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 9370 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.

Monday, September 20, 2021

Your House -- a Parable

 By Anna Von Reitz

You have arrived home after many years away. You were kidnapped as a young child and raised in a foreign country. You learned United States History in school, but unless you are 65 or older, you were never taught American History to any extent at all.
Now you have come home to your own land and soil. You have little or no background in your own history. You don't know how your own American Government is supposed to work, yet, here you are.
Most likely, you are upset or have suffered an attack from people who are your employees. You may be disoriented, and it's about 90% certain that you are confused.
But you know that something is desperately and definitely wrong in this country, and you have by accident or by searching, stumbled through the door of your own home at last.
Things are dusty and disheveled. As you look around, there are holes in the floorboards and the roof. It's clear that no maintenance has been done in many years. The windows rattle. An air of loneliness prevails. Yes, there's a lot to be done to make the house weather tight and pleasant again, but it is not beyond repair.
With love and patience and understanding, it can be restored and your house can be just as beautiful and safe and sheltering as it ever was.
Unfortunately, you aren't a carpenter. You don't know how this plumbing works. And forget the electrical system that has to be torn out and redone.
This little analogy tells you where you are and the conditions you are facing as you join your State Assembly.
The house is still standing, and there are others with you who are willing to help rebuild it, but there are only a few carpenters and plumbers and electricians to do it all, so, you either have to learn the needed skills yourself, or be patient and support the rest of the team that is struggling to turn on the lights and water.
Too often, newcomers walk in and expect that everything is going to be ready to go, with a dozen bureaucrats scrambling around ready to serve. The idea that this is your house and that you have to do your own work or hire people to do it, can be difficult for some to grasp.
They are used to being served by the government they are familiar with. They've been told that they are "entitled" to a plethora of services and those services appear to be for free, though they are really not.
For many, it's a shock and disappointment to discover that the American Government has been let go for so long. For many, the first impulse is to try to fix it according to the blueprint of the foreign governments they are familiar with---but this is a profound mistake.
The point of all this is to rebuild your own house, not make a carbon copy of someone else's house.
With all its challenges and all the updates needed, this is still the Government that shelters you. This is the Government that holds the enforcement power of the Constitutions. This is the Government you are owed. It's the Government that makes it possible for you to own land in this country. It's what defines you as an American. It's yours. It doesn't belong to the Queen or the Pope.
So even if it is a bit dowdy and disorganized, a bit dog-eared, a little lop-sided --- the all important difference is that it's your house. You are responsible for it, and you have to repair it, ---- if you are going to enjoy it and live in it. It takes effort. It takes money. It takes learning how to do things you have never had to do before.
This can be daunting.
"Me? I am supposed to organize elections? I have to serve in a State Militia? I might have to arrest people who break the Public Law? I may have to accept jury duty? Or even learn about American Common Law and learn to administer a court? I may have to learn how to record and preserve public records? Me?"
Yes, you. It's your house.
Nobody else, except other Americans, will help.
There are some others who want you to pay rent to them instead of repairing and living in your own house. They will try to interfere and sabotage your efforts, give you bad advice and wrong instructions.
If you let them, they will discourage you and confuse you. They will tell you about all the rules and laws that apply to them, or which they assume apply to them, and they will try to convince you that all these same laws and codes and regulations and obligations apply to you---- when they don't.
If you let them, they will have you paying the mortgage on their house and spending your time worrying about their taxes and you will be up on their roof nailing down their shingles for them, while your own house goes to ruin.
See the problem? Oh, yes, they have a house and a government, but it isn't yours.
They will point out that their house is comfortable enough for them, even if the rent is high, even if they are only tenants, even if they have to live their lives as indentured servants or slaves. They have a government that tells them what to do and how to do it from cradle to grave.
Some people like that kind of government. They like not being responsible for anything. They love to stand around and gripe and play the role of victims. It's always someone else's fault. It's always someone else's decision.
But then, it's also someone else's house. They are renters. Lease-holders. Tenants. They are "residents" just passing through.
Living as an American and embracing the Government you are heir to isn't easy. There's walls to paint and gutters to hang, grass to mow and trees to cut down and more to plant. There's books to read and things you want to get done that you have to pay for, because you aren't an Employee. You're an Employer.

You finally found your way home and stumbled through the door of your own house. Take a look around. See the potential of it. Begin to dream. It's a Fixer Upper--- but it's yours.


See this article and over 3300 others on Anna's website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.


  1. Awesome analogy. This is what persons need to realize so they can become one of "We the People", and step out of the U.S. CITIZEN, Puppet, Slave, Jurisdiction.

    1. "We the People" IS STILL U.S. CITIZENRY, Trent;
      and same is claimed As Property by the ever-changing-named U.S. FOREIGN INCORPORATION.
      to team members:
      i:woman called by janmarie believe i just furnished Trent Garrett with facts; and if same are not facts and true, then i require correction from men/women Acting As Members: right here within 7 days to ensure that all the people are receiving verifiable facts.
      and so it is.

    2. Curious: You made a statement. Now supply the truth, facts and evidence to support it. As I am sure you know, the USC Title 18, section 1101 (a) 21, 22 and 23 recognizes two types of political status depending upon your self-determination of choice duly filed as evidenced by coding of the federal government issued passport. It is also demonstrated by competent men and women properly addressing many courts across the country when faced with bogus traffic violation. This experience tells me that Lawful Americans are not the same as U.S. Citizens. Therefore, U.S. Citizens appear not to be "We the People".

      Again, just curious... what you say... JMW

    3. richard,
      my answer to you somehow landed under bubbas comment, directly below.

  2. They have access to ports ,armory’s.,military bases and a happy neutral meeting ground new Rome no setting upon District of criminals they aquire territories usaly from conquest or purchase as the constitution stipulates. As far as owning homes they can only rent and as such are residents on the other hand they call us non resident alien in regard to the federal territorial government.

  3. hello again richard.
    im really impressed! an actual, thoughtful discussion just might break out here;):)!
    no, i am not a Temple Bar Member, so i do not know their Coded Legal Language they use in their U. S. CODE(S).
    so you, richard, will have to fill me in on all this before i can answer:

    1. Where in the Foreign Commercial Corporate Private Copyrighted Coded Legal Language of the British Temple Bar Society is the "term" "Lawful American" used?

    2. What is their definition of Lawful American? and in which of their many "jurisdictions" does said particular definition apply?

    3. cite a couple of "cases" where that "political status" has been successfully used.


    1. JW:

      USC Title 8 Section 1101 (a) 21, 22, 23

      (21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
      (22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
      (23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

      “It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a Citizen of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.” [Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36] [(1873) emphasis added]

      “We have in our political system a Government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own. ...” [U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542] [(1875) emphasis added]

      “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States.” Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis 443. [McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323] [(1883) underlines added]

      “A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, --- the right to declare who are its citizens.” [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Am. 380] [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

      U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

      “...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...”  “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States”. McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

      "Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens." Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So. 10.
      The Amendment (14th) recognized that "an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several states without being a citizen of the United States," (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, "a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a state." (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875))

      "There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state". Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

      My reference to "Lawful American" refers to a man or woman possessing status (a)21 , standing on the land as a party to the Constitution possessing Unalienable Rights. As Supreme law of the land, you are Lawful.

      The citizen, person, resident (a)22 are legislated, defined terms which domicile you in the District of Columbia as a United States Corporate Citizen. These are legal persons where "rights" are privileges created by man made Congress and legislatures ie statutes, codes and regulations etc.

      The Bouvier Law Dictionary distinguishes between Public Law and Private Law. Public Law for people and private law made by corporations - United States Inc. Private laws are just policies of corporations.

      This is proven by people in the courts by those possessing the status, standing and competency to make this case.

      Cheers.. :))

    2. howdy richard,

      you dint answer my questions.

      instead, you jes dumped a buncha British Fiction Secret CODE on me.

      youre not tryin ta gaslight this lil ole biscuitbakin' hillbilly now are ya richard?
      it wont work.

      i wont allow smoke to be blown up my a...ah,.. askirta either.

      so if you dont want to answer those three questions on here, i will do it.
      wanna try again?


      --- and most def:
      a hale and hearty pipapupup anda cheary "UHOH! its British CODE again", to you too.


  4. Australia published in early c19 travel concerning nationals, residents, permanent residents and several other countries as well. Canada and US seem to only have pubished for U.S. Citizens and Canadian Citizens. Same as subjects according to precedent case. Sorry do not have the case number and there is also a case splainin' that U.S. Citizens are creations of a corporation called United States and same as subjects. 14th amendment "and subject thereto"

  5. .
    What is true ownership of property -house> etc..

    What is a land paten and when was it halted and the BAR create resident ?

    Resident is what ......regis - property of the king?

    Why did they creat the TERM resident - registration, for whos benefit ?

    1. resident just means a thing is somewhere. res. anything else is inference from that, e.g. lack of documentation or other evidence, all other things are inferred if no evidence otherwise.

      my cat is a resident in my house. my cat is inside some state borders.

      my cat has a domicile wherever there home is.

      one can have multiple residences, but IIRC only one domicile. thus, secondary residence, my cat sometimes travels elsewhere.


      residence might be used to infer domicile if not otherwise declared/no other evidence

      residence means NOTHING about citizenship, although again, might be inferred; if you are spotted somewhere e.g. surrounded by federal flags, without any further info., it is natural to assume you are a citizen

      choice of domicile means where you plan to make your home. homeless person can still declare that. an exile, or refugee, can still declare that. noone can argue the choice you make. it is your desired home.

      american jurisprudence you should be able to find a pdf excerpt, talking about some of these things

      although perhaps a twisting of terms, a domicile is where your home is (or where you plan it to be), thus you might have both domicile and residence.

      the key trickery seems to be feds lack domicile in an actual state. thus, they appear to be domiciled in dc, and secondary residence inside one of the states maybe.

      i believe law needs hierarchy, to avoid conflicts, so domicile will always beat secondary residence. the real trick seems to be hiding domicile and not telling people to declare it.

      thus, i dont think there is anything fishy about residence. it is also natural result of more than one country in the world, more than one religion too, more than one type of law, etc.

      the real game seems to be hiding domicile. and then, after you have declared a domicile, can have multiple secondary, tertiary, etc. "residences" where you might occasionally visit.

      some of this came up with IRS stuff, during one of the reforms of code, believe it involved where they can serve papers on people, at their domicile only, or anywhere they might find them residing. i believe the reform was to allow looser any resident i.e. wherever they are found, even if not at "home".

      resident is not bad, its lack of domicile, and fact feds are domiciled in d.c. and not a state, that is the real issue.

      it would seem feds have an implied domicile, because again, even a homeless stateless bankrupt refugee, has some desired home. where they normally reside perhaps. other "residence" is secondary, lesser, temporary visiting places, e.g. for business or whatever other reasons, maybe they own multiple homes, or travel and frequently rent somewhere, etc.

      see also emigrate v immigrate. leaving, entering.

      illegal (formalism, as opposed to unlawful) immigration?

      emigration, they may not have had the right to leave in the first place.

      one has to leave somewhere first, to enter somewhere else.

      so, this is a similar subtle twisting around it looks like.

      proper (re)patriation requires both leaving and entering the new place. if one had no right to leave, even a "legal" "lawful" immigration may not be upheld.

    2. residence means NOTHING about citizenship,
      14th explicitly overrides this "default" and says they do get further "state citizenship" based on where they reside.

      this seemingly has to be explicit, because the "default" is there is no such assumption. or, only an assumption/inference, still proves nothing.

      see american jurisprudence residence v. domicile, search for a pdf excerpt, freedom school or smoewhere might have it.

  6. My, my... "goodE2boots" has the peculiar smack of a sarcastic and antagonistic Troll - with the mentality: "Don't confuse me with the facts; my minds already made-up!" You do well to let 'er go Richard. Good job.

    1. yeh richard!

      dont talk to me!!


      your "?handler?" here, following you around on the internet??, wants you back in your mental cage before you hear something that makes sense and you get away!!

      looollo :):):) nah, just kidding the humorless, fun-killing "stalker"-type who is butting, uninvited, into our fun exchange between internet pals. :)

      i think youre a good man richard and id like to continue and finish our convo.

      lets talk! :)


    2. JMW:

      "Asked and answered"... The court cases discuss to types of citizenship depending upon your terminology of self. I am not suggesting that "Lawful American" is is a term used in the Code. The Code allows at least two political classes, one with allegiance to your born state and one to the US Corporation. The proof is in the court cases and handling yourself in their courts, if you happen to find yourself in that court.

      Don't know what else to say, I deal from life experience not in the theory.... :)

    3. richard,

      naturalborn man cannot contract.

      Only fictions can contract.
      naturalborn man is limited to agreements made in good faith and cannot enter into contract. (spiritual law: the living and the dead cannot mingle. it is an abomonation.).
      their u.s. code is, itself, neither contract nor law, but follows their Constitution which is (posing as) a valid Commercial Contract with the naturalborn American man through fictitious "PERSONS" that they made up but didnt tell us naturalborn man about it.
      since in commerce, contract makes the law (private law between the "parties"): the u. s. CODE is supposed to be following that private law set forth in the Constitution Commercial Contract.

      a Fiction named "We the People" ordained and established that Commercial Contract/ Constitution that underlies U. S. CODE you referenced, so
      "We the People" has to be a fictional character named a U. S. Citizen; and cannot be a naturalborn man/ "status", even one named a "national of the state" rather than a "national of the u.s.".

  7. Great article Anna; perfect analogy. Heart-warming. Sobering. Honest and overdue. We're just late coming "Home" to the land and soil, having been in quite a sense, "lost at sea" (no pun intended :)