By Anna Von Reitz
Everything that Phil Hudok and his pals are doing is in the context of being British Territorial United States Citizens--- a citizenship status created under the Constitutions as I showed you --- to allow the British Service Providers to be here and deliver the "essential government services".
And I have already said-- if that's the political status you want to adopt-- who am I to stop you?
However, as I also pointed out, you are then no longer claiming to be, nor to act as--- an American, and that is where I object to you fellows claiming to be Americans and Patriots, when you are in fact acting as British Persons on our shores and claiming clemency from the British Territorial Congress.
Three Constitutions gives rise to three kinds of "US Congress" too.
So the way I perceive it is that you are all either: (1) confused and thinking that "Well, of course, we are acting as Americans!" when you are not, or (2) you really are British Tories, know exactly what you are doing, and are trying to ensnare as many clueless Americans as you can, to pad the Queen's bottom line.
Not disclosing this situation and the authority under which it is occurring -- together with failure to disclose the downside aspect of it-- results in more fraud.
None of the people signing on are being told what they will LOSE as a result of doing so -- only what they will gain.
In my view that is like setting up a salt lick.
Everyone has a choice, but that choice must be made freely, under conditions of full disclosure.
Have you told everyone signing this Arbitration Award that they will be giving up their claims as Americans? That they will be identified as British Territorial "United States Citizens" and lose their land rights? That they will become liable for the Queen's debts?
That is the other "issue".
Assuming that you know what you are doing and that you support the Queen and wish to live as a British Subject under the King's Law, and you know what the pros and cons of this are, I am not objecting to your choices or arguing with you about it.
But you are not "fully disclosing" the circumstance nor the consequences of "signing on" to all the people signing up. In fact, you are making it sound like some great "patriot victory" for Americans, when it doesn't even apply to us.
So it is that lack of disclosure that I am holding against you and your cohorts and your Queen. If you want to serve in the British Navy, that's up to you--- but press-ganging has been outlawed for two hundred years, and that is, in effect, what you are doing.
See this article and over 2000 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
Can we please talk about Z-tag statutes and debt discharge? Why must we "swear allegiance" to a fiction to qualify?ReplyDelete
Yes I think we all might be curious about the "Z-tag" posting... we need to know exacting the procedure... cant find anything online..Delete
Анна! Пол! Я, русский. А, может и нет. Поверьте, нет тысячелетий в нашей истории. Обратите внимание на правильное написание дат:i965.... Понимаете? В результате манипуляций, вместо i,получилась 1.доказательств море!!!. Я благодарен Вам! У нас нет такого инфосайта.ReplyDelete
Translation to prior post:ReplyDelete
Anna! Floor! I am Russian. Or maybe not. Believe me, there are no millennia in our history. Pay attention to the correct spelling of dates: i965 .... Do you understand? As a result of manipulations, instead of i, 1. proof of the sea turned out !!!. I am grateful to you! We do not have such an information site.
They made the i's into 1's changing the timelines?Delete
Somewhere in this line of information it 'spells' out how they added years to the timeline
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Curious about the "Z-tag" posting, we need to know the exact step by step procedure please, cant find anything online... Can someone help with this???ReplyDelete
I suggest everyone watch the following - if anyone thinks there will be any cooperation to resolve anything coming from the church or london, think againReplyDelete
Remember what is taking place at our border today folks and so called reeducation camps (?)
ThomasOctober 12, 2019 at 3:04 PMReplyDelete
NAVY ISSUES ARTICLE AGAINST HUDKO.... WHAT ABOUT LOST NAVY ISSUES AGAINST ANNA VON My grave concerns:
1. On the cover sheet Anna has people entering into a foreign known-criminal commercial jurisdiction and, without authority and on the record, taking control over property that belongs to someone/thing else: the constructed CQV trust that has our name on it.
We are the beneficiary, not the owner of the CQV trust so we cannot just claim to be the GRANTOR granting the trust to a different Grantee...
2. then without proper authority, the people are issuing a Deed, which only an Officer of their private corporation can do; because it is in their jurisdiction and we aren't in it.
We, Americans, don't have deeds in American traditional common law, we have land patents or other means of making land claims.
3. Then AFTER aaaaaall that, *THEN* we're Cancelling Powers of Attorney?!?!
"What the *hell*?", I'm asking myself...
This woman has us COMMITTING TRESPASS upon another jurisdiction and THEN removing their claim of authority?
Didn't make any sense.
Then she goes a step further and actually, AFTER committing trespass, actually
becoming officers of the private, criminal, commer ial, corporation by becoming attorneys!!! which makes us a navy officer, if her info is correct! Now she has us in the Queen's Navy! Unless I'm mistaken, we just got trafficked into:
B. Being an Officer of their criminal corporation
C. Becoming a Subject of their Queen
D. Becoming a Citizen of their Corporation
E. Becoming a Navy Officer.
To me. It looks like we potentially have now just recorded, on and for the Public Record, that we are, perhaps, *EXACTLY* what they have always claimed we were:
1. In commerce
2. Voluntarily, a part of their Corportion (well, "you recorded it", didn't you,?)
3. A subject of their Queen.
4. A citizen of their Corporation
5. An Officer/ member in their "military".
Im going to have to stop for now, but Just real quickly:
The info I have indicates we don't need to have an assumed name certificate because what your mother and father selected for your calling is protected in public through American traditional common law authority.
When your parents told family, friends, and neighbors of your "*being*" part of their family, that was their "declaration" that you *belonged* to/with them..they announced your "calling":("name") publicly and everybody knew that referred to *you*. There was no confusion on the land and soil. The lying, designed confusion happens in commerce.
Will finish later. Too much for one comment.
Enough here to get started.
Links to this post
Create a Link
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)