By Anna Von Reitz
This is a good example of the deliberate Dis-Information and/or gross ignorance with which we must daily contend, so I am taking the opportunity to reply (in blue type) to it so that everyone else has a template for replying to such false reasoning and misunderstanding of historical fact.Richard: 8 USC 1101 (a) 21, reading comprehension is required. State is later defined as a territory which would mean you have no rights as congress has exclusive legislative and other control over you and every facet of your life. Even a High School Student can understand this.Anna: This is a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. The word "state" is not capitalized in the cited section and is not controlled by any later randomly chosen-from-the-list interpretation of what "state" or "State" means. Richard is the one who, as an Accountant, lacks the sophistication and reading comprehension to rightly interpret Federal Code, yet he is, like most men of his ilk, presenting himself as an expert in the subject of statutory law.Anna: Furthermore, he misinterprets the entire purpose of Federal Code. Federal Code does not apply to anyone but Federal Citizens -- meaning Territorial United States Citizens and Municipal "citizens of the United States". Federal Code is their law, not ours. So when we declare our political status and reference it back to them, it is never for the purpose of subjecting ourselves to it. It is explicitly to hold them accountable to their law.Anna: The only time that we have an interface of the kind he suggests with the Federales, is when we bring forward the Constitution--- which we can only do as Parties to the Federal Constitutions ---- which means, when we are acting as State Citizens.Otherwise, we are treated to the spectacle of Federal Citizens trying to enforce constitutional agreements against themselves and they have no other Party holding the other side of the Constitutional Contract. Any "High School Student" should be able to see that.In order to act as State Citizens we must first repudiate Federal Citizenship of all kinds and reclaim our birthright political status as State Nationals. State Nationals then have the option of joining their State Assembly and acting as State Citizens and enforcing the Constitutions, which we are owed.Richard: Please understand there is no provision for national in the Constitution. They are Citizens! Even a High School Student can understand this.Anna: As I have observed many times, the Constitutions do not concern themselves with us and in fact, barely mention us even by inference, except in the Preamble and Amendment X and the Bill of Rights. The subject of the Constitutions is the construction of the Federal Government, not the construction of our States of the Union, and so, the Federal Constitutions speak in terms of Federal Citizens and define the classes and kinds of Federal Citizens and doesn't mention State Citizens or State Nationals at all. Why should they?Richard: She keeps saying a reset to 1861. As I was instructed by Ron Paul in 2015, please follow the supreme law of the land it's the law. Once the Constitution was ratified by 9 states, regardless of whether it was lawful or not, the articles were dead and anything created by and under it perished as well.Anna: This is, again, a total misrepresentation of fact. The Constitutions did not in any way substitute for The Articles of Confederation, though that is the "chestnut" that ignorant apologists make to "explain away" The Articles of Confederation.Anna: Any "High School Student" who ever read both sets of documents should be able to see, the Constitutions and The Articles of Confederation are completely different kinds of documents, with different subject matter, and different purposes --- and therefore, they cannot substitute one for the other --- and did not do so, though Mrs. Meyer may have told you that in Sixth Grade, simply because she was ignorant, too.Anna: The original Confederation of States of States formed under The Articles of Confederation did all the work of what we have come to think of as the Federal Government from 1781 to 1787, when the Federal Constitution split off some of those duties under new power-sharing agreements and delegated specific enumerated Powers to the States of America organized under The Articles of Confederation, the Queen (Territorial) and the Pope (Municipal). That is what the actual historical records demonstrate --- not a destruction of The Articles of Confederation in 1787.Anna: The Articles of Confederation were not "set aside" until 1860 when the Confederation broke apart as a result of the Secession of the Southern Members. And that is why the South called itself "The Confederate States of America" while the North continued to operate as the "States of America".Anna: And as for "she" demanding "reset" to 1861 --- it's not me that demands that outcome, its the Roman Civil Law of the Municipal United States Government that demands that outcome, and in any case, the Constitutions all pre-date 1861 by many country miles, so it is not as if the Constitutions go away as a result of having to clean up this Mess that people like Richard have caused.Richard: Paul think about how many times over the years 2015 she has made claims to her status by different signatures, titles, verbal claims including her husband's status and never with any proof for authority to do so. This was first noted beginning in 2015 when I first started working with Union States Assembly and shared her rantings with the Flag Officer's name given to me by Jim. then I presented Them years later I introduced her Smoking Gun discovery to the Flag Officers and she couldn't provide any proofs for who she claimed to be and her husband as Head of States. This is when I was told to walk away from her and help others to do the same. 2015 was when I started conversing with Ron Paul and he introduced me to Rand.Anna: I have in fact presented the Belcher Coat of Arms and any fool can visually and directly see that all the Great Seals of this country and of both the United States and the United States of America, are part of our Coat of Arms Array. Just as you can recognize your own flag on sight and without question, our National Coat of Arms is recognizable on sight and without question as a Belle Cher Coat of Arms. That is, in fact, the way that nations are meant to identify themselves in the international jurisdiction of the sea, and the idea that our "Flag Officers" have grown so ignorant or so corrupt that they don't recognize or know the meaning of the Seal Array that they are themselves operating under, is not credible. If you can see our war flag, you can also see our peace flag and our seals. And I do say, "ours", both in the familial and the national sense, as these emblems were granted by the Belle Chers for the perpetual use of our new nation whenever it conducts business in international jurisdiction and they are still in use today.Anna: American sovereignty in the international jurisdiction (not national---international) depends directly upon the sovereignty of the Belle Chers, established during the Norman Conquest, and the proof of that is plainly stated by the impress of our seals, flags, and trademarks, which are visually apparent and which have been standing firmly on the international public record for centuries. I need no other proof of the facts beyond what is set in front of your noses, just like the American Flag doesn't need any explanations, and I can lawfully demand the resignation of every Flag Officer who fails to answer to his Flag and to his Seal. Just go ask your JAG Officers about that little fact and stop making excuses for gross insubordination.Anna: As for Ron Paul, if he really had a clue what was going on after 30 years in "Congress", he would have proven so long before this. Ditto, ditto, his son Rand. I am sure that they are good men with good intentions, but the same can be said for a great many people who have served this run amok government without ever truly coming to grips with what is wrong with it.Richard: I learned in short order what I was taught by my Jesuit mentor and verified by Ron Paul. "to be successful in international business, commerce and law you must know the rules of the King and Queen and never to cross their BAR".Anna: Ah, well, now we get to the interesting part. Richard was trained by Jesuits. Go figure, just don't figure too long.Anna: The BAR of the British Queen has no natural authority in America, except in the British Territorial United States and in connection with those few delegated "Powers" the Queen is entrusted to exercise for us. This was made very, very explicit in 1819 with the passage of The Titles of Nobility Amendment, which prohibits Bar Members from serving in any public office of our actual government. So when you see Bar Members involved in anything, you know for sure that you are dealing with the Territorial United States Government or the Municipal United States Government, and not with our actual American Government at all. Period.Anna: And, so far as that is concerned, we have the ability to dance over the BAR whenever we wish to do so. They are nothing but shipping clerks and bill collectors for foreign entities, which have been grossly misdirecting their activities on our shores in Breach of Trust and without any justifiable authority.Richard: Therefore, it's simple when you apply the simple rules of Contract Law, Arbitration, Proof of Claims for who promised to deliver, and who didn't receive what was promised. Remedy is decided by the Arbitrator and is binding and final. It's the Law and never had to cross the BAR and or to interface with a member of the BAR. It's the Law! Their Law!Anna: It is also "their" law that a clause imposing Binding Arbitration on Both Parties must be agreed to by both Parties as part of the original contract, and no such clause exists. Richard is, again, talking through his hat. You can comb through all three of the Federal Constitutions as long as you like and never find any such obligation binding the Queen or the Pope, nor, indeed, The United States of America.Anna: What Richard is mistaking as "the" government is in fact a commercial corporation and it is subject to international law and its own published Public Policies. It's Public Policies can change as quickly as its Board of Directors --- that is, the members of "Congress" --- can vote. So if they agree to bind themselves to arbitration as a private corporate matter, they are free to do so and free to publish that as part of their Public Policy. So what?Anna: Whatever restitution their corporation makes is paid out in their own Federal Reserve Note military script, and that script is issued on the victim's own credit. So what Richard is promoting is in fact a scam that -- instead of providing any actual relief or remedy --just digs people deeper into debt and places more dubious claims upon their own assets.Anna: When I say "you can't get there from here" I mean it. The only way that you can get actual relief and remedy is by returning home to the land and soil jurisdiction of your State, acting as one of the People, and enforcing the Constitutions that people like Richard like to talk about ----without actually obeying. If anyone needs any other or better example of this same sanctimonious hypocrisy, just tune in and listen to Nancy Pelosi, now declaring her duty to the Constitution, which she has ignored for the better part of thirty years.Richard: At one time Anna could have join us seeking the same endgame (making people as whole as possible) but we soon believed because there was no money in it for profit, she couldn't debrief herself of what she is being told/taught to say and write, maybe she is too dense, or it could be she is a turned Agent.Anna: As I have already pointed out, nothing that Richard and Phil and their unknown "Flag Officer" Buddies are promoting provides any actual remedy to anyone, much less makes anyone whole. It just digs the debt hole deeper for us all, devalues what "serves as" currency, and further victimizes everyone involved, including those seeking to benefit themselves. This same diabolical reasoning is self-evident in the Jesuit's beloved Hegelian Dialectic, their love of sinning by omission, and the grotesque hypocrisy displayed by some members of their Order.Richard: As the years have passed she has delivered nothing and some that have followed her advice are in jail only to be abandon by her and she just moves on in her self-serving ways promoting another smoking gun.Anna: As the years have progressed, we have continued to make progress: the Pope's and the Queen's iniquities are being exposed on a daily basis on the worldwide stage, and people in foreign countries around the globe are being awakened, just as Americans are waking up, too. All except Richard and Phil and the other Dunderheads calling themselves "Flag Officers".Anna: And again, the Big Lie is told, that people associated with me landed in jail and that I "abandoned" them. On one side of his Jesuit-trained mouth, Richard is trying to threaten people and scare them and with the other side of his mouth he is telling an insidious lie. As everyone, including Paul, has cause to know --- the Colorado Nine didn't take my advice and I split with them because of it. I knew that they were bent on a dangerous and incorrect course that was in fact the result of advice (like Richard's) given to them by a federal insurance agent, Michael R. Hamilton.Anna: The entire history of that debacle is recorded in my blog archive, with the summation being posted as Article 484, back when I was arguing with the Colorado Nine, and especially with Bruce Doucette, and flatly telling them that the court they were addressing was foreign and not to mess with it.Anna: I have since given that same advice to numerous others who have not heeded my advice, either, and who have--predictably-- reaped the same whirlwind. Except for being misled by people like Richard Schaum and Michael R. Hamilton--- and for indoctrination of incorrect information as children--- I have no idea why people don't listen, but they regularly don't, and they regularly get chewed up by these foreign courts as a result.Anna: And as for the "Smoking Gun" being referenced, everyone should know that Richard was a senior accounting consultant for the Department of Administration. When I first "met" him via correspondence, I inquired about the American National Credit we are owed. Up until that point, it had never occurred to him (as a senior accounting consultant to the Department of Administration) that in a debt-credit system, all transactions are zero-sum transactions, so that every debt including the "US" National Debt results in an answering credit.... so if the "US" has this humongous debt, where is our National Credit?Anna: Please bear in mind that when I say "our National Credit" I am not referring to any credit owed to any species of Federal Citizen. I am referring to credit owed to rank-and-file Americans who provided their goods and services in "equitable exchange" (???) for I.O.U.s issued by the Federales.Anna: It is embarrassing (even for me as a Second Party) to observe that someone hired in the capacity of a senior accounting consultant for the DOA had to have these facts revealed to him and that he continues to characterize these obvious facts as a "Smoking Gun". The only thing smoking about it is that this circumstance has been unaccounted for, for generations, by people like Richard, who were supposed to be expert accountants.Anna: One can only suppose that, as Richard gratuitously suggests about me ---the font of his knowledge--- that he is rather dim, or rather dishonest, and definitely ungrateful. Either way, his expertise as an accountant is apparently less than adequate, and his forays into law and history are even worse.Richard: K I S S and follow the law.Anna: There is nothing "simple" about this situation, except the fact that Americans are not Federal Citizens, and have been unconscionably and with malicious self-interest mis-characterized and mis-identified as such, almost from the cradle.Anna: There is also a definite issue of "law" here -- as in which law applies? Federal Code applies to Federal Citizens. Public Law applies to Americans. And therein lies the Great Divide. The sooner everyone comes to terms with what "law" actually applies to them, and which courts actually have any right to speak to them, the better.Anna: The central problem is now and has long been, knowing who you are, knowing what you are owed, knowing what law applies to you, and being able to recognize your own courts and your own government as opposed to the foreign subcontractors that have been making themselves at home and spending our assets and credit at their leisure. The problem is also embodied by people like Richard.Anna: It would not be going too far to say that Richard barely knows his rump from roses about any subject including accounting, but he nonetheless puts himself forward as an expert on everything including law, history, and whose family Coat of Arms stands as the Great Seal of our nation.Anna: The problem isn't that he's ignorant. All of us are ignorant of one thing or another. The problem is that men like Richard cling to their ignorance and encourage others to do the same, to the detriment of all. The problem is that our whole country is impeded and obstructed from making needed progress by men like him, spewing gossip, wheedling, and making "mistakes" that cost innocent people their actual birthrights.Anna: Remember the Biblical story of Jacob and Esau, how Jacob --whose name means "the Liar"--- cheated his brother out of his birthright for a bowl of porridge. The Enemies of Mankind are intent on offering you all the same kind of deal. If you will accept their pieces of paper, drawn against your own assets and credit, as an "equitable exchange" for your gold, silver, land, blood, and bones, then they will gladly accept and encourage your action.Anna: This is precisely the same kind of "deal" that Richard and Phil and the Flag Officers are offering all of you. Admit, by filing for "benefits" from their in-house arbitration, that you are a British Territorial United States Citizen, and you can have all the debt notes you want. Why should they care? It simply puts you deeper in debt and costs them nothing at all but the printing costs. Is it plausible that again, as with the issue of our National Credit, a sleepy old Grandma from Big Lake knows the accounting and Richard, the DOA Accounting Consultant, does not? In other words, how dumb can he be and how often, before we all smell a Big, Fat, Rat?Anna: Finally, the same circumstance ---admitting to being a British Territorial (Commonwealth) United States Citizen by signing up for these purported benefits of arbitration, (but in fact all paid for by you on your assets and your credit) steals your birthright from you by placing your land and other assets in the Queen's hands, subject to Her debts, and Her disposition of your assets.Anna: That's the real theft and injury involved. If you want to access some of your own credit, that's fine and well, your own business. But when you can only do so by giving away the farm, that's another matter entirely.Anna: What Richard and Phil are advocating is in fact a form of crime being exercised against you --- a fraud combined with substantive coercion-- essentially, a bribe (access to your own credit) using something that is already yours by rights (access to your own credit) to compel you to accept the loss of your birthright as an American --- your land, your home, your very name and lawful identity---all sacrificed, because these same crooks are illegally and unlawfully and immorally blocking your access to your own credit, and holding it as a ransom.Anna: It's like Uncle Ernie saying, "Come here, little girl, and I'll give you a piece of candy...." when the "candy" he's intent upon is of an entirely different kind.
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.