By Anna Von Reitz
Most of the time I am patient and explain things as well as I can and as often as necessary, but once in a while, I lose my temper --- just get worn down and pop off at someone who hits me at the wrong moment with something that has been a cause of irritation for days or months or even years. This recently happened with Robert and I would like to apologize.
He wrote to me about the issue of "Affidavits of Truth". He assumed that I was using Certificates to replace Affidavits and referenced an article of mine where I explained that living people who are acting in their unincorporated Lawful Person capacity can't make Affidavits ----- only corporations (like franchises) or officers of corporations can make Affidavits. The rest of us must label our presentations as "Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit".
This is part of the Court Rules and part of the reason that our Testimony doesn't get heard in Court. Another reason is that too many people file their paperwork with the Court Clerk and don't file it with the Prosecutor directly and with the District Attorney.
They aren't obliged to accept your Testimony, read it, react to it or respond to it until and unless you label it properly for what it is and present it to them. Directly.
There is a difference between an "Affidavit" and "Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit", just as there is a difference between a "State of State" and an actual "State".
I get worn out trying to teach people who don't read things closely enough to notice these differences for themselves, and I can get really frustrated with those who still don't notice these things AFTER I have pointed them out.
If a man asserts that he is operating exclusively as a Lawful Person and is owed exemption and exoneration, but then turns around and submits an "Affidavit" instead of a "Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit" he has presented conflicting information.
He is claiming to act in one capacity and then, by submitting an "Affidavit of Truth" instead of "Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit" is demonstrating that he is in fact operating in a completely different capacity. It's like a Colonel in the Army showing up in full dress uniform and claiming that he's a civilian.
If we are going to deal competently with the many issues facing this country, we must all learn to read things much more closely, with more attention to what the words actually say and how things are labeled and named.
So, I am sorry for losing my temper, Robert. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back after months of trying to draw people's attention to similar facts:
A State is not a State of State.
A State of State is not a STATE OF STATE.
An Affidavit is not Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit.
A United States Citizen is not a Citizen of the United States.
An American State National is not a US Citizen.
The United State [Unincorporated] is not the United States, Inc.
The United States of America [Unincorporated] is not the USA, Inc.
Indictments are not Presentments.
A Republican State is not a Republic, etc., etc., etc...
As confusing as the rats have made this, I actually have great sympathy with people who are threading their way through the maze and who care enough to do so. I'm sorry, Robert. Please forgive me for being Grandma Grump.
See this article and over 1600 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
IMAGERY THAT MIGHT HELP, COMPREHENSION.ReplyDelete
When a king wants to minister to his servants, he does it by two ways: he either sends his representative or he issues an edict.
The servant in this example would be either the private d.b.a. [persona grata/POA] or two witnesses testifying of the truth by affidavit or the kings edict: testimony [the king's words] in the form of an affidavit.
Every affidavit has to have a legal person involved to deliver the king's words to the realm. however if the king wants to talk directly for himself the testimony in the form of an affidavit, does not require either the representative or the witnesses.
The king is giving his own words [testimony] and not making use of another to speak for him.
If you will think in these terms, maybe this imaginary will help.
The King is the private man or woman. What the man or woman is doing is making a special appearance by using the TESTIMONY IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT.
When doing this...I make use of 'IN PRO PER'. Why? here's a great article and what 'IN PRO PER' means to jurisdiction.
HOW DID THEY GET JURISDICTION OVER YOU?Delete
"In Personam Law and Legal Definition
In personam in a Latin term meaning "directed toward a particular person". In a lawsuit in which the case is against a specific individual, the court must have in personam jurisdiction over that person in order to try the case. In addition to the mandatory requirement of having subject-matter jurisdiction, a court needs to acquire in personam jurisdiction over the respondent/defendant. Any order issued by a judge when both subject-matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction has not been properly conferred is void, of no legal force or effect.
In personam jurisdiction is obtained when the respondent/ defendant is properly served with a summons and complaint either by certified mail, by personal service, or by publication (only rarely used and only when the address of the respondent/defendant is unknown). The judgment that applies to that person and is called an "in personam judgment."
In personam is distinguished from in rem, which applies to property or "all the world" instead of a specific person. This technical distinction is relevant in determining where to file a lawsuit and how to serve a defendant. In personam means that a judgment can be enforceable against the PERSON wherever he/she is. On the other hand, if the lawsuit is to determine title to property (in rem) then the action must be filed.
QUESTION: If a state court summons the/OR a PERSON to court, what person is that court summoning?
What courts have jurisdiction over U.S.PERSONS [PERSONAM JURISDICTION]? the United States Courts and UNITED STATES INCOME TAX COURT. right? SEE: 28 US 3002
Are STATE OF STATE COURTS: U.S. COURTS? YES! do they have PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER U.S. PERSONS?
Now, change gears, leave PERSONS and think with me...what U.S. COURTS and UNITED STATES, INC. COURT has jurisdiction over men and women? If they claim jurisdiction, it has to be personam jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction right? But strictly talking about personam jurisdiction right now....and making use of 28 U.S. 3002, what can you tell me about jurisdiction over the PERSON vs. MEN AND WOMEN [ORGANIC]?
When reading the statute and looking at the definition of person, a lot of you will be thrown off by the natural person. Why? because you have not learned about your D.B.A, your second Identity!
Others who know about the second identity, will love what they just learned about personam jurisdiction.
To those I speak: how we appear to the court by word, action or letter [written word] is crucial to personam jurisdiction, don't you think?