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 4600 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.

Sunday, October 6, 2019

Remembering Where We Are In Time

By Anna Von Reitz

Today was memorable for many reasons, not the least of which was an extraordinary conversation I had with a man who actually thought that The Treaty of Paris, 1783, was the Founding Document of our country.  

I had to tell him that no, The Treaty of Paris, 1783, is not our Founding Document. 

Our Founding Document is The Unanimous Declaration of Independence, published in July of 1776.  

The Treaty of Paris barely mentions us for the same reason that the Constitutions barely mention us.  

Neither the Treaty of Paris nor the Constitutions are about us -- they are instead Power Sharing Agreements between European Principals, sorting out what they will do and what their responsibilities are going forward.  

Look at this circumstance again--- there are four separate entities operating under confusingly similar names. 

The United States --- the proper name of our soil jurisdiction states acting as a Union of republican States. 

"the" United States -- the name of the Pope's Municipal United States Government.  

The United States of America -- the proper name of our land jurisdiction unincorporated Federation of States.  

"the" United States of America -- the name of the British Territorial United States of America.  

As you read The Treaty of Paris, 1783, you will note that the bulk of whole thing is about "the United States" --- that is, the Pope's Municipal Government, and "the United States of America" --- that is, the British Territorial United States. 

Both these entities were to receive specific "Delegated Powers" from us as a result of the peace treaty;  they were to exercise these delegated powers for us and in our behalf, so they were both allowed to operate "under our names". 

So, from 1783 onward, when you see references to "the United States" you have to read the context of the document in these early years to know whether they are talking about The United States or "the" United States.  

Past about 1790 when all this got consolidated, you can reliably assume that any reference to The United States is about our soil jurisdiction Union of republican states, and any reference to "the" United States is about the Pope's Municipal United States Government. 

The same process applies to the use of The United States of America. When you see it presented as The United States of America without the word "Incorporated" you may assume that our Federation of States is being discussed unless there is a specific agreement otherwise defined by the text.  When you see "the" United States of America it refers to the British Territorial United States Government.  

The Treaty of Paris of 1783 set up and defined what was being agreed to between the British King and the Pope, and who was responsible for what in the new Power Sharing Agreement coming into effect; the Constitutions then implemented these agreements.    

From 1781 to 1787, our own States of America Confederation provided all the Services and exercised all the Delegated Powers.  

After the original Constitution was adopted in 1787, specific "powers" that had been exercised by the States of America, were split off and exercised by the British Monarch and the Pope, instead.  

The States of America continued to exist and function as our American Federal Service Provider until 1860, when the Civil War resulted in splitting the original Confederacy in half --- what remained were the Northern members of the States of America, and the Southern members now functioning as the Confederate States of America.  

See the similar names now?  

The bunko artists have tried to obscure these facts and prevent them from coming to public knowledge, but praise God, we now know.  

When the Constitution of 1787 was adopted, the State of America confederacy lost many vital powers which it had hitherto exercised for us; it was obliged to turn these enumerated powers over to the British King of the Commonwealth (King John's heirs) and the Municipal Government of the Pope, respectively, according to the agreements reached as part of The Treaty of Paris, 1783. 

The States of America continued to function in this lessened capacity until 1860, and was never reconstructed after the so-called American Civil War, mainly because the two foreign subcontractors secretively usurped upon their employers--- the American States and People and our unincorporated Federation of States, dba, The United States of America. 

So the States of America has been awaiting "Reconstruction" all these years, and generations of clueless Americans have been left unaware that this job has yet to be done.  

It is important to understand that our Government "of the people, for the people, and by the people' is a living government operating in an independent and sovereign capacity.  It is summoned into being when necessity demands, and it is being summoned now to assemble the State Citizens who are the "People" who are Party to the Constitutions and who are enabled to enforce them. 

Thanks to General Ignorance and various actions undertaken by our Federal Subcontractors in Breach of Trust  we have had a long journey home and have been forced to remember exactly how we got here and who we are.  


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. goodboots: troll-verified TruthTellerOctober 6, 2019 at 7:56 PM

    "When the Constitution of 1787 was adopted, the State of America..."

    The "Constitution" was never lawfully ratified by the people who are the lawful "dejure" government.
    The Constitutional government, therefore can only be and only is "defacto", which means it is unlawful.

    A contract -- the "Constitution" cannot be "adopted".
    Who "adopted" it?
    Not the people.

    The British Crown/Monarchy and Papacy seems to have been the "adopters" of the unlawful contract because it never went to a vote by the people; so the "dejure" government, the people, didnt lawfully ratify it and all it is is perhaps just another paper that PRETENDS like something lawful was done when it WASN'T.
    Excuse my vulgarity but its just more PAST- PRESENT- OR POST-TRUTH BULLSHIT being crammed down the throats of the people, under threat of CONTINUED UNLAWFUL USE OF MILITARY TYPE FORCE if what you, anna, have told us in the past is true.

    Anna, your authority does not reach back to the Declaration of Independence. That is for the living people only.
    You have set up more Legal FICTIONAL Persons, your "Lawful Persons". In your Post-Truth World?! :) :)
    And you, anna, can't lawfully claim to be an American traditional common law judge when you claim to be a Royal!
    All of us are NOT confused.

    "It is important to understand that our Government "of the people, for the people, and by the people' is a living government operating in an independent and sovereign capacity. It is summoned into being when necessity demands, and it is being summoned now to assemble the State Citizens who are the "People" who ...".
    This is wrong too.
    Its the people who are sovereign and independent, not the state.
    And then government doesn't call the people to assemble, the people assemble and call their assembly to order.
    And our government is FROM consent of the people, not of, for, or by anything.
    It is not living. The people are.
    It is not a being, the people are.
    We do not summon our government into being, as witches in a circle summon dead beings or demons to appear when they want to use them.
    If this creepy government is being summoned, as if dead, to become a living, sovereign and independent being by having its "State Citizens" who are the "People", Anna says, assemble, WHO IS DOING THE SUMMONING OF THE DEAD ENTITY Government to come to being?
    Is Anna doing the summoning?
    Who is summoning the dead government to live?!

    It looks like perhaps Anna has flipped many things: like she is using the correct words, but CONCEPTUALLY, she flips things over backwards so that she ends up, perhaps, partially MIRRORING our "dejure" American government?

    1. with "consent of the governed" people ARE "the state" by definition.

      whether there is an external(ly visible) "gov." e.g. an incorporation, flag, police, courthouse, gov. buildings, etc. is all secondary, besides the point.

      case proving this, circa 1790s or so, is on

      this logically makes sense for the american scheme, e.g. decl. of inde. -- people precede any gov., have to "delegate" "create" it.

      with non-consent-of-the-governed schemes, "the gov." "the state" is sovereign. e.g. a top-down empire. "the gov." in this case may very well precede the people, and does not need their "consent". imperialism, empire building, whatever, the "gov" comes from outside the "people" one way or another
      although anna might come off as bossy/placing herself above others, the fact remains, there are either states or not, i.e. there are citizens/nationals of each state, or not.

      if there are no citizens/nationals of each state, then there are no "states".

      these would be 'we the people'

      articles of conf., supposed to be a "perpetual union" before the federal constitution, which was supposed to be a "more perfect union"

      without "states" meaning citizens and/or nationals that compose each state, there is no american common law.

      common law is a fancy way of saying local traditions (perhaps "imported" -- at some level perhaps all traditions are "imported"). varies by area.

      as lincoln said (see e.g. project gutenberg has free copy of inaugural and other speeches), the "south" had a "revolutionary right" to "secede" (take back, uncede) but this would 1) violate/break contracts e.g. federal constitution 2) they would be on their own, i.e. have to draft new documents 3) if there was an ocean separating them, "divorce" would be easy, but they would still have to see eachother every day, hence he recommended they work out something

      from what i see, anna is trying to stick to existing procedures/documents/law, rather than start completely over.

      AFAICS bouviers law dictionary 1856 is a good starting point. last known official "american common law" that i can see.

      after that "federal citizens" seems to have usurped more and more.

      "the gov. is not living" is perhaps "true" for a roman civil law scheme, as many common law proponents point out, e.g. incorporations, legal fictions.

      from common law POV it makes sense.

      however, this is very superficial. just the opposite is true.

      from the "vicar of christ/zeus/whoever" side, all roman civil law is "alive" and the only question is: which spirit(s) do they worship?

      zeus/christ/whoever isn't here right now, i'm his representative. and then the concept of an "incorporation" was born. all roman civil law is ALIVE and a RELIGIOUS TYPE OF LAW.

      corpse/corporate == a body (as opposed to a soul and/or spirit and/or mind). a group of people may act "as one body" i.e. the people of xyz resolve that the sky is blue.

      incorporate == to give a body to something (that doesn't have a body, e.g. a spirit).

      a "living human being/natural person/people" must have:
      - a body
      - a soul (else they are deceased)

      see various dictionaries.

      thus, when people say roman civil law/incorporationsare "dead", it is not they have no soul, rather no body of their own.

      such things allow souls/spirits to have a "body" (i.e. a group of people representing whichever soul/spirit(s) ), i.e. to "live", e.g. we all pretend wal-mart is real and alive.

      whether stalin, hitler, napoleon, wal mart, rome, roman catholic church, vatican II: ALL "roman civil law" is a religious type of law. very much "ALIVE".

      the only question is "which spirit(s) are they claiming to represent?"

    2. roman civil law/incorporations/those type of "governments" are very much "alive" if we are saying "do they have a spirit(s)/soul(s) ?"

      it depends on whether people think a ghost/spirit/soul is "alive" or not. maybe it was a natural person previously (e.g. body + soul + mind), now deceased.

      maybe some so-called angel or devil or other spirit that was not "born" on earth yet for whatever reason?

      while this may sound like pointless semantics, consider:

      is "god the father" "father in heaven" considered "alive"? never came down to earth officially "as himself" [*] per se, had to send his son/representative down with the proper spirit and a human body...note the parallels.

      [*] ignore the question of a trinity, or whether "father and son are one" for the point of argument; i am assuming he sent his "son" and didn't show up "himself"
      the question for all roman civil law/incorporations/"governments" is which spirit(s)/religion(s) it is that needs people/a body of some kind to act for it/in its name.

      in america, many times roman civil law things are "the secular/neutral/gnostic/masonic/illuminist" spirit, i.e. an attempt to provide "freedom of religion"

      see e.g. bouviers 1856 "bishop" "city"
      i have no love for roman civil law/incorporations, but imagine circa 2 millenia ago, you are the pope or another official, "rome" has just converted, but you need to maintain "backwards compatibility" to some extent, and people are getting baptized/believing in christ, but the "man" "flesh" is no longer here.

      what would you do? makes perfect sense they did things how they did, for better or worse.

      (another example: louisiana was under "code napoleon" while french, but after "statehood" still kept some "compatibility" as a mostly "civil law" state)

      this type of thing happens ALL the time. very seldom to people try to "start from scratch" if such a thing is even possible (occultists/alchemists would say people can only transform/rearrange things, only "god" can truly "create" anything, so "starting from scratch" is never strictly possible, at best you can start from "deliberate ignorance" "first principles" or some such)

      "types of law" "types of gov." is no different.

    3. depends what type of law you are in what is considered "alive" and "dead" or not, or if there are other possibilities.

      common law people are "dead" "outlaws" of roman civil law.

      civil law artificial persons are "dead" "outlaws" of common law.

      law merchant "notes" are "dead" "counterfeit" to common law (not considered "consideration" by default) [*]

      [*] although common law IOUs are possible
      [**] who is writing a "note" perhaps also determines and/or can give hints, what type of note it is, e.g. the note of a common law native , or the note of a traveling foreign law merchant.


Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.