By Anna Von Reitz
As my Readers well-know, there is a difference between a "person" and one of the "people" of this country.
The people of this country obtain their nationality from their State of the Union and are called "American State Nationals".
American State Nationals owe no duty to any government whatsoever; instead, the government(s) at all levels owe their duty to them: the people.
As my Readers have also learned, when they act as a State Citizen, they take on a public role and act as "Lawful Persons" -- and as one of the People of their Nation State.
That's the difference between the small "p" --- "people" and the capital "P" of "People", as in "We, the People....."
A Lawful Person is acting as a person--- a Juror, a Sheriff, a Bail Bondsman, a Justice of the Peace, etc.,---- and in the same way, a "natural person" is still acting as a person---- an artificial entity.
Look up the legal definition of "natural person", which is the term used in the legislation being promoted by Phil Hudok and Company.
"individual human being....." "a tribal member....." "peasant.....serf...."
Then look up "human".....
"a creature....." "a monster....." "color of man...."
Also look up the Federal definition of "individual"---- and find that it means "corporation".
So "individual human being" which is the primary given definition of "natural person" doesn't mean that you are, as Phil and his friends assume, being recognized as a man, much less as an "heir of the Creator".
Ironically, this legislation being promoted as a remedy, is recognizing American State Nationals from the grudging perspective of a foreign and largely hostile government subcontractor.
The problem with "human rights" is that you have to admit to being a "hue-man" before you are accorded such rights, and that admission lets them put you in yet another box--- or what I call another "pasture" because they really do treat us like livestock and move us from pen to pen to pen.
Our efforts as State Assemblies and as The United States of America has forced the Papal Administration to admit the requirements of the actual contracts and treaties between our People and the Holy See. That, in turn, has resulted in this legislation as an "offer" of remedy.
As the proponents of this offer like to say, they are claiming back what is "rightfully" theirs, but they are paying the cost of doing so --- which is hardly a remedy.
What they get on the private side, they give up on the public side, and in no case does the guilty Queen or Pope pay a penny.
So how is this bringing any justice, remedy, or settlement to the American people who have been defrauded by both the British Monarchs and the Popes for 150 years?
It doesn't perform as advertised.
And how, once you take this private settlement, that is in fact being paid for by other Americans and out of American resources, are you to keep and enjoy your private estate if your public estate is lost?
That is what these crooks have been attempting to claim from the beginning --- that the Americans "abandoned" their country, and voluntarily gave up their "public estate", leaving it as fair game for the Queen and the Pope to claim and use and abuse as they wished.
Their Breach of Trust they have attempted to misconstrue as our Abandonment.
And if you take the False Remedy that they have offered, then you agree with them, and accept your private estate without reference to your public estate.
The problem with this, in turn, is that no man is an island.
The fate of the "individual human beings" is tied to the fate of the country as a whole. And if we give up our country to the tender mercies of the Pope and the Queen, then we lose control of our destiny, our assets, and everything that our Forefathers fought and died for.
That is why Phil Hudok's answer is, in my considered opinion, wrong.