By Anna Von Reitz
Many people have contacted me with the news that Rick Martin, from The Constitutional Law Group, has been arrested for "contempt of court charges".
Well, what does that mean and what is the nature of the court making the charge?
Contempt of Court generally means disobeying a court order when that court has jurisdiction and authority to issue the order in question, or somehow obstructing the orderly administration of justice --- such as causing a riot in a courtroom.
Perjury is the other crime that these non-judicial courts use as a mainstay in support of their business, and it is almost impossible for you to enter one of their courts and not perjure yourself.
The very first thing that they ask is for you to state your name for the record, but as we all know now, they have already stolen your name via secretive registration processes, so that your name no longer belongs to you ---- it has been copyrighted by the British Crown.
You stand up and say, "I'm John Roy Adams." and ---Bam! You lied on the court record and the Judge is free to treat you as a liar using a nom de guerre guilty of copyright infringement; so far as he or she is concerned, you have perjured yourself in the first five seconds of the proceedings, and the Judge takes "silent Notice" of this.
These sorts of tricks and unspoken wiles and games are the best practical reason to severely limit your interactions with all non-judicial courts and the officers of such courts.
When they call out, "John R Adams" ---- you rise and say, "I'm known as John. I don't know what the "R" stands for in this case and the surname ownership is in dispute."
This is an honest answer and evades perjury.
There are many ways to evade perjuring yourself by claiming a name they already pretend to own --- but you have to know that this is a fundamental issue before you can dance around it and give them the bad end of the stick.
Most judges upon hearing any honest answer, including, "I'm John Roy Adams, according to my parents." ---will find a means to take a break, and change up the venue, or roll their eyes and prepare for worse to come.
From our perspective, they are criminals acting under color of law, presenting themselves as if they were judicial courts, when in fact they are non-judicial corporate tribunals, engaged in fraud and racketeering every single time they address an American "as if" that American was a federal employee or federal dependent.
But we have to be polite, because they are foreigners, and with respect to their own employees and dependents, they do have a system of foreign law to administer.
This puts us in the irritating-as-Hell position of treating these pikers with velvet gloves and raising our pinkies and calling them "My Honor" --- never "Your Honor"--- and using mild-sounding questions to nail them to their own cross.
Any honest frontal engagement "threatens" them. Just think of the whining politically correct little obnoxious cowardly dishonest panty-waists claiming that your gun rights "frighten" them, and that your plain English "offends" them, too.
You can't do what Rick Martin did, and attack their proceedings in their own court.
That's called a "transgression" and they will happily throw the entire Code at you if you cross into their lane or interfere with their dispensing of "justice" to one of their employees or dependents.
This is why it is always best to be cloyingly nice and limit yourself to asking questions-- and only questions-- in the most friendly tone of voice.
The actual question: is the alleged Defendant a federal employee or dependent? Or, a federal corporation? Or anyone voluntarily and knowingly adopting Federal citizenship? --- never gets asked.
They don't want you asking that multi-part question, ever. And we are free to ask questions, so long as they are phrased as questions.
I can simper with the best of them in court, because that is what you need to do in their courts. Simper. That is their tradition. It's what they expect and need in order to function. The least little upset to their delicate systems gives them dyspepsia.
And when they have dyspepsia or a sinking spell of any kind that they can attribute to rough language or threatening demeanor or lack of decorum, they accuse you of contempt of court and have their private security personnel haul you away to a jail cell.
You are now in the "possession" of a private foreign corporation, and like the pirates of old, they can claim to own you and dispose of you as they wish --- as long as no lawful government claims you and pays your insurance.
This is why absolutely everyone in the world and especially every American needs to know --and have evidence of-- who they are and where they were born, and to have recorded their name and identity and political status, and to know the number of their Indemnity Bond, before they ever enter one of these non-judicial courts.
The Indemnity Bond Series AMR10001 to AMR100001 lodged with the United States Treasury in the name(s) of the Fiduciary for The United States of America, Anna Maria Riezinger, is the Indemnity Bond for every American claiming their birthright political status.
Your Indemnity Bond is at this point: AMR10001, and that is additionally backed up by the "individual trust account" assets that are owed to you as an American, and which should be accessible for your use to pay your bills and care for your families---but which have been used to create giant Slush Funds instead.
Many people have a hard time understanding "indemnity" which accrues to unincorporated entities, versus "insurance" which accrues to incorporated entities. And they also have a startling hole in their education when it comes to the key issue of "legal dependency".
Here is a quick and dirty legal definition of "dependent" and "legal dependent" from the "free dictionary" online service:
"A dependent is someone who is sustained by another person, such as a child supported by his or her parents. ... In an insurance policy, the term legal dependent generally includes all of those people whom the insured person is under a legal duty to support, such as a spouse and minor children."
Our erstwhile Federal Subcontractors, which have been operated as private, for-profit commercial corporations, have claimed to be our Trustees -- thereby making us their dependents. They have also claimed that we are their legal dependents and that they are under a legal duty to support us as a result of exercising our delegated powers "for" us.
Read that: they insure their operations as commercial corporations and thereby secondarily insure us, so they have claimed that we are their legal dependents, even though they work for us and charge us for their insurance costs.
And they've been getting away with this outrageous claim of "legal dependency" because we were not "otherwise insured" ---- which for us means "indemnified" with an indemnity bond lodged with a bank somewhere.
The United States Treasury is our bank, so we lodged and allocated the AMR10001-AMR100001 Bond and Bond Series as an Indemnification Bond for all fifty States of the Union to put an end to the idea that we are legal dependents of these corporations in our employ.
All of this again underlines the critical importance of knowing who you are, having evidence of who you are and your political status recorded, and being competent to conduct your affairs----such as setting aside an indemnity bond for the benefit of your security, or in this case, the security of all the States of the Union.
Your country and your Federation of States is back on the board. And so are you. Go to: www.TheAmericanStatesAssembly.net.
Your State is indemnified and all the people deriving their political status from each State are also indemnified, and so you cannot be considered legal dependents of any foreign commercial corporation in the business of providing you with "essential governmental services".