Thursday, July 17, 2025
For sixteen (16) years, the State of California DOT has been working, purportedly, on a plan for a high speed rail line.
They've
spent $15 Billion dollars and have nothing to show for it after 16
years. No train, no track, no nothing. Fifteen Billion gone.
Now,
if you think that this is just "government money" and none of your
concern, you would be right in a sane world, but this is not a sane
world.
This
particular "government" is a foreign governmental services corporation,
and every time it goes bankrupt (increasingly often) its debts get
thrown off on you and your children.
So, yes, Poco, their reckless spending and siphoning and embezzling is a concern for you and yours.
While
the Federation is busy bringing this and other practices before the
appropriate international courts to rip the so-called "corporate veil"
off the criminals responsible, you have to do your part to: (1) support
our actions and (2) weigh in at the State and local levels to put an end
to it.
The
Trump Administration saved Californians from wasting another $4 Billion
on this endless Pork Barrel project, one of dozens administered every
year by California DOT--- but the missing element is you, the people of
California in this case, though it could just as well be the people of
New York or Massachusetts or....
You now have a voice and you need to make use of it --- go to:
Don't
worry about our actual government "not maintaining a secure connection
to https". That's the least of the problem that needs to be addressed.
If
you don't agree to be saddled with the reckless spending and waste and
the unaccountable and unauthorized acts of foreign "government services
corporations" rampaging around and spending your credit and indebting
you in boondoggles like this, it is past time to take action.
Positive, lawful action, that you -- as Americans -- have every right to take.
Granna
International Public Notice: Lessons of Law and History
By Anna Von Reitz
As
we have explained many times, the words "common law" refer to a form
of law that takes reference to earlier decisions in making current
decisions. There are, as a result, many, many forms of "common law" and
this can be confusing when a judge is referring to "military common law"
as "common law" or a magistrate is referring to "civil code" as "common
law". Both these forms of law, which most of us DO NOT THINK OF as
"Common Law", are in fact common law in that they take cognizance of
former decisions made by other courts in considering current matters
before the court.
When
talking about "Common Law" we always have to ask "Common Law in what
sense? What variety of "Common Law" are we talking about?"
Common
Law doesn't "come from the Magna Carta" --- a misunderstanding that
comes from another misunderstanding about what the Magna Carta is, where
it came from, and what it set in place in England.
William
the Conqueror means to conquer England permanently --- and he went
about this in a very methodical manner. First, he did a very methodical
survey of the lands and assets he had conquered. This inventory was
recorded in two books, the Doomsday Book and the Domesday Book, which
still exist.
Upon
his death in 1087 A.D., he bequeathed specific parcels of land and
homesteads to his loyal Norman Barons who participated in the military
conquest. Along with the land grants and improvements, he granted his
Barons (who remained only Barons in France) "sovereignty in their own
right" on these English properties. These bequests are essentially
miniature kingdoms scattered like a crazy quilt over every square inch
of England at that time.
And the Barons of France became Kings in England.
The
other thing that William the Conqueror purposefully did was to
disinherit all his children from owning anything in England. Forever.
He
didn't want there to ever be a singular King of England again, so that
England would never again rear its ugly head against France.
Now, how is it that there appears to be a King of England today and for generations in the past despite William's plan?
The
Pope had lands in England that had been ceded to the Church by various
Kings prior to "the Norman Settlement" and William of Normandy allowed
the Church to retain all its Church properties in England. After the
Settlement of William the Conqueror's Will as described above, the Pope
came back into the picture and cut a deal with William the Conqueror's
Grandson, "King" John to act as the Overseer of the Church's
Commonwealth properties in England.
Thus,
"King" John was a "King" of the Vatican, not of England. His "kingdom"
was borrowed from the Pope and not actually his at all, thus he was not
operating in any true sovereign capacity, but was instead operating as a
Legal Person in an Office granted to him by the Pope.
The
Norman Barons who had become Kings in England, of course, were
unaffected by this and did not regard "King John" as their king at
all.
Thus,
when poor administrative decisions made by John adversely impacted
people living on Church Commonwealth land and this led to uprisings and
complaints, the French Barons who had become Kings in England got
together and set forth and signed off on the Magna Carta, clearly
establishing standards of justice and law and basic rights for people
throughout England --- for everyone living outside the Pope's
enclaves.
Thus, the "Great Product" of England, turns out to be the Great Product of France, instead.
The
Normans brought their own standards of justice to England and set them
forth in the Magna Carta and they imposed these standards throughout the
lands they inherited from William the Conqueror --- and they could do
this as a group in opposition to anything "King" John might decree as
the "law" on the Pope's Commonwealth land for the simple reason that
they were all already kings in their own right.
The
principles they jointly set forth to establish "a" Common Law for
England --- essentially, as the Landlords of a foreign land they
inherited by conquest and primogeniture -- already existed long before
the Magna Carta, and were common to the Celtic peoples of Continental
Europe.
What
they held to be "Common Law" meant "law held to be right and just in
common" --- in the same way that we use the words "common sense" to
indicate commonly held standards of practicality and logic. This
venerable form of law comes to us from clan traditions that are
thousands of years old, in which elders meet on a regular basis to sort
through current complaints and controversies in light of traditional
wisdom: principles of justice held in common, and former decisions
rendered over time.
For
example, we all have a sense of what is fair and what is not fair, and
this is not necessarily something that can be codified and fully
described in a statute, yet in the "commonality" of Common Law and
within the logic circuits we are all heir to, we know when something
passes the Sniff Test --- or not.
Thus,
the new Kings of England declared that people are to be considered
innocent until proven guilty --- a Common Law principle that is at exact
odds with Roman Civil Law which decrees that everyone is guilty until
proven innocent.
Thus,
though both English Common Law and Roman Civil Law take reference to
past case law, and so can both be considered a form of Common Law, the
principles and presumptions of the Common Law established by The Magna
Carta are very substantially different from those of Roman Civil Law in
this regard and many others.
Another
example is that Roman Civil Law allows purposeful deceit under the
Maxim of Law "Let him who will be deceived, be deceived." -- while The
Magna Carta and all forms of traditional community-based Common Law
outlaw fraud and lies of all kinds without any wiggle-room.
The
punishment for fraud under Roman Civil Law is very strict as the Roman
Civil Law derives from the even older Law Merchant, designed to settle
disputes among merchants and vendors and customers of the same--- and
not meant to apply to the general affairs of men apart from buying and
selling. A finding of fraud under Roman Civil Law requires immediate
dissolution of everything back to the onset of the fraud, but a similar
finding under European Common Law might allow for considerations such as
the limited knowledge of a vendor, or the honest intentions of a buyer
impeded by "Acts of God".
Important to this is the difference between being "outlawed" and being "unlawful" and being "illegal".
Cattle Rustlers in the Old West were called "Outlaws" for a reason --- they were men operating outside the
common decency and sensible restrictions of the Common Law requiring
respect for private property rights. Community-based Common Law
dictates the relations between living men and communities of living
men. This form of Common Law, which the Romans called "the Rule of the
Soil", is what most Americans think of when someone says "common law"
---without realizing that this form of common law can vary widely.
A
crime like Cattle Rustling fully recognized as a capital crime in
Wyoming, might not even exist on the books in New York. Thus, community
based Common Law is firmly rooted in place and time and specific
communities of living people. This is the form of law that exists in
American Counties and which is reflected in the State Law of our
nation-states.
We
don't call Cattle Rustlers "Unlawfuls" because unlawful acts are the
actions of Lawful Persons just as illegal acts can only be committed by
Legal Persons --- these words refer to offenses taking place
in international jurisdictions of the law where everyone is presumed to
be acting -- not as living men -- but as Lawful or Legal Persons.
As
I keep telling everyone, there are no living people operating under
international law or any form of global law. The only "actors" in
these jurisdictions are "persons" --- corporate entities, officers or
officials of corporate entities, or incorporated entities and their
principal and franchise officers and officials. When we enter these
jurisdictions we are literally entering the "realm of the dead" ---
lawful or legal fictions.
Lawful Persons are subject to the Law of the Land and Legal Persons are subject to the Law of the Sea or Law of the Air.
Thus,
when a sailor arrives in port after a long sea voyage, he is returning
from being subject to the Law of the Sea, and is becoming subject to the
Law of the Land when he steps off the deck onto the dock and off the
dock onto the land proper.
The
ship functions under Admiralty Law, the dock functions under Maritime
Law, and the actual land functions under Land Law. Thus, the Federal
Constitutions are described as "the Law of the Land" for Federal
Workers, their dependents, and residents of this country allowed to be
here under the Residency Act.
This means that the Constitutions are the Law these Persons are meant to observe while on the land.
Though
you may never have thought about it this way, the Constitutions exist
in the realm of international land law, cast in the form of a service
contract with service vendors that are all operating in foreign
jurisdiction..
Read
that: all Federal Persons, whether they were born in this country or
not, are operating in a foreign capacity on the job. They won't
officially return "home" again, until their service contract ends and
they serve notice that they are returning to their birthright status.
Thus,
the Constitutions are international law and those serving under the
Federal Constitutions are serving under the law of contracts -- that is,
their Service Contract.
None
of this has anything to do with the community-based Common Law of the
soil which our Courts administer at the County level, nor with the
National State Laws or International Public Laws our State Courts
address.
The
system of law we are heir to is complex and precise, each part checked
and balanced for the overall good. As living people we use the Public
Law for our private good. As Lawful and Legal Persons we use the
private law (codes, statutes, regulations, treaties and contracts) for
our Public Good.
This
complexity and the rooted nature of both land and soil law, which
intensifies and yet strictly limits their application, accounts for such
seeming mysteries as why doesn't the Credit River Decision established
by Jerome Daley in 1968 apply nationwide? At least in Minnesota where
the landmark case was tried? The case was tried in a County Court, so
has application only within the borders of that county.
Unlike the law of the sea, the law of land and soil is fixed and applies only within specific boundaries.
As
a result of England losing its way and answering to a King who was a
"King" under contract to the Pope, and then later getting more enmeshed
when the British Monarch lost standing on the sea (1714), this complex
and intricate system of laws and jurisdictions began to be eroded; a new
form of law called "equity law" which largely combined the law of the
land with the law of the sea for the convenience of bill collectors was
contrived by Lord Mansfield in the 1750's and popularized throughout the
British-influenced domains.
This
form of law was considered a bastardization of law in this country and
never adopted for use in any of our courts, yet it has usurped power and
claimed jurisdiction by "redefining" Americans as British Territorial
and/or Roman Municipal citizens --- absent our consensual agreement or
even knowledge.
Regardless
of England's deplorable condition, brought about by three centuries of
reckless spending and even more reckless war-profiteering, we are set
upon the course of restoring our traditional government and setting the
living people above the things that living people have created -- that
is, mere legal fictions that have no natural right to exist.
This
is part of our observance of Natural and Universal Law: the Creator is
always greater than the thing created, and any inverted system of law
denying this is by nature fraudulent, null and void.
Our
law of land and soil is substantive and applies naturally to
substantive property and rights. We are people of substance, and live
in a realm of substance. Our community-based version of Common Law has
existed since mankind's journey first began and was invoked again in the
Mayflower Compact, where living men agreed to the law they would follow
and set their hands and signatures to their principles and agreements,
as a Witness to their common values and aims.
Let
these lessons outlined here serve everyone as guidance going forward,
so that as complex as issues of jurisdiction and law may be, we are
never deceived about the nature of man or of reality again, and never
again are deceived into subjecting ourselves to laws meant to govern
things.
Issued by:
Anna Maria Riezinger - Fiduciary
The United States of America
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
July 16th 2025
------------------
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