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 8400 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." 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 opinion 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. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.

Sunday, August 8, 2021

The World is Learning the Truth About Who We Are.



  1. my latest finds:

    who we are:

    june 7, 1777 richard henry lee, virginia:
    resolution, to second continental congress, proposing independence for the Colonies;
    under authority of the Virginia Convention, called "lee's resolution", in lees own handwriting:
    contained 3 parts:
    1. a declaration of independence
    2. a call to form foreign alliances
    3. a plan for confederation.

    source: national archives.
    and others

    1. cond: part two

      ***TYPO Alert!! ***
      that is june 7, 1776!!! not 1777.

      four days later: june 11, 1776, three committees were appointed,:
      1. declar of indep
      2. treaties /alliances
      3. confederation /league of friendship
      were drafted.

      1. declaration:
      (had to get approval from all colonies, so) the vote was deferred until July 2, 1776.
      12 Colonies passed it and it was approved; except new york who rightfully waited until after their new york convention on july 9, 1776, when it was passed by the people!!! all 13 approved: the UNANIMOUS Declaration came into existence.
      July *2*, 1776.
      not july 4 (7+4= ∆11∆), 1776.
      we celebrate on july 2 :).

      2. the plan for making Treaties was approved September, 1776;

      3. the plan of Confederation was approved November 15, 177*7* by all except Maryland;
      but ALL including maryland had RATIFIED the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union on March 1, 1781; and the Congress of the Confederation began.

      this is our "de jure" American government.
      its still standing.
      its perpetual....
      they did that on purpose, no doubt!

      if someone doesnt like it, thats okay.
      we like it. were peaceful and lawful, and no one should be trying to force us to have a different system if we want this one.


      part three, final, follows:

  2. cond, part three, final for now:

    john dickinson, delegate from delaware was the principal writer of Articles of Confed.:

    i found what sounded to me like possible contradictory-sounding information, so am checking into those seeming- discrepancies but the one thing that wasnt "iffy" is that they decided that the states retained all powers not delegated to the Confederation. and, conversely, that all powers not expressly delegated to the Confederation were retained by the states [/the people]. (Articles 9 and 10 in the Bill of Rights stipulate the same type of thing).

  3. dont forget everybody!:

    dont forget: there are irreconcilable differences between
    1. the *American* common law law system created by our free and independent ancestors: established under the Declar. of Independence, that was established under the laws of nature and natures creator and
    2. the *British/English* common law law system that was set up under authority of their Magna Charta that was established by the men who had been TITLED *as* "Barons" by their own "King" to rule LOCALLY over the Kings white slavery system, that is: over what they call the "serfs" /commoners/ subjects: in exchange for a portion of all that the white slaves/serfs produced.
    this is VERY much like what the BAR members have been doing in conjunction with the Queen, Pope, and European-based Banking "families", isnt it?... all of whom were and still are it seems under authority of the Church of England, that was/is under authority of the Vatican, Inc./ Pope ultimately ("black pope/ council of nine/ ??? other?").

    the point is, as "anna" has even disclosed, there are many different kinds of common law... it all depends on where youre at...if youre in Brazil, there is Brazilian common law and so forth.

    Christopher James is in Canada, so Christopher is a British subject! under BRITISH COMMON LAW!

    we are not.

    we have to learn our own system.
    not that Christophers info isnt helpful because it is, but here is (to me) the biggest thing that ive never heard Christopher talk about:

    i cant confirm with references:
    but it seems that the British "ruling-class" decided to "blend" British common law in to/with the other British jurisdictions/ authorities so that it is no longer superior to other authorities.
    i hope someone has, with references, about that such as when that was done,... it seems like it was done fairly recently... or maybe its disinformation???

    also, Americans do not have or recognize "Magis" in our American common law courts. Magi--strates.

    we ALWAYS have to establish WHAT/WHOSE common law is being used before taking steps forward.

    1. another point is:

      a "what if" scenario, that may help to substantiate whether the BRITISH COMMON LAW law system has or may have been made inferior to or blended into their man- made jurisdictions:

      "anna" has disclosed that DOCK-tors are all Navy/Marine/ other Officers of the Crown/ Queen:

      so, say:
      • DOCK-tor Crown Agent Officer Mik
      • is bringing a claim
      • using Canadian/ British common law
      • to the Public Courthouse venue
      • for damage caused (to whom?-- to DOCK-tor Mik herself? was she harmed? or is she hypothetically bringing this British common law claim for, on be-HALF of, RE-presenting, everybody in the world who has been harmed?)
      • by her Colleague, and Fellow Crown Agent Officer DOCK-tor F-ouch?

      her common law claim would be limited to only being for damage done to her by her Commercial/ Admiralty/ Maritime/ Colleague F-ouch Officer because, no man can bring a claim for any other man. and a Fiction (Officer) cannot bring a common law claim, -- they have to stay in Fiction: Law, Equity, Admiralty, so on. only a man can bring a common law claim, and only for himself.

      so Officer Crown Agent Colleague DOCK-tor Mik could only bring a claim to the Public (one "side" of the coin: Public/Private = Commerce) Courthouse for her own self, not for any other man(kind). in *American* common law!
      but if shes bringing it in British common law and if British common law has been sub-sumed by Law (Merchant: Commerce, other) and Equity (Kings Bench, Exchequer, other)

      ************then DOCK-tor Mik could hypothetically BRING any claim she wants using British common law in as the law of the court, but if her British common law authority is not recognized or not recognized to be superior to Law, Equity, Admiralty, other jurisdictions, then whoever is running the court could easily simply silently switch jurisdictions (like they do now?) and although the claim was FILED in British common law jurisdiction, they could very well end up "adjudicating" the claim in Admiralty (where both DOCK-tors are recognized and have standing) without that switch ever being disclosed to the people. ****************
      like they do now?

      hypothetically- speaking anyway.

    2. imo, christopher is furnishing alot of good information though.

      my intent is to delineate the differences between our American common law and British common law.
      AND also to hypothesize concerning the potential pitfalls or continued trickery implemented by silently changing things we, mankind, are ALLOWED and encouraged to perceive as having already been established and operating: for the premeditated purpose of deceiving us and stealing our God-given property.

  4. why did judy mikovich take the case to eight? different courts?
    didnt she know she is a British Officer bringing an Admiralty case against another British Officer who both took the same oath of Allegiance?

    was that succession of cases brought as a "stalling" tactic? i mean, why so damm many?

    oh and now, after years, shes now discovering a different jurisdiction thats been around for centuries?

    why now?

    because things didnt work out?

    im just asking questions that come to mind if you dont automatically believe that everything were hearing is necessarily the truth, thats all.

  5. Scott makay (a participant in Robert David Steeles caravan across the country this summer) said something like "well, were ALL ruled by the British Crown..."
    and then he and Christopher are talking like the Canadian people and the American people are all one, and are all in the same predicament.

    *NO* WERE **NOT**!!!

    Id agree with Scott that the Canadian people are perhaps ruled by the British Crown: they are subjects of the Queen, arent they?
    if so, the British Crown might actually be their "de jure" government!
    but whatever ruling the British Crown might have done in the States of America is by force/"de facto", and is not by right/ "de jure".

    the big difference between Americans and Canadians is we didnt choose to make ourselves subjects of the British Crown, but the Canadian people did.

    we said NO!

    in addition to that, our ancestors offered our system of self-government to the Canadian people over and over again for years and the Canadian people FREELY AND WILLINGLY *CHOSE* TO PLACE THEMSELVES UNDER THE RULE OF OTHER MEN, THE BRITISH CROWN, EVEN WHEN OUR ANCESTORS SHOWED THEM A WAY OUT AND OFFERED PROTECTION!!

    HUGE difference there!
    So, no....i love the Canadians and their breathtakingly beautiful country, but NO! Christopher; NO! Scott; the fact is that the Canadian people chose to remain the subjects of other men -- under the white feudal slavery system -- and under Magna Charta, and engaged in men having Title over other men (white slavery),... and so be it! each man can chose for himself!
    but Americans did NOT chose that,... we chose to be free of that kind of bondages.
    so, now to suggest that we are all in the same predicament is inaccurate and Americans need to stepup now and correct those inaccuracies and errors/ trespasses, so that all of this can be peacefully and lawfully settled in accord with the actual facts.

    since the Canadian people chose to be under authority of the British Crown, especially when there was a viable way for them to separate themselves from it and they definitely chose not to, then being under the British Crowns command/ rule now, is not necessarily illegal or unlawful, perhaps, ... depends on THEIR Magna Charta and their will to enforce it.

    pertaining to Americans, however, its an entirely different matter;
    such that, in short:
    we intentionally and at great loss of life and property, lawfully dissolved the political bands that connected us with the British Crown,/other, so that any Acts upon us *as if* we were Crown Subjects is "de facto" and is trespass/ false claims and more for which we are actually and lawfully OWED AND DUE FULL AND IMMEDIATE PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL RESTORATION.