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.

Monday, March 25, 2019

The Reason for All the Paperwork

By Anna Von Reitz

There is really only one purpose for all this paperwork, and that is to establish a public record and evidence of who you are and the capacity in which you choose to act.   There is in turn only one reason to do that --- and that reason is to protect you and your family from oppression and foreign subjection and false claims in commerce.  

Your identity has been stolen and false claims have been established against your Good Name in violation of treaties, conventions, and commercial service contracts that both the Territorial and Municipal Governments owe to you.  

Just as it requires action on your part to reclaim your identity after a credit card hacker makes unauthorized charges, this situation requires you to take action to reclaim your identity from this abuse by government service providers. 

Beyond the paperwork involved, you need to educate yourselves about the actual Public Law you are heir to.  

Last, every American who can qualify to serve as an American State Citizen is encouraged to join their lawful State Assembly and serve.  There is a large back log of issues to be addressed and work to be done.  


See this article and over 1700 others on Anna's website here:

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


  1. I recorded my paperwork March 18th, 2019 at the Yavapai County Recorder in Arizona. I highly recommend them as they were helpful and the online system they have for viewing or verifying records available and free to use. Like Anna says above, I'll be learning more about Public Law as I currently live in Tennessee State will be most eagerly seeking participation to serve in a lawful State Assembly. May YHWH bless Anna and Paul for their faithful service. I look forward to seeing you all down the path.

  2. 2/3 thirds.of colonial America were slaves ,Benjamin Franklin was indentured for 9 years Google it.
    Press ganging and flogged when ever they talked worst than any African slave .
    Massachusetts governor told get wealthy get English and Irish slaves and 90% didn't live over a year.

  3. A child born to a white slave was endenture.for 30 years. If you ran away you get branded with a R on the cheek
    Virginia law.till 1776.

  4. Anna, much of the information that you're sharing with the public is unclear. Who are the true Americans? Just because someone is Born on the American soil doesn't mean that they are American. Just as if someone is Born in CHINA doesn't mean that Person is Chinese or a Chinese Citizen. So if your Forfathers were from Germany or Somewhere else then you are German or whatever. Webster dictionary describes and explains who are the true Americans. So I suggest to Anna that she stop misleading U.S. citizens about what their true status. Trump has said to the Public that just because someone is Born here on the land doesn't mean that they are American. Peace, Love and Light *

    1. You didn't just land here a few days ago did you? Because this should not be unclear if you have spent any time at all reviewing the information. Go back to her website and have at it.

      So Trump really said that? Well my conclusion is that he was trying to allude to the fact that he knows that babies are being kidnapped to a foreign jurisdiction vis-a-vis the birth certificate fraud and that to be an "American" National that Anna has lectured about requires exactly what the content of this very article was trying to describe.

      You need some remedial work to get up to speed, there are plenty of voices here on this blog that will assist but nothing will beat pouring over the material on her website which will take you to other sites, and so on. Good luck.

    2. From Anna Von Reitz:
      Nonsense. The Doctrine of Discovery has been thoroughly discredited, and it makes no difference if the discovery was 10,000 years ago or 400 hundred. What counts is who is living here now and that means all of us.

    3. Anna I'm sorry but You are not correct. You should know that Law and History cannot be separated. What's your Nationality? Moor/Muurs are the only true American Nationals on this Al Moroccan soil. Heir apparent to the land. Everyone else are Colonizing immigrants. We know that the term "Indian" is a misnomer that was applied the indigenous people who are today known as African Americans/Moorish Americans Nationals. Everyone else whose ancestors settled on Our American Estate are illegal immigrants period. You cannot change who your Forfathers were and become American. Just as if, I were to migrate to CHINA and have Sons and daughters that would not make me or them Chinese or Citizens. If someone were to go through the process of Naturalization they could obtain Citizenship, however, they could never be a National.

  5. Malik, you need to educate yourself by FIRST going to Anna's website and spending some TIME reading all her posts. Try that before denigrating the person that is trying to help you. She explains everything very thoroughly and succinctly.

    1. From Anna Von Reitz:

      Nonsense. The Doctrine of Discovery has been thoroughly discredited, and it makes no difference if the discovery was 10,000 years ago or 400 hundred. What counts is who is living here now and that means all of us.

  6. So we get asked every meeting about how to find the " Public Laws ". Point me in a direction , give me mission so I wont have to defer anymore

    1. I will bet there aren't 80 Million or so of them like statutes, my instinct is that if there is no injury or no property damage then nothing happened. Unlike statutes which are there to raise money for the empire. The American common law might be a good place to start I think Anna has covered that in passing as being somewhat different than British Common Law.

      How about Roman civil law or ecclesiastical laws for public law. She has mentioned THAT too.

  7. Well friends ......... I do see in Webster's that the definition for "American" does include "a U.S. citizen":

    3 : a native or inhabitant of the U.S. : a U.S. citizen:

    1. Well it doesn't say American national, so the devil is in the details. Further, since an editor from that dictionary is sure to be as clueless as anybody not versed in the art.

      I wouldn't call that a slam-dunk, but one does have to look under every rock to see what is hiding there.

    2. You need to get a unabridged copy of the Webster dictionary 1828.

  8. Can the baby land deed be used that I had my mother sign and notarized???

  9. malik is correct re:

    except it also says "but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America." -- right or wrong "british america" usurped it.

    "the rights of british america" is the title of a thomas jefferson work, noting that "the king" was overstepping his bounds, the english common law of the land/realm should apply in the colonies as well as mainland britain; thus, he would say english common law of the land/realm [of britain and colonies] people always had the "right" to "declare independence" from a usurping "king", and thus it was the "king" who was acting "independently" of the english common law

    "english common law" another book, notes that when the king's bloodline was in question in england, posse comitatus was 100% in the meantime, since courts/government/laws/business still needed to flow; thus, until they could deterine legitimate king, local counties got 100% full authority in the meantime.

    also notes the only reason "the king" could "tax" anyone is he was paramount "landlord" (vassals, but no lords above him, except sometimes/arguably "emperor" "the pope" depending on who was king/pope). it also implies, the nobles/common law always felt they were "independent" of the king to some degree, just so long as he was "reasonable" neither side would push things too much.

    "hanbury's modern equity" has some good info re lord nottingham "chancellor" (seemingly why the "Sherriff" and "church" were after robin and his merry men)..and lord coke defending the common law against equity. also good history on "trusts"

    thomas jefferson autobiography is also a good read (he submitted a bill, before independence, that slaves could voluntarily be freed by their owners, was denied). another source about him implies that seemed to have "passed" eventually [not sure if he had anything to do with it], because it says he submitted another bill, freed slaves didnt have to be expelled from the colony, denied again.

    (believe some people the idea was "free them, so they can go live in africa/wherever, they would be "civilized" having been around the "colonies" now; "racist" and "colonialist" and very condescending, but the point is just because someone was in favor of "freeing" slaves, didn't mean they wanted to keep them around; jefferson seemingly did)

    one of grievances in declaration of independence, was not letting the colonies naturalize people.

    point being, it is amazing how much jefferson is slandered nowadays, because his father had slaves, and rumours he impregnated at least one.

    he died penniless, had to sell his library (after war of 1812, i believe it went to rebuild a new "library of congress"; the only thing that the british didnt burn was "patent office" because someone blocked them and begged it would serve no purpose, only set back "science" many years)

    1. (i'm not saying jefferson was innocent, but i believe his father had slaves, he was from a wealthy family somewhat; perhaps why he tried to stand for "the common man" so much to try to undo the "image" of him people had)

      good history on "trusts" is in "hanbury's modern equity"

      author notes "trusts" came about to avoid feudal dues that normal inheritance/fee tail/"domain names" perhaps any buying/selling of property, would require the king got a cut

      (for "domain names" (family names, not computer URLs; i still dont know what was meant by "domain names" that anna mentioned in a previous post a month or so back)

      see "anti-government handbook" which is one giant tirade mocking "sovereign citizens" while having no clue about common law/specie/non-federal citizens...however, there is one article in there has some history on "names", arguing "christian names" there is no evidence common law ever used them ...although it fails to note "christian names" i believe was definitely a thing in "rome" just perhaps not in common law, but definitely in "civil law"; also, federal constitution, declaration of independence, perhaps other old docs, you can definitely see some people (not all) signing John: Adams or similar)

      re: "hanbury's modern equity" book, "trusts" "administrative law" my understanding is these could basically be done with common law contracts, but they decided a "template" was easier, because commmon law contracts you'd have to spell out and define all the terms for every such thing, designating someone "trustee" "beneficiary" and what those meant etc. thus, at some point the common law methods were "obseleted" but this was supposed to not be a problem, the new "templates"(in equity/civil law i believe) supposedly let one do most if not all the same things, with less verbosity, less confusion now that details were "standardized", sped up the process, less work for judges/lawyers/everyone, seemingly more clear what "rights" and responsibilities each party had

      it is only one sentence off hand comment in "hanbury's modern equity", but very importantly, it says as funny money (bank of england 1694) rose, with stocks/bonds (non-specie, commercial paper, law merchant) then although the king initially banned "trusts" as only being used to avoid feudal dues, but now he could inflate the "money" and get his "feudal dues" anyways, so he lifted the ban on "trusts"

      thus, "Trusts" started out as "tax avoidance of feudal dues to king" ...and were outlawed...and then we got private bankers taking over debasing the coin of the realm, so the king got his cut that way, didn't have to worry about people skipping out on "feudal dues" anymore. he had all the "money" for war he ever needed once they got a [private] central bank.

      "trusts" are/were "use of a use" so person A has legal title, allows person B use of property. that is a one-level "use"

      "use of a use" is if person B, (still not possessing legal title; let us assume the contract/law did not disallow him from "subusing" "subleasing"), then allows person C to use it.

      thus, person B can be simplified as "administrator" and person A may as well not exist (or may be deceased, left property to B but only on condition C can use it)

      point was, all this administrative law/trusts, was originally just to avoid feudal dues. a good thing perhaps, but not too flattering to lawyers and "the law"

      devils dictionary:
      LAWYER: one skilled in circumvention of the law

    2. the "great fire of 1666" im not sure if cestui que trust this story predates that or not, this is just what "hanbury's modern equity" says how "Trusts" arose.

      (dont quote me on person B being "administrator", but that is where the "roles" came from)

      (my understanding is person B only had "use" (equitable) not "legal/lawful title", no feudal dues for him when he "inherited" property, only the person with legal title "owed"! )

      this was good for lords to skip out paying the chain of "lords" above them (and king) but bad if a "lord" had lots of tenants/vassals under them, and bad for "the king" who mostly only had people under him, no "lords" above (except pope, and perhaps parliament)).