By Anna Von Reitz
Let's begin this discussion with this realization: you can be a king in one country and a slave in another.
Is that clear enough?
Is it also clear that different countries operate under different laws?
The United States is and has always been a different country with respect to the Territorial United States. They function under two separate systems of law.
This leads to a situation where the States (members of The United States land jurisdiction Union) function under a different system than the Territorial States of States (international jurisdiction of the sea).
We have lawyers who are Counselors at Law and Justices (of the Peace) who administer the Public Law, which in a State is known as the General Session Law, even if the "State" is being represented as a Public Trust, and the Public Law generally, known as the Law of the Land.
They have Attorneys at Law and Judges who administer the Private Law, which in a State of State is known as the Statutory Law. Strictly speaking, only State of State officials, employees and dependents -- all known as "residents" of the State of Alaska (for example) are required to obey the Statutory Law.
So you have Counselors at Law and you have Attorneys at Law. I am a Counselor at Law.
If you occupy an office of the soil or land jurisdiction courts you must be a Counselor at Law and CANNOT be a Bar Attorney. Period. So there is no basis whatsoever for anyone supposing that I would be or even could be a Bar Attorney.
It is totally ignorant to look for me among the members of the Bar Association. They can't operate a State Court and I can't operate a State of State Court BY DEFINITION.
So, no, I am NOT a member of the Bar, am not required to be a member of the Bar, and could not operate a land or soil jurisdiction court as a member of the Bar.
Bar Attorneys can act as administrators but can't sit on the bench or otherwise operate in any public capacity in a State Court.
People have become so ignorant that they don't know the difference between the "Alaska State Court" and the "State of Alaska Court".
Nor do they know the difference between a Counselor at Law (required to run land and soil jurisdiction courts) and Attorneys at Law (required to run Maritime and Admiralty jurisdiction courts).
Obviously, I know what I am doing, the rules of the Office I am occupying, and the State I serve; just as obviously, I am not serving in nor have I ever claimed to serve in any of the capacities you mention.
And again, there is no factual controversy about this whatsoever.
There are land courts and there are sea courts and this is the way it has always been.
All that has happened is that as more and more Americans have been unknowingly press-ganged into the international jurisdiction of the sea, they have unwittingly subjected themselves to the sea courts and the land courts have become rare as hen's teeth as a result.
That does not mean that my court does not exist-- it is clearly established under the General Session Laws of Alaska. Nor does it mean I am doing anything wrong or making any false claims. I am not impersonating a judge of any sea jurisdiction court or claiming to be a Bar Member or any other such ignorant meandering.
I am here serving my State-- not any "State of State".
And I am serving the honest Tradesmen engaged in private international trade and the living people who have rejected FDR's unconscionable New Deal contract and who have returned to the land and soil of Alaska.
And I Double-Dog Dare any member of the (Territorial) United States Supreme Court to say otherwise.
See this article and over 1000 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.