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 3300 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 unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do not attempt to comment using the handle "Unknown". Your comment will be summarily deleted. Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

America / on 9/11 / No Crime / Deep State vs Trump (8/21/18)

FROM ONE OF ANNA'S READERS IN DEFENSE OF HER WORK

Klaus:

In respect to your opening comment on Anna Von Reitz, allow me to state my opening reply:  Anyone with a negative opinion on her work, either out of ignorance or the comments of a certain so-called patriot attorney, needs to re-educate themselves in 'true' American History going back at least to the Articles of Confederation. 

Without reviewing any of the above, and knowing at least some of the above, most think she is off the wall and out to lunch. I am probably one of the few that was introduced to Bob Wangrud's work some 38 years ago, when he was with some group in Montana before he and Randy Geistler worked together in Oregon and issued a monthly publication entitled "BEHOLD Newsletter".  Because I had a background in the Constitution since high school in the mid-1950s and aced my Constitutional Law course in college, I picked up on their teaching on the 14th amendment quickly.  With my background with the use of Common Law trusts and the 'money issue' in the late '70s and early '80s, and my experiences with the latter in state court, then attempting to defend myself in federal court relying on the Organic Constitution in 1988, I was 'shocked' when the judge told me, after three months into motion hearings, that the Constitution did not apply in her courtroom. 

All I ever heard from all sources of information, and continue to hear, that the Constitution is the Law of the Land.  Bullshit!  The corporate charter of D.C. is the Law of the Land, and it judiciously grants and applies 'territorial law' under IV.3.2. of that charter, subject to the purview of Congress and the administrative courts by administrative judges.  Who, but Anna has ever made such wild and true statements as that?  Never, never, never, never expect to hear any BAR Association clerk tell any such truth.  Their allegiance is first to their Wallets, then to the Courts as an Officer thereof, then to the BAR, and finally, to their clients, the latter three assuring the foremost, with the client sucking hind teat.  No attorney can demand rights for his client in the present 'administrative' court system regardless of what he might tell his client.  Only the 'Belligerent Claimant in person' can demand rights, and most properly in a Common Law venue.  So, the opposition must 'kidnap' the defendant and drag him into court unlawfully before such is even possible.

She, and others of us, have provided the White House with information to return the states to the Republican form 'guaranteed by' IV.4. of the Organic Constitution.  157 years of nonsense of the Law of the Sea applied to us on the land in the form of 'commercial [contract] law' is reprehensible to the Republican form.  Our law is supposed to be based on the Organic Constitution, and none of us who can qualify as state nationals (Freemen) ought to suffer the impediments of federal statutory law.  'Freeman status' predates the Constitution of 1789 allowing us to do anything in our daily lives under International Law and unrestrained by federal statutes with the exception of those five laws listed in the Organic Constitution. Those unqualified for the 'Freeman status' are those living in D.C. and its possessions who are thereby under Congress's 'municipal' jurisdiction, and those living in the 'territories' which originally were those areas of the American continent, exclusive of Canada and Mexico, that had not yet attained statehood. 

The so-called Civil War was a foreign bankster induced rebellion to ultimately eliminate the 'Freeman' status 'in law' so as to place all Americans into the 'state of state' 'territorial' (commercial law) jurisdiction whereby we could all be placed under one form of federal statutory law.  A reading of numerous Constitutional cases decided after the Civil War evidences the courts' trends toward a clandestinely subtle redefinition of citizenship into the federal 'territorial' system along with the same movement toward a fiat monetary system effectually found in the 4th Clause of Amendment 14 promoting unlimited spending to create unlimited debt.  These Organic Constitutional usurpations were accomplished clandestinely under cover of both 'slavery' and 'states' rights'.  Nonetheless, the reality was it was an act of vengeful Sedition on the part of foreign interests, Britain, the Vatican, the Temple Bar, and the Khazarian Mafia, that had the same Treasonous and Seditious bent that led to our current D.C. Swamp draining opposition.  

Thus, it is in the interest of all Americans to recognize the truth of Anna's 'spot on' teaching and remove the chains that have bound us to these Globalist bastards.  This to resurrect the freedoms our Founders intended all Americans to enjoy except those whose preference was to benefit from an association with their state and federal governments under the disabilities of 'citizenship'.  This citizenship was foisted upon all by the first clause of the 14th amendment, along with the 16th and 17th, never lawfully ratified according to Bill Benson's research in the early 1980s. This writer, along with many others, was a supporter of Bill's when he first introduced his research with Red Beckman before a group of about 80 people who met at the Mid-America Commodity and Barter Assn. in 1982 when they introduced Bill's research of the 16th Amendment, "THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS" .

It is therefore, the responsibility of all Patriot groups to get behind and support the work Anna is doing. All of us who are 'engaged' must study to understand the quality of her research. Because my primitive defense in my 1988 federal income tax trial basically centered on me not being a 14th amendment citizen raised the ire of the Seventh Circuit judge to accuse me of Sedition at sentencing, even though Sedition was not raised as an issue at trial. Nonetheless, the AUSA presented a Motion in Limine to prevent me from raising Constitutional issues before the jury at trial. They were acutely aware that it might cause at least one person on the jury to think.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6

"Truth upsets people's perception of reality" 

Bob.

18 comments:

  1. re:
    All I ever heard from all sources of information, and continue to hear, that the Constitution is the Law of the Land. Bullshit! The corporate charter of D.C. is the Law of the Land, and it judiciously grants and applies 'territorial law' under IV.3.2. of that charter, subject to the purview of Congress and the administrative courts by administrative judges.
    ----
    well, american common law is the law of the land/realm/several states.

    dc has no "land" nor "natives" -- only ceded territory and naturalized "federal citizens"

    bill of rights is american common law (of the land).

    see bouviers 1856 "maxim" "american common law of the land"

    their new false "one nation" "christian socialist/masonic (francis bellamy) the "congress" decides the "law of the land" which is a pervesion/twisting around of words, since roman civil law and law merchant are all "foreign" (see title page, click "database copyright information")

    see also "bill" merc. law. -- the law merchants are supposed to have coin too. so they dont even follow that. it is like martial merchant law.

    and, it has been said "congress" cannot generally legislate for the several states/citizens/nationals -- that is what state legislatures are for (again, american common law is the law of the realm, precedes any "Delegation", so even that state legislation is supposed to comply)

    other than that, spot on. law merchant is how they do 99% of the fraud. it is like roman civil law + satanists.

    at least the vatican/"pope"/chancellors in theory are following "God".

    the pirates are doing roman civil law without any "religious" restrictions.

    the worst of both worlds. they are like a satanic emperor.

    so, they seceded into "one nation" and stated some new corporate/commercial monster, and call their new "foreign" types of law/money the "law of the land". so it is correct from their point of view.

    "maxim" are precedent/case law/already decided. thats why they are "law of the land" -- they have been tested over decades/centuries. it is burden of the "court" and "judge" to say why they dont apply, they are "assumed" law.

    that is what "law of the land" actually means. congress/state legislatures are under no such "precedent" constraints.

    common law can be almost anything, but the 2 requirements are: 1) show precedent 2) show you belong to that group and that is your "tradition"

    their statutory "law", "codes", "administrative procedures", "legislation" have no such requirements. they are not "law of the land" they are "law of the legislature" "law of the congress".

    the "law of the land" predates any legislature/congress, and the "king" in england. thats why its "law of the land" -- "a mans home is his castle" . the king is not above the law. the law of the land predates him.

    it really comes down to what type of law we are talking. they are misusing the phase "law of the land" and trying to claim anything they "pass" or "legalize" applies to everyone and everything. but that is not what "law of the land" means.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if you really think that the Vatican/pope etc really are following God, you still have a lot to learn.

      Delete
    2. Tommy, you can say that again ! There is nothing holy or godly about the vatican. Period.

      Delete
  2. the modern "courts"/"schools"/"banks"/"churches" etc. all "Seceded" into "one nation". thats the flag they fly -- the horizontal stripes "military flag"

    so, they are off into some new bogus "constitution" and "money" and doing roman civil law.

    it really doesnt matter whether it is "War" or "peace" flag. it is military.

    anyone expecting actual "law" should avoid all their "military bases" as much as possible.

    ask them if a) they have seceded into "one nation" or are they part of the "american union of several states" (bouviers 1856)
    b) if they are doing "martial law" c) if that is a military flag, and are they at "peace" or "War" with anyone, including the several states of the american union.

    will that go over any better than raising "constitutional" issues? probably not. but one has a right to know the nature of the offense they have committed. if they can't answer those or are evasive, it is just a military court "dragooning" people.

    "dragoon" and "press-gang" are not mutually exclusive. one one land, one on "Sea" into "commerce" and "law merchant"

    they can "dragoon" people on land too. thats the military flag.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that is what anna misses -- they "dragoon" people all the time, on land.

      no reason to trust any entity flying the horizontal stripes "military flag".

      the bogus "pledge" is how they got supposed "consent" to their "secession".

      they cant overthrow the law of the land. all they can do is "Secede". even "We the people" cannot change the type of law of the several states. neither can the "king". thats why its "law of the land" -- predates all of us.

      the bogus "pledge" is just as bad as the 14th amend. and "money" issues.

      why do people bother with military "courts"? just state you need to speak with the military commander(s) in charge of the "court".

      the military is the ones that didnt bother to "reconstruct". it just "fizzled out" according to one history book i have.

      people should be filing claims with the "us army" IMO.

      below is the "law of the land"; thats how james belcher could declare the corporate by laws "null and void" re: registrations, bogus "licenses" etc.; any "We the people" in "council" could do the same:

      (not saying they follow that, but that is how "law of the land" is supposed to work.)

      https://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html

      "That we deny no man Common Rights by (virtue of) the King's letters, nor none other mans', nor for none other cause; and in case any letters come to you contrary to the Law, (that is, the Common Law) that ye do nothing by such letters, but certify the King thereof, and proceed the execute the Law (that is, the Common Law), notwithstanding the same letters"

      https://archive.org/stream/jamesmadisonsnot00scot/jamesmadisonsnot00scot_djvu.txt

      It was a principle of the English common law
      that an act of a corporation in excess of the grant
      in its articles of incorporation was ultra vires,
      and as such null and void; and it was also a
      principle of the common law, that by-laws of a
      corporation could not be valid and yet contrary
      to the laws of England, without a statement by
      the law-making power to that effect. It was
      further a principle of the common law that the
      king himself could not authorize a corporation
      to pass a by-law contrary to the law of the realm.
      The importance of these principles will appear
      if it be noted that the colonies were bodies politic
      and political corporations, and therefore any act
      of a colonial assembly repugnant to the laws of
      England was null, void and of no effect. It
      could be disallowed by the king in council, and a
      decision of the colonial court based upon the law
      could be reversed by the king in council.

      Delete
    2. cia world factbook 'united states' : based on english common law. www.dict.org

      they give that to "politicians" so they can "study" various countries.

      for once, the "CIA" is not doing "World socialism" (john fuster/allen dulles) and "world council of churches")

      bring a hardcopy of that into court. "are you saying the CIA is lying?"

      call the CIA as a "witness" :)

      Delete
    3. bouviers 1856 "at law" www.dict.org

      so, that is what "law of the land" actually means, yes it is american common law of the several states of the american union.

      the "feds" have just "Seceded" into "one nation" nowadays, and try to drag everyone with them, so they are trying to redefine what "law of the land" means -- because they have started a whole new country/congress/military/post office/treasury/dept. of justice/etc.

      "roman civil law" always calls itself "law of the land" to confuse people/deceive them into thinking it is "normal". they always masquerade as actual gov.

      the phrase "law of the land" is a good thing if people know what it means. but the people who have seceded use it with an entirely different meaning.

      same as the various definitions of "us citizen". look up "citizen" bouviers 1856 www.dict.org

      that was "one of the states" -- pre 14th and "civil rights act". a "White person" (native, but also some naturalized, e.g. see "new york" for state constitution) could move around and automatically qualified as a "citizen" of the state he made his new "residence".

      so 14th just added that for "negroes" but they had to be "federal citizens" first.

      in that sense, "us citizen" is not so bad, it all depends which definition one uses.

      what they have been doing with their "Secession" is redefining already existing words. pretending their new "definitions" are all there ever is, was, or ever shall be.

      https://archive.org/details/cu31924020027870
      A Treatise on citizenship, by birth and by naturalization, with reference to the law of nations, Roman civil law, law of
      the United States of America, and the law of France; including provisions in the federal Constitution, and in the
      several state constitutions, in respect of citizenship; together with decisions thereon of the federal and state courts
      pdf page 335 -- state citizenship

      http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/correct.amendment.htm

      Delete
    4. the real problem IMO is like "us citizen" they use "law of the land" with an entirely different meaning.

      99% of the confusions, are because they try to redefine existing words that already have definitions.

      Delete
    5. a state citizen and/or state national "by blood" is the "law of the land". they just aren't following the "law of the land"

      www.dict.org
      MAXIM. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law
      universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.
      2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68.
      They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or
      common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament,
      when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges
      and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the
      law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them
      shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd.
      27, b.
      4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are
      dangerous. 2 Inst. 210.
      ---
      Jura sanguinis nullo jure civili dirimi possunt. The right of blood and
      kindred cannot be destroyed by any civil law. Dig. 50, 17, 9; Bacon's
      Max. Reg. 11.

      Delete
    6. for ourselves and our "posterity" -- that is the "law of the land" (for those of us who can claim "Blood"/family tree going back to "independence" or before).

      they simply arent following "law of the land"
      ----
      Jus superveniens auctori accressit successors. A right owing to a
      possessor accrues to a successor.

      Delete
  3. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6
    Matthew Henry Commentary
    4:6-11 Both priests and people rejected knowledge; God will justly reject them. They forgot the law of God, neither desired nor endeavoured to retain it in mind, and to transmit the remembrance to their posterity; therefore God will justly forget them and their children. If we dishonour God with that which is our honour, it will, sooner or later, be turned into shame to us. Instead of warning the people against sin, from the consideration of the sacrifices, which showed what an offence sin was to God, since it needed an atonement, the priests encouraged the people to sin, since atonement might be made at so small an expense. It is very wicked to be pleased with the sins of others, because they may turn to our advantage. What is unlawfully gained, cannot be comfortably used. The people and the priests hardened one another in sin; therefore justly shall they share in the punishment. Sharers in sin must expect to share in ruin. Any lust harboured in the heart, in time will eat out all its strength and vigour. That is the reason why many professors grow so heavy, so dull, so dead in the way of religion. They have a liking for some secret lust, which takes away their hearts.

    This verse is about the knowledge of Yahuah. NOT the knowledge and work of Anna, nor any body else.
    A warning against sin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a follower, Exactly. There are some who wish to try to use bible verses to justify their worldly actions, or to try to connect it to their favorite pet project.

      The verse goes ''ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of God''.

      Delete
    2. The biblical fanatical idiots r many. Muslims most IMPORTANT holiday (occurring now) concerns a space God in the Bible telling his loyal fool to murder his son.

      Only a space god would play games like that☇

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4372560/eid-al-adha-2018-islamic-festival-hajj/

      Delete
  4. "I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw the corruption of the present administration -- and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution and the Union? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors."

    -- J.P. Morgan, American financier and banker, 1864.
    https://healthwyze.org/politics/875-colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln

    ReplyDelete
  5. The best defense is to treat all presentments as an offer to contract. Reject and return the offered contract within 72 hours of receipt. Do not consent. Never underestimate the value of a counterclaim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ tommy glen, et al.: All servants of the papacy, from "il papa" on down, including all members and agents of the Crown corporation are servants of "God". Albert Pike said it very clearly in "Morals and Dogma", the Masonic bible of the Scottish Rite. He said, "Lucifer is God"! Lucifer and Satan are not the same being/entity. "God" appears to be the primary deity of the Chaldean Mystics (Magicians) of ancient Babylon and Egypt (see Isaiah 65:11; "that troop" = God: Strong's #1408: a Babylonian deity). The rabbit hole is deeper than we ever imagined.

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.
Do not comment using the handle "Anonymous". Your comment will be deleted.