Saturday, December 19, 2015

Response from Karen Hudes to Judge Anna Von Reitz

Today, I received a polite and direct response from Karen Hudes, for which I thank her.  It may indeed open up a worthwhile dialogue. 

Here is her query: 

Dear Ms. Von Reitz,

Ferdinand Marcos and Jose Rizal, who established the World Bank and IMF to manage the world's international monetary gold reserves at the end of WWII, distrusted judges.  Instead, they established a cooperative of all the nations, headed by their ministers of finance, to manage the world's wealth in the Global Debt Facility on behalf of humanity.    The courts have no jurisdiction over the assets in the Global Debt Facility.  That was how the Board of Governors of the World Bank and IMF were able to nullify the attempt of the International Court of Justice and CIA to steal the assets in the Global Debt Facility.

Did you even know about the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Economic Policies, where the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, and other economic agencies of the US regulate the World Bank?  So your advice for the Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury and President to sue the World Bank was all muddled.  

When you accused the County Executives of America of being in receipt of the US monetary gold reserves in the Global Debt Facility, did you have this press release, cleared by the County Executives of America on behalf of the American people, in mind?  You object to the international monetary gold reserves of the American people being incorporated into their currency, so that they do not have to pay interest on country debt through income taxes?  Why is that?  When US Presidents tried to do exactly that, they were assassinated (Lincoln and JFK) or shot (Ronald Reagan)

What is happening is that the American people are restoring their Constitutional government under Article V of the Constitution. 
US and other countries returning to the control of their populace: 

And here is my response:

Second Letter to Sheriff Ward from Judge Anna Von Reitz

Please see to it that my SECOND Letter in support of your position gets delivered officially and with Witnesses to Sheriff Ward and any and all other federal "county" franchise officials, BLM staff, etc., They need to know this information ASAP for their own sakes as well as everyone else's. 

Dear Sheriff Ward, 

I have already sent you and the other "federal law enforcement agents" one letter. I did not expect to have to send you two. 

There are two kinds of people in this country according to the Definitive Treaty of Peace known as the Treaty of Paris, 1783, Article III and they are-- "the free sovereign and independent people of the United States" and the "inhabitants"-- British Loyalists and subjects of the British Crown who were allowed to stay here after the Revolutionary War. 

These are political statuses and as the Expatriation Act explains, the government is forbidden from interfering with our choice in the matter. 

This was more recently reiterated by the Geneva Protocols of 1949, Laws of War, Volume II, Article 3 forbids tampering with anyone's political status-- and it is a capital offense war crime if you do. 

The Hammonds and the Bundys have all made their political status choice very clear. They are members of the "free sovereign and independent people of the United States." They have self-declared their status and have given you Notice of the same and it is not within the powers of your office to alter this decision or offer to interpret anything about it. 

You and all your misinformed buddies owe the Hammonds and the Bundys "essential governmental services" under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. And a HUGE apology. 

Those "services" do not include armed extortion, trespass on their private property, or any false claims or presumption of any ownership interest in them, their land, or their other assets. 

Cattle rustling, as you and your friends need to be reminded, is a capital CRIME in the western states and if you boys get out of line, these ranchers are well within their rights to invoke the Public Law and hang you all from the nearest trees. 

Somewhere in the back of your mind, you know that. 

A Message To, For, and About Great Britain

By Anna Von Reitz

Here are some pearls from Ed Johnston---
16th American Jurisprudence Section 177
(16 Am Jur. 2d. Const. Law Sect. 256)
The State did not give the Citizen his rights and thus cannot take them away as it chooses. The State did not establish the settled maxims and procedures by which a citizen must be dealt with, and thus cannot abrogate or circumvent them. It thus is well settled that legislative enactments do not constitute the law of the land, but must conform to it.
From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 
As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his or her, office.

Please note that The Constitution is for inhabitants of the Federal United States LITERALLY the law of the land--- because when they come in from their watery international jurisdiction, they are required to operate by the rules established by The Constitution on the land.
When reading Federal law, you must always read it from the Federal perspective. They operate in the international Jurisdiction of the Sea, so, of course, the national law they are obligated to respect when dealing with us is --from their perspective--- the Law of the Land.
It's the same reversal when they speak of "inhabitants"---- we are "peaceful inhabitants of the land" (14th Amendment of the corporate Constitution) from their perspective, whereas they are "inhabitants" of the "maritime regions and insular states" from ours.