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, December 14, 2018

Why PARSE is Another Fraud

By Anna Von Reitz

I could explain it in mathematical terms, but most people are not mathematicians and it would be as useful as speaking Greek to my Labrador Retriever.  Everyone would cock their heads, look polite and concerned, then go chase more rabbits.  So, let's discuss this in terms everyone can understand.

All languages on Earth --- Swahili, English, Ancient Hebrew --- all our various languages ancient and modern use just three (3) operations to produce the infinite possibilities of grammar. 

This underlying simplicity makes it possible to test the grammatical construction of all languages in exactly the same way. 

It also means that if PARSE is true for English, it must be true for all other languages worldwide. It must be as applicable to Chinese and Ancient Hittite as modern English, so that forms the means to check our work.  We "do the problem" in English and then we do it in Chinese.  All results should tally.

All grammar and all variations of grammar are the product of three (3) operations:

1. We add words:  "You say so." becomes "Did you say so?"

2. We change the form of words:  "I eat beef on Sundays." becomes "I ate beef on Sundays."

3. We change the order of words:  "This is sweet!" becomes "Is this sweet?"

In addition to the three operations, there is punctuation, which is not really grammar but notation. Similar to notation in mathematics, punctuation tells us how to order and group and value words.

In evaluating PARSE the first thing you notice is that everything is in capital letters.  Capital letters is the form of Ancient Latin and also the form of DOG LATIN, which has been used for centuries as a means to defraud and enslave mankind. (See "The Justinian Deception" and the work of the Australian, Romley Stewart, on this subject.) 

Also bear in mind throughout this discussion: Latin is not the official language of The United States of America, and it hardly matters if it's Ancient Latin, Church Latin, Dog Latin, Pig Latin, or a mish-mash of all four, which on the surface of it, is what PARSE appears to be.

The next thing you notice is that PARSE follows conventions of both Ancient Latin and Dog Latin in its use or failure to use hyphens between words.

In Ancient Latin, a space is the equivalent of a period so that the name ANNA MARIA RIEZINGER written without hyphens reduces to ANNA(.) MARIA(.) RIEZINGER(.) ---that is, it is as if we were talking about three different entities, and it renders the "Dog Latin" name "ANNA MARIA RIEZINGER" as gibberish.

"Gibberish" is one of Russell-J:Gould's favorite words, but in fact, he is rendering language that is perfectly intelligible English into "gibberish" by applying foreign language conventions to English. 

This is a fundamentally deceitful act that changes the meaning of an English text while appearing to still be written in English---when it is actually a bastardized combination: English written in the form of Latin. 

Russell and his friend, David-Wynn, attempted to explain this away by calling it "PARSE SYNTAXING" as if this mixing of Latin and English were some legitimate normal function of linguistics, when it's not.

Thus, when Russell talks about being "correct" he is certainly not talking about any form of correct English or correct Latin, either.  He is talking about his own peculiar copy-righted Vatican-approved hybridization of both languages, which functions according to rules of punctuation and grammar that he made up himself the same way an inventor may patent a widget. And like an inventor claiming the excellence of his new product design, Russell preaches the supposed advantages of PARSE.

When you get a bit deeper into analyzing PARSE, you find a virtual phobia being applied against five out of eight parts of English speech:
 (1) pronouns, (2) indefinite articles, (3) adverbs, (4) adverb-verb combinations and (5) adjectives.

If Russell has his way we will be reduced to talking like Tarzan and thinking like Tarzan, too.  Why not just gesture and grunt and shuffle off into the bushes?

The argument against these parts of speech (which is not grammar, but which both Russell and David-Wynn describe as grammar) is the idea that they introduce elements of vagueness and opinion into communications.  This is hardly a new complaint.  

English developed a complete set of descriptive pronouns in every grammatical case to answer the pronoun problem of which "he", "she", "it" or "they" we are talking about, but it is still necessary to read and write carefully to avoid confusion.  The alternative is to spell out every name, every time, in every sentence:

"Ann took Ann's seat and handed Ann's homework to Ann's teacher and Ann told Ann's teacher that Ann was sorry that Ann's homework was late."

This approach presumes that we are not intelligent enough or honest enough to figure out the context and apply the correct interpretation to pronouns and must instead have everything literally spelled out for us.  That is, it is an attempt to correct a character defect (dishonesty) or mental incapacity by using only Proper Nouns. 

It's arguable, but if a man wishes to be dishonest, he will be dishonest, and if we lack the mental capacity to use pronouns we should not be entering into contractual agreements, should we?

The phobia against indefinite articles is similar.  Do you really want to give up the ability to talk in theoretical terms about "a herd of cows"?  Or less-than-exact amounts, such as "a pinch of salt"? 

Not everything is exact and specific in life and we should not limit our imaginations-- or our language--- in an effort to pretend otherwise. Russell likes to bang on about "correctness" but correctness is dependent on truth, and the truth is that somewhere "a herd of cows" exists and there is an amount of salt pinched between my fingers.  Go figure.

The rant against adverbs, adverb-verb combinations, and adjectives are all related to the idea that these parts of speech introduce elements of opinion and vagueness and possible confusion into our communications.  It's easy to see why:

"He was running slowly toward the bridge." invites us to ask --- who is "he"? and what does "running slowly" mean?  How slowly?  Can you run and still be slow about it?  What bridge?  Which bridge?  At what point in the past?

Someone or something (possibly a horse or dog or...?) of the male gender was running in the direction of a bridge at some point in the past and that is about all we can say about that.  We have to add and change and rearrange words --- all three operations of grammar --- to get a more specific result:

"Sunday afternoon Tom Chambers jogged up the hill to the Catahooli Bridge near Memphis, Tennessee."   

This version of the same basic information still doesn't nail down specific time or date.  We could add those details and a couple prepositional phrases to further clarify our whole message:

"On Sunday, October 2,1988, at three o'clock in the afternoon, Thomas Chambers jogged up the hill on the eastern side of the Catahooli Bridge near Memphis, Tennessee."

This version of the same basic information doesn't tell us which "Thomas Chambers"..... so, we go back to the drawing board in search of exactitude:

"On Sunday, October 2, 1988, at three o'clock in the afternoon, Thomas Chambers, an unemployed blacksmith born and raised in Lowery Gap, Kentucky, jogged up the hill on the eastern side of the Catahooli Bridge near Memphis, Tennessee."

We now have a much more complete and precise description of who, what, when, where --- but still no why, which is another detail we can add to complete the whole picture:

"On Sunday, October 2, 1988, at three o'clock in the afternoon, Thomas Chambers, an unemployed blacksmith born and raised in Lowery Gap, Kentucky, jogged up the hill on the eastern side of the Catahooli Bridge near Memphis, Tennessee, to take in the view."

What do we notice about this process of grammatical changes -- adding words, changing words, and rearranging words? 

First, there are a lot more words to answer a lot more questions.  Second, this process requires many prepositional phrases.... on Sunday.... at Lowery....up the.... on the... near Memphis.... to take in the view.  Third, the information being conveyed is much more specific. Fourth, a change from the more complex "was running slowly" to "jogged" side-stepped the issue of "how slowly" was he running and centered attention on the fact that he was moving faster than walking, but not sprinting.

This is all very good.  What else do we notice? 

If we have the information and if we are willing to share the information, we can use our language just as well or better than PARSE to communicate to anyone else.

These two conditions: (1) having the information and (2) being willing to share it, are what mathematicians call "necessary limits". 

If you don't have the information you can't share it via any language or grammar. 

Imagine the very first sentence in a specific context -- "He was
running slowly toward the bridge." -- being spoken by an eye-witness to an accident in which a jogger was struck and killed by a drunk driver veering onto the shoulder of the road. 

The Witness doesn't have all the information to fill in all the blanks, so the communication isn't dishonest nor is it incorrect.

The second condition being willing to share the information is again a matter of honesty. 

Suppose that the Witness knew the victim, but for reasons of their own, chose not to reveal that to the police investigating the accident. 

That's the other necessary limitation of honest communication. 

Both of these necessary limitations apply to PARSE just as they apply to Latin and English.

Finally, every word in a mathematically interfaced system of language is a unique alpha-numeric operator.  PARSE obligates you to ignore that fact and pretend that "cucumber" and "pickle" are equivalents and also ignore the fact that "aqua" and "Turquoise" are not the same thing.  

When you have more than one word describing the same or even multiple things that may or may not be associated there is no such absolute mathematical truth involved.

"Please peel the cucumbers." and "Please weed the cucumbers" aren't  in the same ballpark, as one refers to the fruits and the other to the vines, and neither one implies anything about "pickles".

"Turquoise" may describe a range of blue-green colors (including "aqua") or a stone.

You can do the same test in any language on Earth and get the same negative results.  PARSE does not and cannot address these factors much less reduce them to any absolute meaning. 

At the end of the day it all still comes down to the "necessary limitations" -- how much information you have and how much information you are willing to share.  These limitations are the "Prime Operators" in any communication system, and the grammar used --- as we have just demonstrated --- is then secondarily deployed according to one of the three operations: adding to, changing, or re-ordering of words, orchestrated by a common and agreed-upon system of punctuation.
So there is no actual benefit to PARSE and no basis for the claim of a valid mathematical interface.  Even the symbol logos is flawed.  There is no provision for double letters, no provision for letter conversions like "w" versus "v" and "v" or "j" for "i" and we could go on.

Suffice it to say that PARSE is just another attempt to baffle and bamboozle with arcane fakery being offered to us on the part of the Municipal Government(s) administered by the Vatican and a con game by men who are either (1) shysters or (2) who have been co-opted in ignorance or (3) are being blackmailed to act as front men.

There are two real dangers to PARSE.

The first is that when you go into a court and start presenting Russell's language to the Judge you identify yourself as belonging to Russell's corporation, which is a Municipal Corporation of the old French-Belgian-Swiss UN CORP Cabal and the UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION which is also affiliated with them, so all you have accomplished by adopting PARSE is to move to a different pen in the same feedlot as you have been in since 1946. It's just not operating under the name UNITED STATES anymore.

This sad outcome may not be what Russell intends, but that is what the practical bottom line of it is.  He may think he has escaped and formed a whole new world construct, but in fact, the same old webmasters own him and own his inventions, his patents, his copyrights and everything else.

The second danger of PARSE is even more insidious.

Those of you who have studied government and history for any length of time have become aware of the fact that "Federal Code" is literally written in code, so that only members of the government corporations, their employees, and their subcontractors know what the lingo actually means.

For example, in Federal-ese, the word "person" means "corporation".  And we are all considered "non-resident aliens" for the purposes of the Tax Code.

It's all like Buck Rodgers and his famous Decoder Ring.

As PARSE is a made-up language copyrighted by Russell-J:Gould he gets to encode whatever meaning he wants to encode, and change the meaning of words and punctuation to suit himself.  Not only that, PARSE is so obtuse and complex and picky as to be: (1) unintelligible and (2) difficult to write.

All this expands the ability of the Vermin to make things say whatever they want them to say, based on an extra space between words, or the use of a semi-colon instead of a full colon, or an accent mark or a hyphen.  It becomes the "Ultimate Code" and its purpose is not to clarify, but to hide the meaning of things except to the acolytes---- the members of the Bar Associations and the Vatican Municipal Government network. 

If you thought "Legal-ese" was nasty and difficult to deal with, just adopt PARSE instead.

This is one old Grandma who has been up the hill, down the valley, and up the other side, and I am not going back again.  I've been victimized by these fakirs for most of my life, but I haven't been deceived.  And that is where the sticking point is. 

In order for the Vermin to get away with their crimes under Roman Civil Law, which is commercial law, they have to be able to claim that their victims allowed themselves to be deceived.

And that ain't happening.

See this article and over 1400 others on Anna's website here:

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


  1. alanedward say;

    "Equity regards substance rather than form."
    Equity will not permit justice to be withheld just because of a technicality. Formalities that frustrate justice will be disregarded and a better approach found for each case. Equity enforces the spirit rather than the letter of the law alone.

    1. Hahahahahahah!!!!!!!! It's very clear that you have not visited an "Equity" Court any time in the recent past....

    2. PARSE is a pharse..!!
      Does that phrase meet the standards of quoquole standardized English...!! Can misspelling words be forgiven...!!

      The ending of the True movie about the guy who invented the variations of "windwiper speeds" on a car , and had to take GM to court over GM's use of his intellectual invention, which only needs 3 parts to make it work properly, and GM was already using for their wipers, but in the wrong configuration, gave a brilliant closing argument to the jury that sealed it all up for him...

      He presented a book that just about all of us have either read before or knew of it, and asked the witness if he has ever read it...He says "yes" I have..!!
      Then he produced another book and asked the same question....Then shows him Webster's dictionary...All these books seem to be stealing words that someone has already defined...and the only thing that makes each book different than another is the arraignment of the words to mean something else to fit the narrative...!!
      Which is the same thing I have done with these wiper blades...just rearranged them in a different order so they work better...!!

      And that's the whole point...!!
      Words have already been made up and defined by someone...
      It's only the order in which they are arranged which changes the meaning and the book...!!
      Should everyone be charged for using words already defined and accepted by the public at large to communicate with...what kind of nightmare would that cause...!! Everyone would be guilty of plagiarism...!!
      When you get right down to it, no one is in charge of words..!!

      There has never been, to my knowledge, plagiarism of Webster's dictionary, even though we use all the words from that book constantly...!!
      These "elitist" thing they can arbitrarily define and "OWN" words so that everyone is committing a crime when using them...!!

  2. Was that CST (UTC-6)? I think that was important too. Just kidding!

  3. No That Ain't Happening Sister. Thank You for taking the time to clarify. Well Done.

  4. There is also the fact, every sound/word has a corresponding form. "In the beginning was the word, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us" Words create heaven or hell by the very sound itself. Ever heard of a mantra?

    1. Yea, and oddly enough, the word (Actually sound), that creates the most harmony with nature is "Ulm" , like in Buddhism..!! It contains the perfect frequency and vibrations to communicate with nature and ourselves, as told by David Sereda , who has taken "Rilfe's" frequency generator to the next level, using "light- streaming, in a pulsing fashion...!!

  5. I'm sure most can relate to this.... those who have spent years on this topic such as Anna know that when they come across some information they KNOW is important yet can't understand why, you download it for future reference. Years later when your cleaning up your external hard drive or a flash drive you re-read what you saved and right then and there you have a eureka moment. Recently I was looking at a scanned copy of my printout, (long form if you will) and noticed that under the heading INFORMANT was their take on the informant's name. A.L.E Freeman.However under the heading MOTHER they had her full name including the surname. A.E.L Freeman is not her name and to add insult to injury it lists this A.L.E Freeman (typeset I might add) as her signature? It's all becoming a bit clearer now with Romney's and Anna's info.

  6. Sorry forgot there's another dot after "E" making it A.L.E. Freeman. Funny that.

  7. Dear Anna If possible tell all about the strawman-- fictional person was acknowledged. Dated the information
    was docked and recorded, date stamped.
    and filed.We have a date as living beings. Date we existed our mothers
    Womb. Born date !!! The fiction birthed
    A few days even weeks later. So when the DMV asks what's your birth date say I was born on the day I left my mothers womb. Now if you want the day the fiction was recognized you will have to ask the registrar general about that
    so Mr DMV clerk I will no way contract with this corporate agency until this error is corrected. I have no problem
    As the sole owner of the fiction as I am the CEO. But the date of that business is different than the date I a living being so let's not move forward.
    Please call your superior to get this cleared up. Just conjecture and for those on a soil based land some where
    over the rainbow.

    1. brickguyo, you do not own the all caps name because you did not create it. In Canada the Registrar General of the province was the creator, therefore the registrar (regis = queen) owns the NAME. You have the superior claim to the beneficial interest however as you are the original that the all caps corporation was created from. And yes, thanks for this post Anna!

  8. Oh just posted above in the land of oz
    there is a proper name those who only
    accept mail or anything in the any form other than the proper name and middle name is posted as--first letter capitalized proper noun then lower case just proper grammatical rules!!, The name of the fictional persona is always in all caps or including our sir name with out a separation of some sort. In the land of oz the strawheads are just an illusion. So Mona don't let your babys grow up to be strawman.Demand the errors on the record s be corrected.Just pondering
    How the law works in a land far far away.

  9. I agree with you Anna. I had a very hard time with PARSE from the beginning. I suspected it was a farse . You did an excellent job of explaining.

    As for the detractors here , leave , dont come back . You add nothing positive , you are anonymous . Why not post a picture of yoursrlf, an address and your phone number ? Because you are cowards , charlatans, and afraid of being looked at face to face ...even by a grandmother...or a grandfather with a bad disposition .

  10. I guess that earth quake shook you to the core. I have no idea why you are trying to defame Russel however I just had a conversation with a lady this week who works in drafting bills for the legislatures of Alberta and she is familiar with parse syntaxing and they draft them in this manner to avoid committing fraud. So this article is false.

    1. I would posit that the drafting in itself is a fraud. All legislation is an extension of the original fraud.

  11. From Anna Von Reitz:

    No, the article and the information is factual and easily discernible. All you have to do is use your own head and you will see that the government corporations are just setting up another scheme, another "Secret Language Code" to bamboozle you AGAIN.

    Wake up and smell the Java. This crap has been going on since the Roman Emperor Justinian. And I for one have had enough of it.

    If Russell is an honest man he will admit it, and if not, he's just another duplicitous numbnutz.

  12. By the way...this is the exact reason why everyone themselves, not your attorney", should always get a true copy of your police report, because officers have no clue on how to properly write up a report documenting their actions against a defendand...none of them.are schooled enough on language to write up a properly layed out and grammatically correct report without "opinions" of their own being fully displayed...!!

  13. We would be a lot further ahead if everybody would just get.....there, their and they're.....correct. As well as, two, and too.

  14. The making of PARSE the whole issue as the flaw with the Quantum-Language is ignoring all of the study that brought about the evolution of the Language. Quantum is not conventional-English, nor is it any form of Latin. Anna is trained in legalese, and "sworn not to dishonor it. This means she is not likely to EVER give cognizance to the problems Quantum fixes. Start here: All Courts Lawyers and Attorneys "practice" Adjective Law - look it up in your Black's Law Dictionary! The rules of construction = "interpretation precedes construction" This means that when you give the "Court" a pleading with adjectives the Court will "interpret" each and every adjective in a way that FAVORS the outcome the COURT desires. Adjectives "color" the FACTS. You may call it a blue ball in your pleading but if it benefits the court to Interpret the adjective blue as red your pleading will be read as the red ball. You don't have to take my word for it just start reading cases and apply the rule of construction. Anna is a "Judge" when I take adjectives away from her she must now follow the facts and she can't stand that challenge to her "authority"
    Frank-Andrew: Maruschak

    1. Perhaps your 'facts' ignore the original 13th amendment as well Frank♭♯

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. So what good does the "original 13th amendment" do? Did it make it back into the Constitution? We ended up with the very thing the "founders" tried to stop. Facts are facts when they have owners or colors they are no longer facts.

    1. Lots of people died because the original 13th amendment was usupt dear Frank๐Ÿ’ฉ

  17. How many thousands of years has mankind attempted to interpret written code. Secret languages have a foundation in deceit in my opinion. In this day an attempt to have one common language for the purpose of communication at least in the verbal sense is a major accomplishment. Those who insist on a specific means of recording that communication will have a most difficult time.

    Here we are in the 21st Century still arguing over the written word. I have had numerous conversations with "english" elites about text messages and comments about spelling and the written word.

    If you sound out "u r meen 2 me" 'proper' spelling might be "You are mean to me" but the sound is the same and the point is understood by those hearing or reading it and I think that society has missed the entire point of communication. Perhaps it is time to create only one universally accepted "dikshunary" and be done with it.

    But then, we should have a voice recording to go with it for those who require an explanation of the definitions or it will always be interpreted differently, hmmm just like now.

    We have the same bastardization about law. If Common Law was about "This Case" and not a similar one that happened 10 years ago with different circumstances surrounding it setting precedent, we would all be so much better off. If you weren't there to "hear" the case the written word will not capture the meaning of the day. All the years spent educating people in deceitful ways of hiding truth to diminish responsibility or justify actions could be eliminated and perhaps humanity could be saved after all.

    How did our education system get so far away from creating critical thinkers thereby creating some common sense in people?

    Unless you were Adam or Eve or there witnessing these two people how can anyone define what happened. We have taken these books called bibles that have been written by 'scholars' as gospel. Who taught the scholars? The truth in my opinion doesn't matter what happened two thousand or a million years ago. What matters is what the hell is happening NOW?

    PARSE is just another way of recording the written word for deceitful purposes in my opinion. Who is creating this new written language and why, what is the intent?

  18. "PARSE is just another way of recording the written word for deceitful purposes in my opinion." Yes you put the right qualifier at the end of your string of words – opinion. Parse is just one part of the Quantum-Language, which uses a sub-set of words from the English language and a set of “rules” most of which have been in existence long before David-Wynn: Miller. The purpose of the Quantum-Language is for the communication FACTS using complete-correct-sentence-structures. This avoids assumption, presumption, interpretation, speculation or guessing. If ANYONE has a better system let it be presented HERE! This is a good time to criticize Miller's work he is dead and can't defend his work.

    1. Well-Frank-Andrew-if-you-think-this-is-the-way-you-want-to-write-the-written-word-and-be-understood-then-you-should-preface-all-of-your-communications-with-the-rule-book-until-at-least-half-of-the-population-of-this-planet-understand-those-rules-and-while-you-are-at-it-send-a-message-to-the-digital-manufacturers-to-change-the-space-bar-to-the-most-used-punctuation-to-record-the-writings.because-just-typing-this-as-a-former-60wpm-typist-it-is-an-unusual-pain-in-my-ass.--so-much-for-common-sense.-I-hope-this-written-response-eliminates-the-assumption-presumption,interpretation-speculation-or-guessing.


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