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 6100 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." Do not attempt to comment using the handle "Unknown" or "Anonymous". Your comment will be summarily deleted. 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 opinon 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.

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. Trump's message was referring to immigrants. As with Ambassadors, if out of country ambassadors have a child while in America, that child is not automatically an American. Illegal immigrants are not American citizens in any form and any child born unto them is by the same measure, not an American. Those babies according to how Trump explained it are citizens of the country of parental origin, simply because they have not and cannot apply for US Citizen status. I stand corrected.

    3. All modern day Europeans on American soil are illegal immigrants. You must be aboriginal and indigenous to be an American National by bloodlines. Now go and study, the truth is out there. You cannot become an American National unless your Forfathers are aboriginal and indigenous to the American soil.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. malik you need to study INTERNATIONAL LAW! Then you need to ask yourself this: where did indigenous people get their right to live on the land/soil? you got it the Creator, by devine plan. Exactly what the Constitution recognizes and establishes as law. If you can find any authority higher than the Creator, than please let me know.
      The Constitution did not create that status of: us all being in subjection to the creator, it only stated it on and for the record! That status existed before any of us were born or created by our Creator.

      Here's a message from the Creator: "The Earth and the fullness thereof belongs to God, who created a Son [capital 'S'] that through him the world would be saved. He is the heir to all creation, and made all mankind [men and women] joint [equal] heirs and to them he gave the right to become sons [small 's'] of God. He put this qualifier on them: 2 commandments. Within those 2 commandments are included all the laws and prophets [under his Kingdom of Heaven] fulfilled. He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. One of his laws:that we should obey the LAWS...wait for it....THE LAND! Now, if we do NOT want to follow the laws of God, then we are not heirs or sons, we are bastards [bible term]. You see the scriptures are a contract, between the creator and us.

      So, if we are to be sons, joint heirs, as the People of the Creator, then the laws of the land have a hierarchy and here it is, in rightful and lawful order, pursuant to the law of the land of America:

      Creator, sons created by God [men and women], several States, The United States of America [unincorporated], The United States [unincorporated], the United States of America, Inc., the United States, UNITED STATES,INC., STATES OF STATE, COUNTIES OF STATES OF STATES, and at the bottom of the pile, in one big stinking pile of manure LEGAL PERSONS.
      So, Anna is not wrong or incorrect, your argument is a moot point!
      Now, am I disputing the Moroccan indigenous people thing? No I am not, however if you choose to dispute what Anna is teaching, then you must take that up with the Creator, the source of all things, because he absolutely did not state this land was given to the Moroccans, regardless of what claim is made and is being ignored in court.
      The Earth and the fullness thereof belongs to God and all his sons and daughters have a right under his Kingdom rule, to make it home, with His requirement...that we follow the LAW OF THE LAND.
      Anna knows this, I know this, judges know this, attorneys know this, the vatican knows this, but you my friend obviously didn't know this. I would tell you to go research!

      Because, the Son did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it and he said, we are his disciples who do the works he did!
      I follow him, in his instructions and I too, am seeking with his wisdom to fulfill the law and not to abolish.

  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. Dreamer1153 you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Anna has been presenting a lot of great ideas and information. However. She is a bit confused about who are the true Americans. If you are not one of the copper colored people ( "so called African Americans ") then you are not American. If your Forfathers migrated to these Moroccan lands from Europe or elsewhere then you are not American. You really need to get a better education in History and Law. Look at the Webster dictionary for a correct description of whose the American. You at best are a U.S.National if you're a Naturalized Citizen. To be an American National is to be aboriginal and indigenous to the American soil. Marinate on that, I'll wait....🤔

    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.

  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)).

  10. I came here this morning to post the following, but had to answer MALIK, first and hope he can see his WRITTEN ARGUMENT is without merit and is moot and would not hold up in court.

    This is what I wanted to share: All the creditors have been declared to be lost at sea. The trusts are being handled by the TRUSTEE. The citizen/subjects are slaves and have absolutely no rights, including the right to be know the truth. Citizen/subjects are subjects of the system and have only the rights the system gives them.

    Why can citizen/subjects not settle debt and are being thrown in jail? Because they have no authority over the TRUST accounts. Citizen/subjects are not the creditors. If they attempt to settle the accounts, it is fraud.

    Because Malik does not have knowledge about the system, he fights the system with arguments that are fruitless.

    The only way to defeat a lie [fraud/coercion] is with truth. If you are going to win, you must find the lie, then you must defeat it, by shining the light on that darkness.

    Malik is no different than than the people trying to use A4V or UCC1 or any of the other jazz they can come up with, to try to free themselves from the tentacles of the system. Nothing, no scheme, you can come up with is going to free you from the system. So stop scheming! None of us who know how the system really works, need to scheme. We have learned we merely have to shine a light on the system by calling out the fraud and get that calling out on the record.
    This is what Anna teaches. She is calling out the fraud and shining her light for the whole world to see.
    Everyone wants to be something they are not! What they want to be is the creditor and not the debtor and they believe they can be the creditor while remaining in the status of a debtor. So instead of coming out of the debtor status, they try to manipulate the system while staying in it as the debtor. Because it is absolutely certain, if you are the debtor, you are in the system and you have no rights.
    If you don't comprehend what I just posted, you better down well find out, the U.S. is not recognizing the Moroccans as their authority and they are not making that doing it on great authority, because WE THE PEOPLE are not Moroccan and WE THE PEOPLE established this government.WE THE PEOPLE have the authority over this land and WE have decided who rules it, by virtue of the 1611 King James Bible. WE THE PEOPLE did not give that authority to Moroccans or Indians or Italians or Spanish or German or Chinese or Scottish or Mexican.

    1. PS. the Creator did not make us hebrew or gentile or bond or free, he did not make us iraqi's or mexicans or chinese or anything else. He made us PEOPLE in Him. America was founded by ITS FOUNDING PRINCIPAL: "ALL OF US ARE CREATED 'EQUAL' and endowed by 'OUR CREATOR' with'CERTAIN' unalienable rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!" ONE PEOPLE!

      certain:unquestionable, sure, definite, beyond question, not in question, not in doubt, beyond doubt, unequivocal, indubitable, undeniable, irrefutable, indisputable, incontrovertible, incontestable, obvious, patent, manifest, evident, plain, clear, transparent, palpable, unmistakable, conclusive, recognized, confirmed, accepted, acknowledged, undisputed, undoubted, unquestioned, unchallenged, uncontested

      WHOSE YOUR CREATOR...WHO DID HE CREATE? MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN right? Then who has the unalienable rights? MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN!right?

      WHAT CREATOR, created LEGAL PERSONS? GOVERNMENTS instituted by MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN! right? So where does govt get its authority for it to exist? MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN! right? Who has the power over everything governments create? MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN! right? Who has the power of legal persons? governments instituted and under the authority of MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN! RIGHT?

      The Creator created MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN and that is enough authority for us all to live free...if we only will...but too many still don't get it. How the system really works!

      FYI: ever wonder where the word CREDITOR comes from?
      Biblically speaking: creditor [creator of] 1. (n.) One who credits, believes, or 'TRUSTS'.
      2. (n.) One who gives credit in 'BUSINESS' matters; hence, one to whom money is due; -- correlative to debtor.

      IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE SYSTEM IS BIBLICALLY BASED, THEN YOU WILL NEVER COMPREHEND THE SYSTEM OF CREDITS AND DEBTS. ITS ALL FINANCIAL. It's not a Mexican, Moroccan, Irish, Indian, American, Chinese, Russian, German or any other nationality SYSTEM.

      Deuteronomy 15:2
      This is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release that which he has lent to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because Yahweh's release has been proclaimed.

      THE SYSTEM IS EVIL..because it violates the truth of the laws of God.

      Proverbs 22:7 The man of wealth has rule over the poor, and he who gets into DEBT is a SERVANT to his CREDITOR.

      Do you yet see, who are the CREDITORS, when the Earth and the fullness thereof belongs to God and he has made his sons heirs. WHO ARE HIS SONS? WHO ARE THE HEIRS? CAN legal persons, without a living soul be an heir to anything? CAN legal persons ever inherit anything? CAN legal persons ever own anything? Think deeply. You must comprehend the system, how it works!

      We are the heirs of the Earth and the fullness thereof? THE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE! People are not PERSONS, in the laws of God and Mankind! Persons can not OWN ANYTHING because they are not the HEIRS!

    2. WE THE PEOPLE have the authority over land, the Creator gave Us and he told us to have dominion over the land, he gave us. That land is on the Earth. And WE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA have decided who rules it, by virtue of the 1611 King James Bible. WE THE PEOPLE did not give that authority to Moroccans or Indians or Italians or Spanish or German or Chinese or Scottish or Mexican or any other nationality.
      WE THE PEOPLE of Germany did not give WE THE PEOPLE of Iraq the authority over Germany. WE THE PEOPLE of Texas did not give WE THE PEOPLE of the STATE OF TEXAS authority over WE THE PEOPLE of Texas. WE THE PEOPLE of Tennessee did not give authority to California to have authority over Texas. Do you comprehend how this works?