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 6100 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. What you write in the comments is your opinon only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted.


Friday, March 26, 2021

Non-Judicial Courts: The Two Crimes They Use Most Often

 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".

----------------------------

See this article and over 3000 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.

7 comments:

  1. isn't that just changing places of dependency? or is it just best to not be in their pile over someone else's?

    ReplyDelete
  2. correct me if I'm wrong, however would that not be just going from one to the other? if not their dependent... than yours? that's seemingly going from one group to another and then claiming you're in no group? or is it just best to be out of their group regardless of who's dependant you are?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rick Martin friend of Debbie Hall the maskless crusader,,husband Rob runs the maga church that defied the mask mandate.
    Her frien a common law councilor represented a polish restaurant owner also defined the masks.
    Well unfortunately the county that the court was held was the one Governor Witner and her gay attorney gen was prosecutor and a high t female judge (den of vipers).
    Like the difference in governors some are dictators some like the female South Dakota Governor know they can violate ppl rights.
    And absolutely military tribunal courts using unconstitutional Equality and statutory and code non is law your law is the bill of rights and not enumerated that shall not be denied or disparaged. Article 9.
    As Anna described they hammer purjury and contempt.
    And little trick with name .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reagan secret law or Retirement program 702(j) used to exist in the past, Reagan created it for people for 1.7x extra retirement. Tax free.. . The Conspirators took it away, and confusing ppl saying: a fake retirement plan that doesn't exist anymore. The newly Retirement Tax-free for Corporations is their SITUS-Trust, probably the same 702(j).. You can tell by their changing laws coupling with their enormous Foreclosure Fraud, to acquire Sinful /Thievery Cash to park in their 2X~7X Growth in SITUS Trust, tax-free income.

    Root of The Vermin Great Problems?
    Since 1868 (the Q & P altered American Constitution), then again in 1871..74 (for their Wa DC. creation). Confusingly and Noticeably too many law changed from 1930 to the last few years !! In proper Legal course, and in honest sensible world, only the organic CANON and Constitutional Laws are valid.
    Not Legislations, not Tribunal Tax codes, made up by "the Govt Service Corporations" against their Employers (us).

    This is their latest illegitimate law changes to American older law >> 18 U.S.C 1918. To hurt their employers. Search YouTube to learn more. 😨😢😧😦

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obviously, Anna never viewed the video of the proceeding. RM came before this bitch... yes.... view the video and asked him one question. "Do you have a license to practice law in this state?" {Yes or No). Truthful answer... "No". "Well then, I am having you arrested for contempt of court." RM was allowed one minute for any response. At the 60 second mark, the bitch said take him away.
    Question: how can you commit perjury when you are not under oath ???
    There are times, like this proceeding, "Not being allowed to question anything" that you end up incarcerated.
    I do not know if RM is a legal American or u.S. Citizen. I know he has filed actions in a few courts (their system) in a few states which have been forestalled.
    It would be educational if Anna or the Assemblies could thoroughly discuss the use of Commercial Affidavits filed against these "judges" PERSONALLY, which I am sure would get their attention. There are people which have used this process with great success.
    Hopefully, RM will initiate this action once he is "free". This State of Michigan group of Criminals from the "Governor down to the "Judges" will only alter their attitudes and actions actions when you affect them PERSONALLY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the clarity,
      I watch Kirk Pendergast y tube channel and he has beaten them on the lisence issue a bar card is not a lisence to practice law it’s a club card..
      And other arguments
      That yes or no strategy is a trick question
      One can defend but it clumsy you give both answers yes then say no.

      Delete
  6. A bondsman told me a notary bond if you are a state notary is 35 dollars for 10000 bond. They told me that insures the notary but not me. A notary is like a U.S. Citizen, a creation of a corporation and thus has to be insured. Washington State Capital grounds has 4 big buildings. The Capitol and the Temple of Justice, and one big building saying Insurance, and one other saying Social Insurance. 50 percent insurance. Years ago a treasure worker needed to look in the vault and physically check on the funds for bank deposits. He was shown and it was explained to him that a policy was in place and cashed in as needed from the insurance.

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.
DO NOT COMMENT USING THE HANDLE Anonymous or unknown; YOUR COMMENT WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY.