as
yours. And stop fighting a war that ended 150 years ago.
You have a rich heritage and thanks to the work of The Living Law Firm, it can finally be a happy and abundant heritage, too.
As for me, I have always valued the
great compliment that the local Winnebago Tribe, the Ho-Chunka Nation,
gave to me as a youngster. It's an honor to be considered a member of
the tribe, but we all know that I will never be a Winnebago by blood and
so, we would be building a new nation on another "fib" of sorts, an
honorary title "as" a Winnebago. That's not good enough to form the
foundations for a new start for a whole country.
Finally, I want to point out that I
have retrieved the "Natural and Unalienable Rights" our forefathers
fought for from the dust bin of history, and if I were to turn my back
on The United States of America [Unincorporated] I really would be
committing treason against this country and its people----all of them,
of every color and creed --- who have fought and died and suffered for
it.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Ready to Tear Hair
By Anna Von Reitz
Even people who SHOULD know better get confused.
But, really, folks, it's time to use your own heads.
Would you go to the library, take out a book called "All About Cows", go
home, read it, and then call me up and ask why you can't find any
information about horses in a book called "All About Cows"???
WHY would you do such a thing?
So I get a reader saying, "I went and looked in the State Statutes and I couldn't find any references to a Public Notary ......"
Statutes deal with sea jurisdiction (cows) so why would you look there
for information about a land jurisdiction office (horses)?
It's the same thing with all these people calling up the Alaska Court
System and the Alaska Bar Association --- both as sea jurisdiction as it
is possible to be (cows, cows, cows) --- and asking about me, a
Counselor-at-Law and Justice of the Peace and our land jurisdiction
court (horses, horses, horses)?
It makes no sense that people are doing these things when they have been
told point blank what they are dealing with and what the jurisdictions
are.
Information about Law and Public Offices--- (horses) --- can be found in
the General Session Laws and Public Laws governing this country.
Note the word: "Law".
A statute, code, or regulation is not a law.
Information about Statutes, Codes, and Regulations (cows) are found in State Statutes and Federal Codes.
Please note that by definition, Federal Courts, which include
Territorial State of State and Municipal STATE OF STATE COURTS are
incompetent to hear "law or facts".
See that little word? Law?
All they can deal with are fictional entities and corporations and
statutes--- which aren't actually law at all --- and never pretend to
be.
That's why the Bar Attorneys have to "practice law" instead of being
engaged in the actual thing, that's why they have to make up stories
about you and create corporations named after you to try to drag you
(and your assets) into their jurisdiction----and that's why you have to
look in the right books to find the right information.
Until you all figure this out and tell your neighbors, there is the
danger that next time you see me, I'll be bald, because I snatched out
my last remaining hairs in frustration.
Help save Grandma's curly locks. Memorize this information. Share it. Carry a Cheat Sheet if necessary.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Demand and Decree of the Sovereign Government
By Anna Von Reitz
To boil it down pure and simple --- the Federal Government was created to exercise certain "Delegated Powers".
Three different levels of Federal Government were created --- the actual
Federal Government operated by the States of America formed in 1781,
which was moth-balled under conditions of deceit and fraud in 1868, the
Territorial Government designed to administer new territorial
acquisitions under the Northwest Ordinance and such Insular States and
possessions (like Puerto Rico and Guam) and the Municipal Government to
administer Washington, DC.
Over the last three years, all three levels of this "Federal Government"
have been rendered incompetent. The actual Federal Government is still
dormant pending completion of its "reconstruction". Both the
Territorial and Municipal Government have gone bankrupt.
By Operation of Law, the Delegated Powers have returned to the source
Delegating those Powers in the first place ---- The United States of
America, its member States, and its People.
And here, attached, is The Demand and Decree accepting and acknowledging
the return of these Powers and demand for the return of our assets.
Email and Letter to Pope Francis, August 9, 2018
By Anna Von Reitz
I have just been informed by Chief Fasthorse that he has willfully misrepresented and misinterpreted certain facts that impact any proposed settlement with the Holy See and The United States of America --- the actual Federation of States.
1. Please note that we, The United
States of America, re-issued our Sovereign Letters Patent two days prior
to the Sovereign Letters Patent signed by us and Chief Fasthorse. The
intent was and for our part, is, to share the land and soil of this
country on a fair, full, and equal basis with the Native tribes.
We do not propose to give them claim
to our shared land under the same bogus principles of the Doctrine of
Discovery that they themselves have suffered under. It doesn't matter
whether our ancestors "discovered" America in 15,000 B.C. or 1602 A.D.
2. He has misrepresented my
political status as that of a Winnebago Tribal Member and this is
grossly incorrect. I have repeatedly, soundly, and unequivocally
declared myself to be an American standing on the land and soil of
Wisconsin, and similar to any proposition that the Territorial United
States could convert my political status by "conferring" United States
Citizenship upon me, I object and deny any power granted to the
Winnebago or any other tribe to convert my nationality or suborn my
political status as an American and a Wisconsinite.
3. You need to deal directly with me and stop this madness of misrepresentation and self-interest gone mad.
I have forwarded our acknowledgement
and acceptance of the return of the "Delegated Powers" to the
administration of The United States of America by Operation of Law to
Cardinal Parolin, the Queen, Donald Trump and other interested
Parties---- which includes demand to return our assets to us and to our
control.
Your Predecessors and your Vassals,
the British Monarchs, have acted in Breach of Trust so long, so
flagrantly, that you finally bit yourselves in the butt and rendered all
three levels of the Federal Government incompetent at the same time,
which leaves only our General Government still standing.
It is quite true that we need to
"begin again" and we have, with a firm foundation bequeathed to us by
our Founding Fathers which is not dependent on any "constitutional"
agreement with either the British Monarchs or the Holy See. And equally
not dependent on any false claims made by Native Americans.
The Natives are welcome to come home
like any other American to the land and soil of their birth. They are
not welcome to make inflated and self-aggrandizing and unjust claims.
Thank you very much----and be aware
that any attempt to give our freely shared land or any other assets
belonging to this whole country away to any subset of it will be cause
for strenuous and very public objection fully exposing the role of the
Holy See in all of this skullduggery, piracy, and fraud.
Anna Maria
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
The Civil War Fraud
By Anna Von Reitz
-- This is a reprint of an article that
explains a small but important part of what went on after the Civil War
and it places a glaring spotlight on the mis-administration of our
country that went on then and which has continued under the auspices of
the Territorial and Municipal United States Governments ever since.
ENJOY ---- and thanks to Bill Ward:
By Bill Ward
When
the War Between the States ended, the victorious Northerners viewed
Jefferson Davis, as the former President of the Confederate States of
America, much differently than others who had served the Confederacy.
For example, when Robert E. Lee surrendered to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, the meeting between the two generals was amicable. Lee was received and treated with courtesy as a senior officer. The terms were so apparently lenient, with Grant conceding to Lee’s requests on behalf of his soldiers, the surrender was referred to as “a gentleman’s agreement.”
However, even after signing a loyalty oath, Lee and other former Confederate Army officers and members of the CSA government were later disenfranchised and treated as second-class citizens. But in the eyes of the northern public, Jefferson Davis was set apart for still a different kind of treatment.
On May 10, 1865, about a mile from the town of Irwinville, Georgia, Federal troops captured Davis. With his arrest on that spring morning, his government ceased to exist. His wife, Varina, and their children were sent to Savannah, where she was kept under virtual house arrest and forbidden to leave the city. Because the soldiers, carpetbaggers and Union supporters treated the Davis children so badly, Varina arranged for them to go to Canada along with her mother.
Davis had been taken back to Virginia and imprisoned in Fort Monroe, where he would stay for the next two years. At first, he was bound in leg irons. Guards watched him around the clock but were not permitted to speak to him. He was allowed no visitors; a light burned in his cell day and night; and his only reading material was a Bible. His treatment was a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.
Many Northern Congressmen and newspapers were nothing short of vicious in their public attacks of Davis. They wanted to see him tried for treason and hanged. In one article, and in one very long sentence, the New York Times referred to Davis by every insulting comment and offensive name that was fit to print. Rhetoric far outran legal reasoning.
But if Davis was in an unusual legal predicament, so was the United States government. The dilemma faced by Washington was how to handle the Davis case. The government under Lincoln had created its own major obstacles by spending four years proclaiming that secessionists were “traitors and conspirators.” The U.S. military had silenced opposition to the administration by closing down newspapers that dared challenge the party line or to make the slightest suggestion that secession might be legal. Thousands of Northerners had been jailed for exercising their First Amendment rights, and those thousands had friends with long memories in the Northern bar.
Northern lawyers were angry for having their clients locked in prison with no civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution; having civilians tried by military courts for non-existent crimes; having a government that ignored the Supreme Court, setting itself above the constitutional plan of checks and balances. They didn’t like having to beg the president for justice for clients convicted by phony courts-martial or locked up for long periods without any trial. Under Lincoln, the U.S. government had become tyrannical, and certainly anything but a free and constitutional society.
The best lawyers of the day were willing to volunteer to defend Jefferson Davis, because they were angry at the way Lincoln’s government had trampled the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for four years. Even those who didn’t believe in secession were repulsed by the conduct of the Republican administration and the U.S. military.
Charles O’Connor of New York, one of the most famous trial lawyers of the era and a man of great stature in the legal profession, volunteered to be Davis’s counsel. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would be the trial judge.
But interesting things began to happen, and the government’s dilemma became even worse. University of Virginia Law Professor, Albert Bledsoe, published a book, “Is Davis a Traitor?” Bledsoe methodically took apart the case against secession, delivering a solid blow to the prosecutors and dampening their zeal to try Davis. Prosecutors actually began to look for a way to avoid trying him without vindicating the South.
Then another method was decided on for prosecution. The attorney general would bring in outside, independent counsel, as we have seen in modern times, such as in Watergate or the Clinton scandals. The government needed someone of great standing in the legal community to be the lead prosecutor. It chose John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew citing “grave doubts” about the validity of the case. The government could “end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury,” where Davis’s “crime” was alleged to have been committed.
President Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, thought the easiest way out would be to pardon Davis, as he had pardoned many other Confederates. But Davis refused, saying, “To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt.” He wanted a trial to have the issue of secession decided by a court of law — where it should have been decided to begin with — instead of on battlefields. Most Southerners wanted the same.Northerners either forgot or were unaware of a great secessionist tradition in America. Southerners were not alone in their view that each state had the right to determine its own destiny in the Union. The procedure for joining the Union also applied to withdrawing from the Union.
That thought harkens back to an editorial by the Cincinnati (Ohio) Daily Inquirer, in the summer of 1861, after the “traitor” label was let loose by the North: “The Republican papers are great on treason. . . . It is treason to circulate petitions for a compromise or peaceful readjustment of our national troubles . . . to question the constitutional powers of the President to increase the standing army without authority of law . . . to object to squads of military visiting private houses, and to make search and seizures. . . to question the infallibility of the President, and treason not to concur with him. . . It is treason to talk of hard times; to say that the war might have been avoided. It is treason to be truthful and faithful to the Constitution.”
A year after John Clifford withdrew, the government appointed another special counsel, Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the novel, “Two Years Before the Mast.” But after reviewing the evidence, he agreed with Clifford; the case was a loser. Dana argued that “a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled…as a rule of law by war.” Dana observed that the right to secede from the Union had not been settled by civilized means but by military power and the destruction of much life and property in the South. The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law.
Now, over two years after Davis’s imprisonment and grand jury indictments for treason, the stage was set for the great public trial of the century. Davis had been released from prison on a $100,000 bond, supported by none other than Horace Greeley, the leading abolitionist writer in the North and a former Lincoln supporter. Greeley and a host of others were outraged at the treatment Davis had received, being locked up in a dungeon for more than two years with no speedy trial.
Since two famous special counsels had told the government its case was a loser, finally, none other than the Chief Justice, in a quirk of Constitutional manipulation, devised an idea to avoid a trial without vindicating the South. His amazing solution was little short of genius.
The Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted, which provided that anyone who had engaged in insurrection against the United States and had at one time taken an oath of allegiance (which Davis had done as a U.S. Senator) could not hold public office. The Bill of Rights prevents double jeopardy, so Davis, who had already been punished once by the Fourteenth Amendment in not being permitted to hold public office, couldn't be tried and punished again for treason.
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase secretly passed along his clever argument to Davis’s counsel, Charles O’Connor, who then made the motion to dismiss. The Court took the motion under consideration, passing the matter on to the Supreme Court for determination.
In late December 1867 while the motion was pending, President Johnson granted amnesty to everyone in the South, including Davis. But the Davis case was still on the docket. In February 1868, at a dinner party attended by the Chief Justice and a government attorney, they agreed that on the following day a motion for non-prosecution would be made that would dismiss the case. A guest overheard the conversation and reported what was on the minds of most Southerners: “I did not consider that he [Davis] was any more guilty of treason than I was, and that a trial should be insisted upon, which could properly only result in a complete vindication of our cause, and of the action of the many thousands who had fought and of the many thousands who had died for what they felt to be right.”
And so, the case of United States versus Jefferson Davis came to its end — a case that was to be the trial of the century, a great state trial, perhaps the most significant trial in the history of the nation — that never was.
For example, when Robert E. Lee surrendered to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, the meeting between the two generals was amicable. Lee was received and treated with courtesy as a senior officer. The terms were so apparently lenient, with Grant conceding to Lee’s requests on behalf of his soldiers, the surrender was referred to as “a gentleman’s agreement.”
However, even after signing a loyalty oath, Lee and other former Confederate Army officers and members of the CSA government were later disenfranchised and treated as second-class citizens. But in the eyes of the northern public, Jefferson Davis was set apart for still a different kind of treatment.
On May 10, 1865, about a mile from the town of Irwinville, Georgia, Federal troops captured Davis. With his arrest on that spring morning, his government ceased to exist. His wife, Varina, and their children were sent to Savannah, where she was kept under virtual house arrest and forbidden to leave the city. Because the soldiers, carpetbaggers and Union supporters treated the Davis children so badly, Varina arranged for them to go to Canada along with her mother.
Davis had been taken back to Virginia and imprisoned in Fort Monroe, where he would stay for the next two years. At first, he was bound in leg irons. Guards watched him around the clock but were not permitted to speak to him. He was allowed no visitors; a light burned in his cell day and night; and his only reading material was a Bible. His treatment was a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.
Many Northern Congressmen and newspapers were nothing short of vicious in their public attacks of Davis. They wanted to see him tried for treason and hanged. In one article, and in one very long sentence, the New York Times referred to Davis by every insulting comment and offensive name that was fit to print. Rhetoric far outran legal reasoning.
But if Davis was in an unusual legal predicament, so was the United States government. The dilemma faced by Washington was how to handle the Davis case. The government under Lincoln had created its own major obstacles by spending four years proclaiming that secessionists were “traitors and conspirators.” The U.S. military had silenced opposition to the administration by closing down newspapers that dared challenge the party line or to make the slightest suggestion that secession might be legal. Thousands of Northerners had been jailed for exercising their First Amendment rights, and those thousands had friends with long memories in the Northern bar.
Northern lawyers were angry for having their clients locked in prison with no civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution; having civilians tried by military courts for non-existent crimes; having a government that ignored the Supreme Court, setting itself above the constitutional plan of checks and balances. They didn’t like having to beg the president for justice for clients convicted by phony courts-martial or locked up for long periods without any trial. Under Lincoln, the U.S. government had become tyrannical, and certainly anything but a free and constitutional society.
The best lawyers of the day were willing to volunteer to defend Jefferson Davis, because they were angry at the way Lincoln’s government had trampled the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for four years. Even those who didn’t believe in secession were repulsed by the conduct of the Republican administration and the U.S. military.
Charles O’Connor of New York, one of the most famous trial lawyers of the era and a man of great stature in the legal profession, volunteered to be Davis’s counsel. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would be the trial judge.
But interesting things began to happen, and the government’s dilemma became even worse. University of Virginia Law Professor, Albert Bledsoe, published a book, “Is Davis a Traitor?” Bledsoe methodically took apart the case against secession, delivering a solid blow to the prosecutors and dampening their zeal to try Davis. Prosecutors actually began to look for a way to avoid trying him without vindicating the South.
Then another method was decided on for prosecution. The attorney general would bring in outside, independent counsel, as we have seen in modern times, such as in Watergate or the Clinton scandals. The government needed someone of great standing in the legal community to be the lead prosecutor. It chose John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew citing “grave doubts” about the validity of the case. The government could “end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury,” where Davis’s “crime” was alleged to have been committed.
President Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, thought the easiest way out would be to pardon Davis, as he had pardoned many other Confederates. But Davis refused, saying, “To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt.” He wanted a trial to have the issue of secession decided by a court of law — where it should have been decided to begin with — instead of on battlefields. Most Southerners wanted the same.Northerners either forgot or were unaware of a great secessionist tradition in America. Southerners were not alone in their view that each state had the right to determine its own destiny in the Union. The procedure for joining the Union also applied to withdrawing from the Union.
That thought harkens back to an editorial by the Cincinnati (Ohio) Daily Inquirer, in the summer of 1861, after the “traitor” label was let loose by the North: “The Republican papers are great on treason. . . . It is treason to circulate petitions for a compromise or peaceful readjustment of our national troubles . . . to question the constitutional powers of the President to increase the standing army without authority of law . . . to object to squads of military visiting private houses, and to make search and seizures. . . to question the infallibility of the President, and treason not to concur with him. . . It is treason to talk of hard times; to say that the war might have been avoided. It is treason to be truthful and faithful to the Constitution.”
A year after John Clifford withdrew, the government appointed another special counsel, Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the novel, “Two Years Before the Mast.” But after reviewing the evidence, he agreed with Clifford; the case was a loser. Dana argued that “a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled…as a rule of law by war.” Dana observed that the right to secede from the Union had not been settled by civilized means but by military power and the destruction of much life and property in the South. The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law.
Now, over two years after Davis’s imprisonment and grand jury indictments for treason, the stage was set for the great public trial of the century. Davis had been released from prison on a $100,000 bond, supported by none other than Horace Greeley, the leading abolitionist writer in the North and a former Lincoln supporter. Greeley and a host of others were outraged at the treatment Davis had received, being locked up in a dungeon for more than two years with no speedy trial.
Since two famous special counsels had told the government its case was a loser, finally, none other than the Chief Justice, in a quirk of Constitutional manipulation, devised an idea to avoid a trial without vindicating the South. His amazing solution was little short of genius.
The Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted, which provided that anyone who had engaged in insurrection against the United States and had at one time taken an oath of allegiance (which Davis had done as a U.S. Senator) could not hold public office. The Bill of Rights prevents double jeopardy, so Davis, who had already been punished once by the Fourteenth Amendment in not being permitted to hold public office, couldn't be tried and punished again for treason.
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase secretly passed along his clever argument to Davis’s counsel, Charles O’Connor, who then made the motion to dismiss. The Court took the motion under consideration, passing the matter on to the Supreme Court for determination.
In late December 1867 while the motion was pending, President Johnson granted amnesty to everyone in the South, including Davis. But the Davis case was still on the docket. In February 1868, at a dinner party attended by the Chief Justice and a government attorney, they agreed that on the following day a motion for non-prosecution would be made that would dismiss the case. A guest overheard the conversation and reported what was on the minds of most Southerners: “I did not consider that he [Davis] was any more guilty of treason than I was, and that a trial should be insisted upon, which could properly only result in a complete vindication of our cause, and of the action of the many thousands who had fought and of the many thousands who had died for what they felt to be right.”
And so, the case of United States versus Jefferson Davis came to its end — a case that was to be the trial of the century, a great state trial, perhaps the most significant trial in the history of the nation — that never was.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Pernicious Confusion About Milligan Ex Parte
By Anna Von reitz
Pernicious Confusion About Milligan Ex
Parte
The Supreme Court decided Milligan Ex Parte in
1866, a year after the creation of quasi-military courts in ten military
districts covering eleven Southern States in May of 1865.
These courts were formed by the Rump Congress
immediately following Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Virginia, in April of 1865.
Basically, a General "of at least the rank of a
Brigadier" was put in charge of appointing civilians loyal to the North to act
as Judges in Southern Courts: carpetbaggers.
These people were all either transported to serve
as judges in these new quasi-military courts or they were hated members of their
own communities --- Yankee Sympathizers --- who were given plenary power over
their defeated neighbors, to rape, pillage, and plunder whatever property was
left in the South.
It caused such an outcry that Milligan Ex Parte was
rushed through the United States Supreme Court for remedy just a year later. The
Court clearly stated that when civilian courts resumed operations in the
military districts, the quasi-military tribunals were to shut down.
Instead, by a process of fraud based on similar
names deceit and usurpation, the civilian courts were surreptitiously replaced
by these same quasi-military tribunals operating throughout the nation.
That's where we find ourselves today, still
cluelessly wrestling with the unresolved detritus of the so-called Civil War,
still putting up with quasi-military courts --- which we could replace simply by
operating our own civilian courts and invoking Milligan Ex Parte.
Recently, people unaware of this history, have
brought forward Milligan Ex Parte and attempted to use this as an argument
against President Trump's proposed use of military tribunals to try civilian
criminals ---- however this reasoning is based on false assumptions that derive
from ignorance about which courts Milligan Ex Parte is talking about, and
assumes that it is addressing military courts in general.
As you can see, instead, it is only addressing the
quasi-military civilian tribunals created in May 1865, not the actual military
courts at all.
In my opinion, President Trump is acting correctly
and Milligan Ex Parte has nothing to do with it. The vast majority of the
criminals he is dealing with are US Territorial or Municipal citizens and they
are subject to military courts as a result.
As for the rest of us, it is long overdue for us to
stir our stumps, get our own political status records corrected, form our Jural
Assemblies, and shut down the quasi-military courts operated by the Territorial
United States using Milligan Ex Parte in its correct place and interpretation to
do so.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Passports
By Anna Von Reitz
I have lately been assailed by people concerned because they could not
get a passport, were issued an incorrect passport, or were being
penalized for things like child support debts or IRS liens with not
being able to use a passport issued by "the US".
Passports are issued by the Post Office, not the "government".
You, as a Post Master (Think about it, you handle the mail --- buy,
sell, trade, carry, and deliver mail all the time) have the right and
ability to send "yourself" anywhere the mail goes.
Technically, your Birth Certificate is sufficient to cross most
international borders, so long as you provide reasonable proof of the
other elements of a Passport --- current picture, nationality (Ohioan,
Californian, Wisconsinite, etc.), a current postal address, two
Witnesses (or their signed and notarized testimony identifying a photo
of you as "the" man or woman whose birth event was registered on the BC
and certifying your good character.
There you go. Make your own. The "authorities" will scream, but it is
their own darn fault for messing around and not doing their job---and
they really have no authority to restrict your travel.
You put all this information on a 5" X 8.5" postcard and send it to
yourself at your normal address with your normal postal address as the
Return Address, too, using a $1.00 "Global" Stamp, which will of course
be cancelled to pay the postage.
When this document returns to you, it has been stamped and sealed and is
in fact a "Passport" proving your current address and presenting your
identity.
They can argue it all day long, but they can't restrict the movements of
a State national. You have your own Post Office and your own Seat of
Government and they can go blow.
As for the Passports they do issue that are quasi-correct and issued
under color of law, you can correct them and nail down their
interpretation by the way you sign them.
Always sign everything with a by-line. By: John Peter Doe.
That claims your copyright. All rights reserved.
That claims your copyright. All rights reserved.
Take one of those $1.00 Global stamps and stick it above your
signature, and cancel it by writing your name and the place you are "leaving from" across the stamp in red ink.
signature, and cancel it by writing your name and the place you are "leaving from" across the stamp in red ink.
The Post Master has now cancelled the Global Stamp and the "cargo"---
the Name you have copyrighted and affixed -- is ready to be mailed to
whatever destination your little heart desires.
The out of control bureau-rats from Washington, DC, can sniff and snort
all they like, but it isn't their business and not in their control.
They say theirs is a passport issued by The United States of America; well, that's us.
And if they mean some Scottish wannabe commercial fraud organization
infringing on our copyright and abusing our Name instead, they need to
be grilled about that copyright infringement and be put on the record as
attempting to interfere with our ability to contract and our ability to
conduct international trade. Both.
$250,000 fine and ten years in jail, international sanctions in 172 countries. See how they like that.
Don't let these cretins poke their noses into areas where their noses
don't belong. Give them the "Bad dog!" response and if enough of us do
this consistently enough, they will get the message even if it has to be
reduced to Tarzan-like speech:
Me, Employer.
You, Employee.
And issue your own Passport.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Public Notary or Notary Public?
By Anna Von Reitz
Had a couple worthy questions today about notary
services....
Notaries have been around since the Roman Empire.
A Public Notary acting in the land jurisdiction has
more power than a State of State Supreme Court Judge.
A Notary Public is a different private office that
the same people can occupy in the international jurisdiction of the sea.
And which office it is depends on your status, your
purposes, the capacity in which you are acting and the nature of your paperwork,
so you need to be able to figure it out and invoke the proper office of the
Notary accordingly.
The people now serving as Notaries are all
commissioned by "State of State" franchises and so, they normally function as
Notary Publics in the international jurisdiction of the sea.
The jurisdiction invoked is indicated by the
"Notary Block" the separate portion of the document reserved for them.
If it is Territorial United States jurisdiction
being invoked, the Notary Block will show that the paperwork is taking place ---
for example, in the "State of Vermont" and "County of Claybourne".
If it is Municipal United States jurisdiction, the
Notary Block will show: "STATE OF VERMONT" and "COUNTY OF CLAYBOURNE".
But if you want to invoke the land jurisdiction
owed to your country, the Notary Block will show: "Vermont State" and
"Claybourne County". And, ideally, the Notary will be identified as a "Public
Notary".
Sometimes we need the Public Notary to act as a
Witness to our actions, such as sending a piece of mail, or hearing our
testimony about something, which amounts to the same thing as being sworn in, in
a court of law, or being deposed as a Witness outside the courtroom.
This is described by the Title of the Notary Block,
which says "Public Notary Witness" or "Public Notary Jurat" [for testimony
involving verbal utterances and affirmations or oaths] along with our
declaration of the jurisdiction. This all serves to explicitly nail down the
capacity in which the Notary is acting and what they are being asked to do.
Public Notaries count as two Witnesses.
Notary Publics count as one Witness.
Both capacities are officers of the court(s) they
service.
So, yes, there is far more to the humble Notary
than most people have ever begun to guess and the range of services that a
Notary can perform is also much grander in scale than we typically take
advantage of.
Of course, Notaries need to be compensated for
their time and effort and as it is a largely volunteer occupation there is no
salary and no set fee structure. Most Notaries ask a small fee -- $2 to $5 for
witnessing a signature or autograph, and more for more involved services, such
as mailing services and Notary Due Process Service.
This is just "the Basics" you need to be aware of
in working with a Notary or Notarial Service. You choose the jurisdiction and
the capacity you wish the Notary to act in, and you invoke it by your
description in the Title of the Notary Block, the location described in the
Notary Block, and the way the Notary is addressed --- either in their Public
(land jurisdiction) capacity, or in their private (sea jurisdiction) capacity.
A study of Notarial Powers would take a good six
months and is far beyond my capacity to address in a single article, but this
gives you a good starting place and allows you to sort out the basic issues.
Land jurisdiction paperwork goes to a land
recording office and is handled by a Recorder. Generally speaking, it requires a
Public Notary and should be taking place in a land State and County: Ohio State,
Lakeland County.
Sea jurisdiction paperwork goes to a registrar or
clerk of court and is handled by a Registrar. It requires a Notary Public, and
can be taking place in a fictional place such as: State of Ohio, County of
Lakeland (Territorial) or STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF LAKELAND (Municipal).
You have to be sharp and watch closely and think
about what you are doing to insure that you get the results and the services you
want, and since you are the one preparing your paperwork, it is all in your
hands and your choice, according to your purposes.
All the paperwork that I recommend (other than the
Birth Certificate paperwork) will require a Public Notary service, will be a
recording not a registration process, will go to and through a Recorder's
Office, and the place will be a land jurisdiction state like: Wisconsin State,
and a land jurisdiction County like: Jackson County.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
One Page Situation Update for August 8, 2018
By Anna Von Reitz
The Current System:
· A
Scottish corporation calling itself “The United States of America,
Inc.” and a Delaware corporation calling itself the “United States of
America, Inc.” run by the Roman Catholic Church have been usurping upon
our Government.... since 1868;
· They
have provided the 19 enumerated services required by the original
Constitution –and a lot more we never asked for --under fraudulently
assumed contracts;
· The labor of the American People and their other assets have been used as tradable commodities to pay for all these services;
· Our
legal system was unlawfully converted into a private debt collection
service to seize our assets to pay for all this foreign spending on our
tickets;
· Bottom
line: we have been defrauded and enslaved in gross Breach of
Trust. The purported Trustees have stolen our individual identities and
racked up huge bills against our credit— just like any credit card
thief.
The Correction to Be Made:
· The
original unincorporated Federation of States doing business as The
United States of America has organized and objected to the circumstance
described above;
· The Federation States and People have been called to Assemble;
· We have the power to restore our lawful government and put an end to the abuses;
· Trump was elected to help restore our lawful republican form of government;
· All Governors have been briefed and the President as Commander-in-Chief is leading an orderly transition.
Where We Are Going:
· The fifty State republics of The United States of America are still alive and functioning;
· These States are not “States of States”;
· Our
States are the Priority Creditors of all the bankrupt Federal
Territorial and Municipal States of States and are heir to all the
assets and property these foreign organizations were holding and
managing “for” us;
· We,
the People of this country, address the fraud committed against each
one of us, get our own records corrected, and assemble our State
organizations;
· Our States reclaim and receive back all the assets we are owed and direct control of our property is returned to us;
· Our State Deputies meet “in Congress Assembled” in Philadelphia to take care of long overdue business and chart a way forward;
· The United States of America, the actual federation of our States, helps President Trump “Make America Great Again!”
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Not an A4V Process -- A Substitute Process
By Anna Von Reitz
The A4V process was set up in the
1930's as part of The Great Fraud. Its actual technical name is "Mutual
Offset Credit Exchange". What this involves is an exchange of debts
--- you owe me ten dollars, but I owe you five, so we "swap debts" and
at the end of the day, you only owe me five dollars.
That system ended except by implied succession contract in 1999 with the settlement of the 1933 bankruptcy.
That is, the organizations that
acquired the underlying assets and stepped in to provide the services
still got tagged to honor A4V processes because they had an implied
responsibility to continue to provide the same deal as remedy, otherwise
the whole situation is patently illegal and inequitable.
So between 1999 and now, some A4V
processes were accepted and worked on a quid pro quo basis, however, all
that stopped when both the Municipal and Territorial organizations went
bankrupt between 2015-2017 and the Bankruptcy Trustees appointed by the
big banks refused to pay up and it all got dumped back on the IMF
functioning as the "US Treasury".
You can't bring an A4V against a
bankrupt entity, even if they owe you and even if you owe them. The
bankruptcy locks down their assets including their credits and so far as
the Bankruptcy Trustees are concerned, you are just a debtor not
necessary owed anything. So when you bring forward a claim against the
bankrupts, they say you are acting in contempt and asserting a
fraudulent interest against a poor, little, old bankrupt entity that is
owed all the protection of the court.
So even though there was sporadic
success presenting A4V claims prior to the bankruptcies and somewhat
still some success because of the need to provide
remedy-or-face-criminal charges, what I have suggested and provided for
is not and has never been an A4V process.
It looks like one, but it is in fact an insurance claim process, not a Mutual Offset Credit Exchange.
What we did is that we claimed all
the assets of the bankrupt "States of States" organizations, including
those assets that are being held in trust by these organizations,
supposedly "for" us, and we exercised our guarantees under the Lieber
Code and Hague Conventions that require that we are indemnified against
loss or damage, by establishing a Private Registered Indemnity Bond to
cover the actual States and People.
Think of it as an insurance policy
with an insurance policy number that is lodged in their system, and when
you make a proper claim against it by "accepting" their Court Order
(Bill) and signing off on it, they have to provide the insurance to
cover the loss and balance the books.
It's really pretty simple, though the process of getting to this point has been anything but simple or straight forward.
In order to do this properly, the
"person" making the claim must be operating as a "Natural Person" and
have their ducks in order with a recorded claim to their birthright
identity and political status and Testament of two Witnesses proving
that they are "the" man or woman born in such and such a place to such
and such parents, etc.
A Lineage Treaty going back to
before the Civil War establishes absolute "grandfathered in" status for
the claimant, but anyone born on the land and soil of this country or
properly Naturalized as a "US citizen" and then adopting State
nationality, qualifies.
It is my understanding that the rats
have suspended "Equal Civil Rights" as part of the bankruptcy, which
leaves federal employees and federal dependents and people of color in
harm's way, but they won't want to admit that they have suspended equal
rights provisions and I would suspect that if people claim their equal
civil rights the Trustees will be hard-pressed not to honor their claims
on the same quid pro quo basis that A4V exchanges were honored
sporadically after 1999--- because these commercial pirates have to
offer remedy for their crimes or be recognized as pirates.
So -- the indemnity bond works
despite the bankruptcy and hooks the underwriters instead of the
bankrupt organizations, which clears up the whole conundrum created by
their bankruptcies and gives people remedy that is simpler and easier to
enforce.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
No comments:
Post a Comment