Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 8400 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinion only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.

Friday, October 28, 2016

A Plague of Hopelessly Inept Demands and Declarations --- Reply for Ron

by Anna Von Reitz

This is for my friend, Ron, and for his friends and their friends of friends who have been running around the past few weeks passing out all sorts of "Orders" and "Demands" and "Charges" in the name of "We, the People, of the United States of America".......

There are all sorts of groups out there now doing similar things and making similar mistakes and wasting their time, so as heartfelt and passionate and outraged as it all is, I had to review one of these publications and say------

"Yes, but it is all totally useless and meaningless and if you take the time to listen I can tell you why."  [-----Again.] 

Americans are defined as "the free, sovereign, and independent people of the United States". 

Catch that?

NOT the "free, sovereign and independent people of the United States of America". 

That is because there is no country called the United States of America.  And no National Trust established under that name. 

It's the "United States Declaration of Independence" --- not the "United States of America Declaration of Independence".

Where you start seeing the words "united States of America" is in the original Constitution, called "The Constitution for the united States of America"------ but note, there is a small "u" on the word "united".  It is used as an adjective describing "States of America"---- the actual name of the entity contracting for services from the federal government.

And what was the "States of America"? 

It was a group of states (originally nine out of thirteen) who chose to create an association of "states" outside the already existing perpetual union created by The Articles of Confederation (1781). 

Remember that in legalese, the word "of" means "without" in the sense of "within and without" or "outside of" or "belonging to" in the sense of a possession or attachment.

So "States of America" means "States Without America" or "States Outside of America" or "States Belonging to America"---- but they are not the same as the United States. 

There are the States and there are the "States of States".   There is the within and the without.  There is the land jurisdiction of the geographically defined state referred to as the "Texas State" and there is the "State of Texas" which is a corporation in the business of providing governmental services.

So what are the "united" States of America?  They are businesses providing government services to the people living inside the boundaries of the land mass called "Texas" or "Rhode Island" or "Tennessee" that united in delegating some of their "powers" --that is, services they are responsible for providing--- to a new subcontractor, an entity known as the "federal government". 

Originally, there were only nine out of thirteen, but the advantages  and cost efficiency of banding together to provide for self-defense and with regard to other tasks, eventually won out.

By 1868, these original "State of State" businesses had incorporated under the auspices of the State of Delaware, the only State in the Union to have a Chancery Court and to allow insurance and registration of commercial corporations ----and they formed a new organization---an international commercial corporation calling itself the "United States of America".

The United States of America formed by the "States of_________" was a private, mostly foreign-owned, multi-national corporation operating franchises under names styled as "State of Florida" and "State of Oklahoma" et alia and all these member franchises are in the business of providing government services.

So when you say, "We, the People, of the United States of America"----- what are you talking about?  The only "people" involved in operating the "United States of America" are government employees, and by definition, government employees exist to serve the government----not to be served by it. 

We are treated to the unlikely and ultimately farce-like spectacle of people identifying themselves as government employees---- and at the same time trying to boss the government around.

Do employees boss their employer around?  Since when? 

Can you think of anything more pathetic?  Laughable?  Sad?

The authors of these high-sounding "demands" are most likely angry, half-awake, "stubbed my toe and ran out of coffee" American State Nationals blundering around with all their assumptions about reality intact and not a clue in this world what is actually going on. They don't realize yet that they are "people of the United States" and not "People of the United States of America"---- and they probably haven't even noticed that there is a difference.

But if you want to get beyond the stumbling around and angry stage you have to notice and you have to think.

If you want to act and be recognized as Americans and give orders to the government, you have to say, "We, the People, of the United States" ------the ones who signed The Declaration of Independence, the ones who fought the Revolution, the ones who own the land of the United States, the ones who are owed the United States Trust, the ones who are NOT bound by or parties to any "Constitution" and who owe no duty of "citizenship" at all to any government. 

Because "We, the People of the United States of America" are all government employees, elected officials, their dependents, etc., and they are all British Subjects, all bound and required to serve the government, and they can't order the government around because they work for the government and are dependent on the government and are considered "franchisees" of the government.

Now, isn't that a kick in the pants?   Maybe someone--- you--- should explain all this to these folks?  And while you are at it, tell them that even when and if you choose to reclaim your actual birthright political status as American State Nationals and even when and if you choose to act as one of the "free, sovereign, and independent people of the United States"----it is still true that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar and it is not fair, right, or honorable to be rude and accusatory and unkind toward people who are just as confused as you were before I clued you in. 

So if you feel any shred of thankfulness for the half hour I spent writing all this down for you and your friends, be as kind to the government employees as I have been to you.  Show them some decency and respect and realize that they really are just here to serve you---- once you stop shouting and unwittingly claiming to be one of them.
See this article and over 400 others on Anna's website

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.  


  1. I am so very grateful for your writings and efforts. Your understanding holds true while mine is jerked by bullies and swayed by innocence and ignorance.

    Is it possible to re-populate the 1791 continental congress and return to the original republic by a top down approach? If so, how do we know it when we see it, and when can we trust again?

    The founders saw these things with their heart. Can we too?

    Please comment on:
    and their liberating document:

  2. Thank you for 'untangling' those 'words' cleverly used by BAR attorneys to confuse the masses. Your explanation makes a lot of sense and should cause many people to 'adjust' their perspective of history,.... God bless.

    1. B.A.R. stands for British Accreditation Regency it means that all lawyers, even in the US, pledge allegiance to Britain and are under the rule of the Queen. (I'll bet most of you didn't know that) That means when you go to court, they are not following the U.S. Constitution, they are aligned with the Queen.

    2. Yes. The wicked English Queen of the East, source of unimaginable American suffering.

  3. You really take all the joy out of bossing the employees around Anna ....ha ha ha

  4. Correct me if im wrong, but wasnt O. J. Simoson a U.S.Citizen. So what was the difference between that case and this.....Nothing, except for the fact that his case was so high profile, incompassing almost all 300 million Americans glued to the TV thanks to their arrogance of being so sure of a conviction. They never counted on a jury actually using "jury nullification" despite the facts to the contrary. What most people dont realize is that judge could have rejected the jurys decision because it wasnt "RESONABLE". But if judge Ito did that after the spectable and hype they created over that case, there would have been a "civil war", right there and then. In cases that arent high profile, it happens all the time. In fact in most courts across the U.S. the jury is never instructed on their right of "jury nullification". In essence, our jurys are just one more illusion of the "matrix". So, are jurys worth the trouble...well, yes, but inspite of "the system", not because of it. Because if they dont like the decision of the jury, under the doctrine of "reasonableness" they dont have to accept the verdict, but then they would really expose the corruption of the courts. So, they are very careful how they weild that power and when. But when they do, they say so. In the Bundy case does anyone know if the judge denied the jurys decision. Ive never heard of a case where a jury aquitted a defendand, and the Marshals refused to obey a court order, without the judges consent....that is an "open declaration of "WAR". And you wonder why we need special enforcement people, that has "Recognized" authority over all the land mass called "NORTH AMERICA". Thats our true land authority. Its a continent, not a country. America is just another political assembly. I think we need to separate the country from the continent and claim it for all American State Nationals. Im a "North American", not just an American. Id like to see them "mirror" that term.

  5. I guess im a man without a country. Sound familiar.!!!

  6. Somebody always learns from Anna even if the ner-do-wells don't right off...

  7. Somebody always learns from Anna even if the ner-do-wells don't right off...

  8. Enter a Natural Law jury:

    The Natural Law Jury has free and full power to decide law, fact, punishment, evidence, testimony, and everything else.

    The judge and bailiff serve, only at the discretion of the jury, to protect, disclose, and defend all jury powers.

    The Natural Law Jury has final say, check/balance, and determination of all top-down legal activities.

    This is about justice. We all want justice.

  9. No. What we want is the "truth". Justice is just a natural consequence of that. Are there any of these "Natural Law Juries" in California.???And can anyone being charged with a crime demand one....???

    1. As far as I know a Natural Law Jury is theory only.
      It serves as contrast to the current twisted system.


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