Wednesday, December 27, 2023
4568-4570d: Public International Notice -- The Substance of the Law from Lincoln County Watch
By Anna Von Reitz
Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals; Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents:
I received, as I often receive, a snippet of legal research and interpretation as follows--- and I quote:
"I am going over a case now that clearly states that the federal statutes, which are not the same as the federal law that arises under the common law, Do Not Apply to those people that are only citizens of their state. That is stating they do not apply to white people.
I have personal(ly) verified that the fed statutes say the same thing about the personal income tax mandate - with one exception - if they are working for the fed gov.Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1940)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 109 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1940) January 17, 1940
This is an open admission that the state statutes do not either. Both sets of statutes are enforced in legislative branch courts - which have no constitutional authority over whites.
Whites are persecuted by them because they and their attorneys are programmed into incompetence and they don't know (enough) to object or how."
Fascinating, isn't it? And nearly impossible for Joe Average American coming in off the street to make sense of it.
I
don't usually spend a lick of time thinking about forms of law that
don't apply to me and don't recommend mucking about in Federal Codes --
that is, Federal Statutes, either, because that really is off the
beaten path, but this is such a good example of the Letter of the Law
versus the Substance of the Law, that I can't resist commenting.
Any
such reference to race in the application of law in this country can
only arise under the auspices of the Confederation of States-of-States
or the Federal Republic administered by the Confederation between 1787
and 1861, both of which have lain dormant and awaiting Reconstruction
for over 150 years.
The
Federation of States (1776 to present) has never recognized race as any
component of actual state citizenship, but rather relies on the issue
of an individual's status as a free man or woman to determine their
eligibility for jobs, offices --- and equal consideration under the
Public Law.
Racial
requirements and exemptions were established instead by the
Confederation of States-of-States (1781 to 1861) and carried over to the
Federal Republic (1787 to 1861) operated by the Confederation. After
the Civil War, a Scottish Commercial Corporation doing business as "The
United States of America, Incorporated" adopted these racial
requirements and exemptions when it unilaterally created and conferred
"Fourteenth Amendment citizenship" obligations on freed Negroes --- who
were actually Foreign Sovereigns with respect to this same British Crown
Corporation.
It
should be obvious that any court misapplying exemptions related to the
functionally non-existent Confederation in the present day, or the
dormant Federal Republic, either, is as far off course as it is possible
to be in the realm of logic. Unless, of course, one applies the By-Law
Amendments of a Scottish Commercial Corporation that has been defunct
since 1907 to living Americans in the present day.
The
only authority still standing is the Federation of States, not the
Confederation of States; when the Confederation ceased functioning, its
delegated powers reverted by Operation of Law to the delegator of those
powers --- the Federation of States. The same is true for the Federal
Republic.
The
delegated powers extended to the Federal Republic by the Confederation
of States-of-States also automatically reverted back first to the
Confederation and from the Confederation to the Federation from which
the delegated powers were apportioned to begin with.
The
inoperable status of both the Confederation and the Federal Republic
are firmly established in the public record, and so is the default of
their contract(s) to perform. Period.
The only way that they or their Law can be operated today, is as Law adopted in conformance with the customs and Law of the Federation of States.
As
the Federation never addressed race as any element of Law, it cannot be
presumed that exemptions related to race should be applied based on
Public Law promulgated by the defunct Confederation or the Federal
Republic, either one.
We are operating solely under Federation auspices now, just as we did from 1776 to 1781.
Similar
to prosecutions based on "the Fourteenth Amendment" adopted by The
United States of America, Incorporated, a Scottish Commercial
Corporation that published it's "Constitution" in 1868 and went
permanently bankrupt in 1907, the idea that the courts in this country
are still applying the exemptions for "whites" provided by the
long-vacant Confederation and its Federal Republic, may be true, but if
so, is outstandingly illogical and unsupported by any current
authority.
Until
such time as the States of the Union act to Reconstruct their
States-of-States and reconvene the Confederation, and until the
Confederation restores and Reconstructs its Federal Republic, both these
entities-- the Confederation and the Federal Republic --- are
functionally defunct and can exercise no more authority or provide any
exemptions than the wind blowing over the Arlington Cemetery.
The
requirement that "only citizens of their state" be white males (to be
exact) refers to the "Confederate state" --- meaning the State-of-State
business organizations that were members of the Confederation.
Not our States of the Union.
This
vernacular shortening of "Confederate state" to "state" has led to no
end of confusion -- including confusions-at-law, a confusion that
continues to the present day.
Once
we dispense with that red herring we are left with the rest of the
content, and it boils down to this -- no Federal Code (or "Federal
Statute" referenced as Statute-at-Large) ever published in the Federal
Register is meant to apply to members of the American Public, whether or
not you are white.
It
would be convenient and desirable for the remnant of the Federal
Government represented by the two remaining Federal Subcontractors
resident in the District of Columbia to work with the Federation of
States to publish a small book containing the Federal Statutes-at-Large
and sections of Code that have been published in the Federal Record
which may still pertain to members of the American Public under the
Federation's Administration, but that would be too simple and employ too
much common sense.
It
would also make it less convenient to entrap Americans and fleece them
under False Legal Presumptions. So, thus far, the Federation is saddled
with this onerous research project among many others.
Finally, let's address this odd idea of "constitutional authority over whites" or lack thereof.
This
goes back to the days immediately after the Civil War and the
"Constitution" published by the Scottish Commercial Corporation
operating as "The United States of America, Incorporated" and the
creation by that entity of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship, which
originally applied only to Negroes "and other stateless persons of
color".
The
problem arose because in some States there was resistance against
allowing freed plantation slaves to become state nationals or state
citizens, either one.
The
British Crown Corporation operating "as" The United States of America,
Incorporated, opened up its doors and latched onto these poor confused
people and unilaterally "conferred" their brand of "citizenship" on
them.
That
is, they shanghaied them into British Territorial jurisdiction and
subjected them to British Territorial law, and enslaved them as debtors
to the Crown; in this way, the Perpetrators contrived to abolish
(private) slavery with one hand (Thirteenth Amendment) and created
public enslavement with the other (Fourteenth Amendment) for the
purposes of administering their new "USA, Inc." corporation by wringing
"war reparations" out of the victims of slavery by enslaving them again
to foreign corporations acting as "Masters".
All these institutions and organizations are now dead and gone and are owed good riddance.
The
Scottish Commercial Corporation doing business as "The United States of
America, Incorporated" never had any standing or authority to create
law for anything but itself, and its publication of a "Constitution" for
itself in no way changed that. This organization and its Fourteenth
Amendment have been defunct since 1907, and as a practical matter, their
unilateral "conferring" of undisclosed foreign citizenship obligations
on anyone born in this country regardless of race was outrageous and
unlawful and illegal from the start.
Anyone
born on the land and soil of one of our States of the Union is born a
free man or free woman and inherits sovereignty in their own right,
vouchsafed to them directly from the Settlement of the Norman Conquest
--- without regard to their race or creed.
As
a result the British Crown's presumption of powers never bequeathed to
them in these matters of substance is an even more egregious and
ignorant abuse of Law that should have never occurred; they were
arresting, impersonating, kidnapping, and imposing foreign citizenship
obligations on Foreign Sovereigns from the very start of this long
criminal rampage.
Both
the Confederation and the American Federal Republic have been
inoperable since 1861. The Federation of States to which their
delegated powers revert has continued to operate and to adopt those
Unrevised United States Statutes-at-Large which are compatible with its
own Laws, that is, the Four Organic Laws governing this country and its
foreign relations.
As
we have seen, there is no basis to presume that the Federation ever
considered race a component of state citizenship in the actual States of
the Union, and therefore no basis to presume the existence of
exemptions based on race within the jurisdiction of the Federation.
Rather,
so-called "Federal citizenship" conferred on former black plantation
slaves was initially applied only to Negroes and that is what created
the so-called "white exemption" from the obligations attached to this
then-new Fourteenth Amendment citizenship created by a British Crown
Corporation deceptively operating "as" The United States of America,
Incorporated.
My
point is this-- in order for Law to have Substance it must have
standing, and the only standing is available on the land and soil of
this country, which is occupied by the Federation of States and the
Several States individually, and respectively.
Substantive
Law outranks and pre-dates all and any statute, code, regulation,
ordinance, or legislative product whatsoever, always. Any such statute,
code, regulation, etc., that does not comply with our Organic Law is
void on our shores and with respect to our people, that also means our
people of color.
As
you can now hopefully see, any misapplication of legislative law to the
American Public, whether as an obligation or as an exemption, is
ludicrous.
And
this is made doubly ludicrous in clear view of the fact that the
Confederation and the Federal Republic have been inoperable and vacated
since 1861, and the Scottish Interloper doing business as "The United
States of America, Incorporated" together with its Fourteenth Amendment,
have been defunct since 1907.
We
read with incredulity that former USA, Inc. President Donald Trump was
being prosecuted as a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States;
why not be prosecuted as a unicorn or fairy, instead?
There are no "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" today, and there never were any legitimate Fourteenth Amendment citizens in the past, either.
There
were merely sweet and innocent people seized upon by British pirates
and enslaved by these brutal imbeciles to pay their debts for them, with
no shred of legitimate authority for any of it.
No
doubt there are hoary members of the Privy Council having a good laugh
at Donald Trump's expense, but the laugh has returned to them in the
form of their legless indebtedness -- due wages for their greed,
ignorance, and disrespect for actual Law.
The
only enforcement available for the Unrevised Statutes-at-Large is from
the Federation adopting those in conformity with its own Laws and
Customs-- that is, the Four Organic Laws of this country.
There
is no basis for prosecuting --or exempting-- anyone under the
"Fourteenth Amendment" unless we are to presume that the administrative
"by-laws" adopted by a long-defunct Scottish Commercial Corporation have
some arcane Night-of-the-Living-Dead authority and enforcement power
hitherto unheard of in this part of the galaxy.
This
Notice and discussion needs to be handed to every Hired Jurist sitting
as Judge in this country, every attorney, every paralegal, every court
clerk, so that they can examine the history and facts for themselves and
determine in a logical and reasoned way which laws apply to the
American Public, which laws are defunct, which laws are substantive,
which laws are merely administrative, which laws are legislation
applying to public employees, and which laws are owed enforcement,
together with the authority for that enforcement, in each jurisdiction.
The
courts are corrupt, of that there can be no doubt; but the courts are
also unlearned and confused, which contributes mightily to the overall
corruption and confusion -- a confusion that is inevitably suffered by
the American Public, too, and which leads to many unjust and capricious
court decisions lacking any authority beyond a judge's personal opinions
and "discretion".
Our
American Government is still here, still operational, still upholding
the Organic Law of this country, and still owed every jot of every
treaty and contract ever penned with its knowing and consensual
agreement.
We
expect our Federal Subcontractors to provide knowledgeable and
compliant Judges operating their courts of strictly limited jurisdiction
according to the Organic Law of this country, and also require that
their Judges observe this commentary and act accordingly -- recognizing
the differences of forms of law, the jurisdictions, and the authorities
thereof, and properly applying them to the correct populations -- while
forswearing application of any obviously unsupported or repugnant "law",
like the so-called Fourteenth Amendment.
Issued by: Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary
The United States of America
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
December 27th 2023
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
An International Appeal for Research Assistance
By Anna Von Reitz
My
appeal is addressed to the people of England, the Union, and the former
Commonwealth, though I am inclined to accept help from any quarter and
anyone interested in the topic.
It
has come to our weary and heartsore attention that the fabric of
traditional government in the western world has been eaten away by
commercial interests until we find that "the" President of the United
States is not The President of The United States, that both King Charles
III and King Charles of Scotland are not acting as Kings, and even the
Office of the Pope has been converted, such that there is no obvious
ministerial capacity vested in it.
The urgent question needing our attention this morning is -- exactly how long ago did this canker of deceit and commercialism take root in England?
We
very much suspect that it began during the later reign of Queen
Victoria and the Administration of Benjamin DIsraeli as Prime Minister,
which resulted in the so-called "enfranchisement" of the British working
class as a means to fund the Territorial Raj in India.
This
undisclosed use of the British working people and their small holdings
as collateral and their impersonation as things -- franchises of the
British Crown Corp -- certainly upended the traditional Social Contract
and breached the Public Trust on a vast scale, and all without the
British people themselves being aware of it.
The
insidious workings of commercial interests are certainly present at
that juncture and have been present ever since, but the question arises
-- is this the earliest example we have of this misrepresentation and
thwarting of the traditional Government and evasion of its Social
Contracts?
Or
did it actually begin much earlier, with the reparations collected by
Queen Anne following The War of the Spanish Succession, which was
finally resolved in 1707?
For
many reasons it is advisable that we track the Beast back to its
origins and understand those origins thoroughly, but as an American, I
feel that both in terms of having access to the source documents and the
time to peruse them, it would be best if someone else picks up the
trail and does this research.
The
telltale signs we are looking for are: (1) undisclosed changes in the
Social Contract, such that the people are promised one kind of
leadership and government, but get another kind of leadership and
government, instead; and/or, (2) the exact mechanism by which this
change -- this "Bait and Switch" -- was accomplished?
We
know that Queen Victoria absented the English Throne in order to become
"Empress of India" so that mechanism is clear. We know that the late
Queen Elizabeth II reneged on her Coronation Vows within three days of
taking them and spent the rest of her long career occupying The Chair of
the Estates, not the Throne of England --- so that mechanism is clear.
We
also know that Elizabeth II's Son, Charles, has not even bothered to
enter on the Throne of England and was directly crowned as "His Imperial
Majesty" instead, so the Windsors are no longer even bothering to hide
their dereliction and the nature of their administration as a commercial
enterprise operating without the obligations of the Throne of England,
and therefore without its authorities and Social Contracts as well.
We
therefore have proof of this same double-dealing wherein the people of
England expect one kind of leadership and receive another, offer one
kind of Social Contract and receive a commercial contract instead ---
during Queen Victoria's reign and during Queen Elizabeth II's reign and
during the present Administration as well.
Our
research asks not only: did this kind of "Bait and Switch" go on
earlier, as a practice of the immediate forbearers of Queen Victoria?
We
also ask if it has been practiced on a continual basis ever since Queen
Victoria, such that Elizabeth II and Charles III have simply followed a
pattern of malfeasance set down by their predecessors?
The
essence of the Bait and Switch under consideration is to promise the
people of England a Christian English King, and a Social Contract
expressed as a Constitutional Monarchy --- but then delivering a pagan
Roman-style "King" in name only, operating without respect for any
Social Contract, not actually sitting on the English Throne nor
accepting its obligations, and all of this being administered as a
Territorial Raj even in the homeland of England.
There
are many great historians both professional and amateur in England,
who, once they are properly alerted to the existence of these issues,
should be able to track them down and discern exactly where and when the
commercial beast came ashore and began undermining the traditional
Kingdom of England and its Social Contracts with the people of
England.
Faced
with the enormity of this fraud and its implications for everyone
living in the English-speaking world, we ask for the English people
themselves to rouse up and notice that the actual Throne of England has
been --- to our certain knowledge -- vacant for at least seventy years
and perhaps much longer.
We ask them to seriously and earnestly consider the implications of this dire situation.
The
only thing stopping the Creditors of England, the Union, and the
Commonwealth from falling upon the land and soil of these countries like
so many vultures, are those claims entered in favor of the Kingdom of
England's interests by the Hereditary Lord High Steward, Ivan Talbot.
As
the American Fiduciary, and the Preferential Creditor of England, the
Union, and the former Commonwealth, I have been obliged to foreclose
against the legless "Kings" and investigate these matters for my
purposes.
It is well-past time that the people of England research them for their purposes.
It
is one thing to trust and assume that there is a King of England
sitting on the Throne of England, and another to continue to assume this
when you have been told point-blank that this is not the case and has
not been the case for at least seventy years.
Anyone
looking for proof need look no further than the already admitted High
Court case of Regina v JAH (John Anthony Hill) and the recent Coronation
of Charles III, wherein it is self-evident that he has taken no vows as
a Christian Monarch and therefore does not sit on the land and soil of
England.
Anyone
taking me up on the offer to research these matters is asked to kindly
advise me regarding the results of your investigations.
I am left with the British Territorial and Municipal Corporations in receivership until this mess is sorted out.
By: Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary
The United States of America
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
December 27th 2023
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
Let's See....About the RV
By Anna Von Reitz
When I first heard about the Reno Operation and the line they were trolling, I played so dumb I felt stupid. I really did.
I
batted my baby-blues and listened and listened and listened and I read
more "It's next week, no, it's...." posts by "Judy Byington" --- or was
that "Judy Buying-time"? ----than I care to think about.
Here's what it comes down to, folks:
1. You take the risk and bear the cost of making these foreign currency investments with no guarantees.
2.
If and when a currency revaluation occurs and if the currencies you
invested in post huge gains, then you are told that you have to go to
some undisclosed location on an abandoned military base or similar
federal installation.
3. Once there, you have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement promising your left leg if you ever breathe a word to anyone.
4.
And you have to disclose your intentions about what you are going to do
with your profits.... present a project plan for philanthropic programs
you wish to fund --- as if they were the investors instead of you.
5.
And if you don't have any philanthropic projects, you might get a whole
2% of your profit; if you do have a project they approve of, they might
give you another 10% to fund that.
6.
And if you are lucky, you get to go home in one piece, unlike at least
six people I know of who went to these "appointments" and didn't return.
This is gangster stuff and these people are "scalpers".
They
don't scrape your skull with Bowie knives, but they take 88-98% of your
money for their profit, and they bully you and protect themselves.
They are criminals engaged in criminal activities in international jurisdiction.
That's
why they drag you out to God-knows-where federal installations -- so
you are on federal turf and operating in international jurisdiction,
where you become subject to foreign law and their "discretion".
That's for their protection, not yours.
Then
they make you sign these Non-Disclosure Agreements so you can't tell
anyone about any of this or bring any complaints against them for the
fraud they are committing against you.
That's also for their protection, not yours.
Then they "generously" keep 98% of your profits....
And they trick you into concentrating on your dream projects that you could do so much good with if only you had the money.
That's to distract you and keep you from noticing that, hot damn, they are keeping 88% of your investment profits.
So if they approve of your project, you walk out feeling so grateful that you got a whole 12% of your profit.
Are you all nuts?
You
take all the risks, submit yourself to their judgment, sign all these
contracts giving up your rights and options, and give them 88-98% of the
profits ---for what?
Taking your Dinar to a bank and swapping it for Federal Reserve Notes?
This may be big news, Americans, but in most of the world, this is a completely routine bank transaction.
It's
only in your endlessly victimized country that people don't have access
to normal banks and normal bank services, like currency exchanges.
There
is really only one reason that you can't just go into a bank and plunk
your Dinar on the counter and walk out with the published international
exchange rate worth of Federal Reserve Notes or Euros or British Pounds
or anything else.
Can you guess what that reason is? It's because you have virtually no civilian banks left in your country.
I
listened to this "narrative" long enough and ran the numbers. If these
goons are allowed to pull it off, it really would be the biggest "wealth
transfer" in history, straight from your hands into theirs.
And who the hell are they?
It's
rumored that they are "our" military, but our military has been
operated as a foreign British Territorial Mercenary Service since
1863....
So, you are going to give away 88% of your profits to foreign mercenaries and hope for the best?
Ever think of interviewing them and asking what they are going to spend their lavish cut of your money on?
The more I thought about it, the madder I got.
So
the Federation of States chartered new civilian banks to operate on the
land jurisdiction of this country and has given you, Americans, the
opportunity to live like normal people again.
Yes,
if you are an American, you can have an account in a civilian bank, and
you can exchange your Dinar for whatever other currency you want and do
it for 100% of the posted international exchange rate.
You
don't have to go to any isolated, scary Federal installation. You
don't have to keep anything secret, sign any NDAs, none of that.
And you don't have to "voluntarily" give foreign Mercs 88-98% of your profit, either.
Or wind up in a ditch if you decide not to.
If there is an RV or if there isn't, show some good common sense and don't endanger yourself.
You
now have banks where you can exchange currencies for the full published
international exchange rate, no scary "appointments", no questions
asked, no NDAs required.
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
No comments:
Post a Comment