Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Sheriff Mack -- Unanswered Letters 15 -- for Ron

by Anna Von Reitz

Sheriff Mack took the question of whether or not Sheriffs of incorporated counties (operating on the international jurisdiction of the sea) could legally enforce The Constitution (as part of their job) all the way to the Supreme Court and the answer was yes, they could. But, that in no way makes it a mandate.  It merely means that individuals like Sheriff Mack himself could freely decide whether or not to enforce The Constitution (and presumably other Organic Laws) in their counties. 

For truly "Constitutional" Sheriffs enforcing the Constitution and the other Organic and Public Laws is the entire focus of their job assignment, not an afterthought or personal choice after a long day of code and regulation enforcement. 

And therein lies the rub.  Sheriff Mack apparently wants the office of sheriff to have the right to pick and choose when to act as a peacekeeper and respect the guarantees of The Constitution, and when to act as a Code Enforcer and use the oppressive plenary power that system gives to the STATE and the OFFICE OF SHERIFF based on the expediency of the moment and the Sheriff's own assessment of what is called for. 

I side with the Bible--- no man can serve two masters, and Sheriff Mack's fence-sitting just clouds the issues. 

I understand the practical reasons that he and other sheriffs want to retain plenary powers over "citizens" and just pick and choose when to recognize the constitutionally guaranteed rights owed to the American people---- but the fact remains that such a commingling of jurisdictions and such a grant of power based on one's own conscience alone is nowhere to be found in any part of The Constitution or other Founding Documents.  It isn't even implied. 

The Law of the Land is the Public Law of this country.  When corporate employees step foot on our soil, they are obligated to obey it.  They aren't empowered to pick and choose when to enforce it and when to ignore it.  They aren't authorized to "presume" anything about us, including our political status. And therein lies the additional rub. 

The federal corporations and their "federal state" franchises have contrived to establish legalized monopolies of essential governmental services that they are supposed to be providing for us under contract--- and via self-interested and often brainless enforcement activities have extorted compliance with their regulations under conditions of monopoly inducement regardless of anyone's actual political status.   

As a result, for example, nearly everyone has been coerced into obtaining a "Driver's License" when in fact most people aren't using the public roads for any private gain and are not actually required to have a DL at all. Then the mere fact that you have a DL is used as the basis of further "presuming" that you are voluntarily accepting the status of a "citizen of the United States"----thereby allowing corporate sheriffs and other "law enforcement personnel" the latitude to arrest, fine, threaten, brutalize, and jail you over statutory infractions like broken tail lights. 

Men like Sheriff Mack need to bite the bullet and give up the false powers of legal presumption. They need to admit that it is not their choice of when to obey our Public Law and when to enforce private corporate statutes instead. 
See this article and over 200 others on Anna's website here:www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website. 


  1. Since the Definitive Treaty of Peace recognizes two political classes, Free, Sovereign and Independent and resident, does this not imply that government services organizations must operate in two separate jurisdictions?

    Some of us are not of this corporate system, but it surrounds us and we still must live among the residents and function. the STATE OF WISCONSIN knows that I am not a resident, having defaulted on an administrative process claiming that, yet after a minor confrontation with local law enforcement over not having a DL the STATE DOT authorized the issuance of one to me despite not being a resident (in violation of STATE statutes). The STATE DOT also acknowledges that I am exempt from sales tax when purchasing an automobile or airplane.

    There appears to be a bifurcated system in place, whether we like it or not.


  2. Two constitutions, incorporated and unincorporated, leads to apartheid justice. Apartheid justice is the result of two constitutions. Apartheid justice is no justice.

  3. The Living upon the Land are NOT the dead corp[se] fictions upon the sea jurisdiction. kinda like oil & water not mixing well... just sayin'


Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.