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.

Thursday, October 10, 2019

My Reply to More Questions --- Purportedly from Flag Officers

By Anna Von Reitz

I have been assured that I am corresponding with a liaison for the Flag Officers of this country, and there has been some corroboration of that, but I am beginning to think that my leg is being pulled. If this is indicative of the level of knowledge possessed by military officers at the Flag level, we are all in a lot of trouble. See for yourselves:
From Flags:
I don't know where to begin except to say this Judge Anna woman needs help. Some serious help because she shouldn't believe the crap she writes and spews as it makes her seem to be a very delusional person. Maybe someone is feeding her this crap and she bought into it. We pray she gets some help. Paul, I will only communicate with you so at least you know of the truth do, document and we share - and it's free Plus, POTUS and Barr are very aware of what we have done and what's in queue.
From Anna:
Then why is it that Senior JAG Officials agree with me and not with you? Why is it that they have told everyone the truth --- that there have been hundreds if not thousands of such "Arbitration Awards" over the years, and not one of them fulfilled? I am aware of this. Why aren't you, if you are such an expert?
Where were you when General Roy took the Farm Union Cases to the United States Supreme Court? Why do I know what they told him and you don't? Face it, you just got involved in all this ---at most 3-4 years ago-- and you are trying to assert that you know more about it than someone who has spent more than forty years studying this situation. Keep going on like this, and you will continue to be utterly useless and also in dereliction of duty.
From Flags:
Paul, you may want to ask her, how is a claim (Phil's) of your actual birthrights from the Creator not superior to a fiction of law American?
From Anna:
Apples and oranges again, or more like apples and kumquats. The Kingdom of Heaven has nothing to do with "the" Kingdom of God. Same basic confusion. Same logic default. Maybe if you get one "Aha!" moment, you will be able to see it all, but until then, you just make assumptions and more assumptions, and in the process try to put words in my mouth.
I have been in the front lines with Kurt Kallenbach, revealing that the Divine Origin of each of us has been "papered over" by the "birth day" (recorded entrance time) and then again by the "birth date" (registered exit time). The situation is like being marooned at sea and claiming to be, instead, out in the middle of Kansas.
Our actual point of incarnation occurs by an Act of God resulting in fertilization of an egg and formation of a unique zygote from which all else follows. That's the truth and that's where our Divine Birthright originates from, along with our Natural and Unalienable Rights. But Phil made no reference to any of that. He stayed firmly out to sea. So who is "delusional"?
From Flags:
She claims State national is highest yet now claims American? Where are the docs allowing all capacities, characters, conditions, status and standings utilized and effectuated today by the alleged government? Why doesn't she post proof of her definitions. It seems she is always saying in a round about way this is the way it is and so what.
From Anna:
That's because even though I gave you explicit directions and proof of exactly where these different kinds of political status are defined --- and repeat myself --- you still try to pretend that I haven't answered you when I have answered you---and far more than one time.
Here it is again:
American State National defined at: 8 USC 1101 (a) 21.
American State Citizen defined at: 8 USC 1101 (a) 22 (B).
United States Citizen and Municipal citizen of the United States defined in any of the three (3) Constitutions at: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2.
And as for me saying, "So what?" --- it's because you are bringing forward non-issues as if they were issues, or as if they were cause for surprise or discussion. Why wouldn't the King be Arch-Treasurer of a British Territorial corporation doing business as "the" United States of America?
That doesn't make him Arch-Treasurer of the American Federation of States doing business as The United States of America----which is what you are trying to claim.
From Flags:
I am sure during our next meeting which is to be held again at the Charlottesville Winery I could really impress the Flag Officers and Eric if I could produce J Pegs from Anna of the 3 Constitutions she speaks of. But she won't and you know why.
From Anna:
And why would I have to provide you with anything that you can easily go out and obtain for yourself and which you have a duty to obtain---- and follow ---- if you call yourself a "Flag Officer" ?
Go to the Congressional Library ---like we all did--- to satisfy yourself that I am not just making this up, because with your disgusting attitude, I could give you mint condition copies of the original documents delivered on a silver platter, and you would say I faked them.
Remember these are the names and dates of the Constitutions:
1. The Constitution for the united States of America (1787)
2. The Constitution of the United States of America (1789)
3. The Constitution of the United States (1790)
And don't try to pretend (again) that your lack of Due Diligence is my fault or responsibility.
From Flags:
At this point the Flag asked me to tell Anna they would like to speak with the continental marshals she claims to be working with and what is their contact info? I told them that's the BS she makes up to keep her ignorant lemming followers continuing to follow her music of baiting hope never to deliver anything.. Yes, that request was made in jest as they have read much of the incoherent statements and claims on her website.
From Anna:
I suggest that they speak directly with Senior Chief Marshal Tresa Haywood. I will give Paul the contact information to pass on to you. She is nice and polite, but, she has her ducks in order ---and isn't likely to take any guff or put up with any insulting presumptions. Read that: incoming stovepipe.
From Flags:
I and those around me follow the law and most of them are old and some very old and hidden from most. Arbitration in its common law form developed in England; in the Middle Ages, in tribunals such as the Courts of the Boroughs. Courts became suspicious of arbitration; for example, in Kill v. Hollister (1746), an English court ruled that the arbitration agreement could 'oust' courts of law and equity of jurisdiction. Arbitration was common in the early United States, with George Washington serving as an arbiter on an occasion. And the Arbitration process has been used ever since. However, its been used mostly by the selfserving impostors.
From Anna:
"Arbitration" is Law-by-Contract, and it doesn't work unless there is an Arbitration Clause built into the contract to begin with.
Trying to enforce a one-sided arbitration results in attempted unilateral contracting process, which is why none of these numerous "successful" arbitration actions work.
Both the people bringing the issue and the people issuing the judgment didn't check: (1) the status and standing of the Claimant relative to the Claim; (2) the existence of an Arbitration Clause in the contract; (3) the proper jurisdiction of the Law being addressed, which must match the jurisdiction which the Claimant is claiming.
Phil loses on all three counts.
As I keep trying to tell you, as far as law is concerned, there are no living men in the international jurisdiction of the sea, nor in the global jurisdiction of the air ---either one.
So Phil has an unenforceable arbitration award and you are trying to make yourselves out to be Great Sages.
For the record:
Arbitration only works and exists in the realm of contract law.
So here is Phil Hudok, claiming to be a living man owed all his rights, using a process of contract law that only applies to corporations and officers of corporations, that is, to Persons, and trying to apply it to a contract that has no arbitration clause applicable to him. Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
Why don't you all stop embarrassing yourselves? It only gets worse from here on.


See this article and over 2000 others on Anna's website here:

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

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.


  1. The only constitutional statuses are US citizen, State citizen, and American national. All come with contractual obligations and privileges. There is really no such thing as national, state national. Private law for remedy is from the beginning of the country. Read the contracts and real status, standing, character, condition and capacity and jurisdiction, venue and law form utilized therein.

    1. Does "constitutional" include The Articles of Confederation? ......... If so then is the "free inhabitant" also a status that is based on: "the free inhabitants of each of these States ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States"? .........
      Thank You!

    2. Poor Godel, rumor has it that after his breaking open the bounds of "mathematics" he read the "constitution" and discovered it's fail point.

      Godel's life thereafter turned inward, he curled up into a fetal ball and withered away.
      Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems
      First published Mon Nov 11, 2013; substantive revision Tue Jan 20, 2015

      "Gödel's two incompleteness theorems are among the most important results in modern logic, and have deep implications for various issues. They concern the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic. There have been attempts to apply the results also in other areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these attempted applications are more controversial..."

    3. You think I kidding?

      "....On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship.

      ...Later in his life, Gödel suffered periods of mental instability and illness. He had an obsessive fear of being poisoned; he would eat only food that his wife, Adele, prepared for him. Late in 1977, she was hospitalized for six months and could subsequently no longer prepare her husband's food. In her absence, he refused to eat, eventually starving to death.[31] He weighed 29 kilograms (65 lb) when he died. His death certificate reported that he died of "malnutrition and inanition caused by personality disturbance" in Princeton Hospital on January 14, 1978.[32] He was buried in Princeton Cemetery. Adele's death followed in 1981."

    4. From Anna:

      Sorry. I wish people were not so ignorant, but.... We all acquire "nationality" at birth, whether you like it or not. We are State Nationals at birth. Period.

      We can then adopt State Citizenship or not, but if we don't we don't have a functioning government. You can't self-govern if you refuse to do the job.

      And as for the two species of US Citizen/citizen those are built into the Constitutions to allow the Service Providers to live here among us and still maintain their ties to the King and the Pope, respectively.

      Arbitration has been here a LOT longer than the foundations of this country. It began when two cavemen turned to a third caveman to help settle their differences. That said, it has its limits.

      Arbitration can only be done in the realm of contract law. And there has to be an applicable arbitration clause in the contract from the beginning. And then, the one bringing the claim has to have the political status and standing to exercise the arbitration clause and the Arbitrator has to have the status and standing to hear the case and render a decision.

      So if Hudok is seen as a man, it's a split jurisdiction case and nobody in DC including the Supreme Court is competent to handle that.

      If he isn't seen as a man, it's an international jurisdiction case and he is acting as a British Territorial United States Citizen standing under the King's Law--- which is what Hudok and his buddies admit.

      Since these knotheads won't correct their political status, they don't have access to the status of "Lawful Person" ---which would require both status correction AND acceptance of State Citizenship.

      That is the only other option and Phil didn't do that.

      In summary:

      We know for sure that nobody in DC (or in the whole federal system) can decide a split jurisdiction case. So exclude that possibility.

      We know that Hudok didn't correct his political status and he admits himself that he is standing under the King's Law, so he can only be acting as a Legal Person -- and a British Legal Person at that. Since when is the King subject to arbitration? Show me the clause and show me Phil Hudok's standing to exercise it?

      The only other option would be for him to correct his political status and stand as a State Citizen and Lawful Person---and bring suit to enforce the Constitutional Guarantees as an American, but we know he didn't do that. And that would not be a subject for Arbitration because even then, he would be an American standing under the King's Law.

      So-- having cut to the chase there is no way to lawfully or legally enforce such an arbitration award, because either the claimant doesn't have standing , or the Arbitrator doesn't have standing, one way or the other, no matter how you sort it out.

      And as JAG has confirmed there are hundreds if not thousands of such arbitrations on record, none of which have paid out, because as I just explained (again) they are not enforceable.

      The only People who can enforce the Constitutions are State Citizens and they can only do it en masse through their State Government, because the States are the only actual Parties to the Constitutions.

  2. Anna you embarass yourself by responding to people (the Flags) who are so lacking in specific knowledge of the history and laws of the nation, please do not lower yourself to answering statements that are so loose and lacking substance that they are foolish on their face and in the rambling confusions of their statements. They are acting as distraction plants of some outside interlopers.

  3. Anna you lied about the Continental Marshals - you claimed they were up and running in every state, This is not true. You claimed they were sinking their teeth into many criminalities and working with the defector Sheriffs etc.. This is not true. Why do have to lie and inflate everything as if your going to be reprimanded or lose self acclaimed Tokyo Fiduciary Rose status?. Its just not lady like to lie when we are dealing with the cost of human lives and Country.

  4. Folks, we all have our imperfections, but Anna has tons of knowledge in Laws. Everybody assumes and presumes all the time, every day.

  5. Phil Hudock is challenging and won award for the way the corporation managers are mismanaging the trust to which we are parties (beneficiaries) to. Their "contract" applies to him and each one of us American inhabitants, personally. Quit making it a legalese issue, Anna. Only men and women can write and enforce these agreements. But let's get on to more useful subjects than flag officers, like Z-tag enforcement, and how discharging debt works, and exactly why we must pass through a documentary gauntlet. "Are your papers in order?" (Said the brown-shirt.) Otherwise, like Ecclesiastes said, "All is vanity."

    1. Happy Camper I agree onZ-tag enforcement & how discharging debt works. Add how to get our Alodiall (spelling?) titles to Auto and Land?

    2. Anna published on the public record an instruction titled 'Land Grab" Here as i understand it she is not helping us gain rightful ownership to our land as free men and wemon but transfering it from one false entity/flag/feduciary to another (hers). We are free people yet they are still treating us as if we are slaves..... being transfered from one slave onwner to the next without full disclosure and without our consent. (Maybe becasue we are still acting as slaves).?

      In my view, Anna want us to believe she is doing us a great service by volunteering herself ( without our consent to be our leader/Governer/Feduciary/Head of state. NO Way- I vote her out becasue as one of the people i never voted her in.

      She is trying to build a government without deriving its just power from the consent of the governed/people; How is this any more than being transfered form one slave owner/ Tyranical Government/ Satanic Government/Brittish Oligarchy/ Vatacin/Holy SEE to the next self proclained slave owner?

      If she was voted in to repesent our people and our country she would have to be willing and be able to demonstraight her full support of the "Declaration of Independence and must give full disclosure of all she claims to be doing , proof of these claims and all she claims to have allready done on behalf of the people , and finally she would have to be willing to pledge her life, fortune, and sacred honor just like the like the 56 Men who signed the "Declaration of Independence" (soldiers of true God) who were driven, endowed,and Governed by their Creator, my creator YAHWEH!

      In every stage of our Oppressions and enslavement as Gods People we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. Therefore let us gather togeather in great numbers and put faith in NO Man or Woman for We cannot and shall not serve two Masters.

    3. Bodhi, You are RAD MAN! Love your Above Average IQ. You would make a great leader. I agree that "Whenever ANY form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the PEOPLE to Alter or Abolish it." The Declaration of Independence" I feel we are in the final Global Super Bowel and it is 4th Quarter 4th down with seconds remaining... Great Days to be Alive to Bear Witness. Take Care and let me know when your ready to Assemble.

    4. Reply to Veto from Anna:

      More ignorant bullshit. I just spent four days in Texas with Ron Gibson who has dedicated his life to explaining how you can get your land patents back, and after that, your freeholds. And he understands that without us --- including me --- standing up and sticking a fork into things, your land and soil would already be gone.

      The soil is under the jurisdiction of our actual counties and the land is under the jurisdiction of our States, but so long as you stupidly insist on standing under the King's Law and acting as a British Territorial United States Citizen, or even worse, a Municipal "citizen of the United States" ---- you have no land rights and no soil rights and no constitutional guarantees at all.

      Those of us who woke up early entered into the "vacated offices" and began rebuilding and repopulating our actual Government. Those who are deceived and deluded continue to think that that THING in Washington, DC, is the American Government ---- when it objectively and provably, is not.

      We re-issued our Sovereign Letters Patent in 2015 founded on The Unanimous Declaration of Independence published July 4, 1776, so that goes to show how much you know about the price of tea in China.

      The plain fact is that you are making a lot of spurious unjustifiable "assumptions" ---- a process which leads to making many mistakes and many false statements.

      And as for "voting" the actual capacity of Americans is as "electors" ----- not "voters". If you are still "voting" you are acting as a British Territorial or Municipal Citizen and nothing I am doing has any effect upon you, except that if you don't wake up and support what I am doing, you will find yourself living under the Spanish Inquisition as a slave.

      Wake to hell up.

  6. 8 usc 1101 (a)21:(21) "The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state." Man, is this one loaded with traps. If you view this on the Legal Information Institute you can click on underlined words. First, "person" we all know what that is. Next, "state." Interestingly, the Legal Institute gives the definition for state as State which is:(36) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. No states of the union there. Is it an incorrect definition? Using plain English we can be sure that state refers to "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government," if not otherwise defined. So "state' as referred to in 1101 means any organized political community. Is the Legal Institute trying to mislead the reader?

    Next, "allegiance." Why would the creator of a thing pledge allegiance to his own creation? Better to call yourself an American than a state national.

    1. Would the Organization of American States be something to look at, the OAS?

      I think you would need to look at regionalism as well, no?

      Just some information sharing, hope it helps

  7. Governments frown upon "stateless" people. But, this is backasswords. In order for a "state" to exist, there must first be people with a common culture, values, a defined border, etc. This comes first and may be called a "nation." Any political body is a result of that. So the people of a nation comprise a polity, common interests and beliefs. A polity precedes a state. A state is the expression of the polity. To manage the "state's" affairs, the people create a government.

    For a government to call someone stateless according to its goofy rules, they would have to accuse you of having no place to live. Unless you are a hobo this accusation is patently untrue and upside down. It is not you that has to prove anything. You live in a certain place and your ties to that place, the land and people of that place establish you as one of the people of a nation then state.

    Of course, governments have to know who is part of a nation so they know who they serve and who they don't. Your response is that you are living Man or Woman who is a part of a nation by virtue of your ties to the land and people within a defined area, Ohio, for example.

    Government doesn't like this arrangement and so they turn it upside down so that you are at the bottom of the hierarchy instead of the top. It demands you have political status in order to access it. But your political status is inherent in your ties to the land and people of a "nation." In other words, as Man or Woman who lives somewhere and wants to live there, your political status is properly "creator." Governments hate this.

    1. Just to point this out, check out the video by TROH show that claims that they did leave us all stateless
      Watch the first video that comes up and read it carefully
      Anna does not care for TROH but I think we need to look at everything, IMO

    2. Look, the reason I brought all this up is to bring it all back to basics. The reason I capitalize Man and Woman is because we are made in the image and likeness of the Creator. To style it man or woman is to ignore that and, perhaps, attribute our existence to mere evolution or to some other origin (ALIENS!).

      As far as all the rest of that goes, it is simply to highlight the proper hierarchy. Their claims that we are stateless are without merit. They simply have nothing to stand on.

      As far as the arbitration goes, it appears to be an award to certain named people. Or as Bodhi points out, maybe it's to persons. These kinds of things are profoundly misguided. I don't know what Hudok's intentions really are, but it seems to be coming from a place of revenge.