By Anna Von Reitz
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 7400 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. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.
Tuesday, November 16, 2021
"So often-times it happens that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we have the key...."
My employees telling me what to do and how to live? Not.
Forced medical procedures ordered by the "President" of a foreign commercial corporation? Not.
IRS collecting "income taxes" under the Spanish Law of the Inquisition? Not.
"Pope" Francis (or was that Francis Pope?) reserving Heaven for people who accept life as genetically defiled Trans-human slaves? Not.
Lawyers cobbling up new styles of names like StephenJAMES for these GMO Trans-humans? Not.
"President" Biden issuing unconstitutional health mandates and trying to enforce them? Not.
"Queen" Elizabeth II who abdicated her throne three days after she took her Coronation Oath saying anything at all? Not.
( A Public Apology for the past 68 years would have been nice, but oh, well.)
With respect to these issues and these leaders and a whole lot more, just color me "Already Gone" and back home, standing on my own two feet and on my own ground. Care to join me?
By Anna Von Reitz
Discussing "original jurisdiction" with people is difficult, because that phrase can mean different things to different people, depending on their political status.
For Americans who derive their political status from The Declaration of Independence, original jurisdiction is held by the States of the Union and their Federation of States. That's our "original jurisdiction".
For U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States --- all denizens of the District of Columbia, the phrase "original jurisdiction" refers to the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic spelled out in The Constitution for the united States of America (1787). That is their "original jurisdiction".
As a result of this conundrum it's always necessary to ask yourself --- which original jurisdiction are we talking about? Just as it is necessary to ask -- which United States? And, are you talking about a Federation State or a Confederate "State"?
One of the interesting facets of our original jurisdiction as Americans is that we have our own separate court system, and that is where our "one supreme court" ---- a jury of our peers --- is established.
The Federale's original jurisdiction referring to the first "federal jurisdiction" granted to the American Federal Republic in 1787, is a completely different thing. The Federal District Government operates entirely in foreign jurisdiction and their original jurisdiction (one of three) is no different in that respect.
We can reach and invoke our original jurisdiction as Americans easily enough, but, until we finish Reconstruction of both the American Confederation and the Federal Republic, the inhabitants of the District of Columbia are left without access to theirs.
Like everything else that got bungled up and left hanging after the so-called Civil War, the Federal Republic authorized by The Constitution for the united States of America --- that is, the "original jurisdiction" of the District Government --- has been inoperable for 160 years.
Read that --- the American "original jurisdiction" is still alive and well and in operation today, but the "original jurisdiction" of the District of Columbia Government is defunct, waiting for the States of the Union to reconstruct the Confederation and then waiting some more for the Confederation to reconstruct the Federal Republic.
The only lawful short-cut around this time consuming process of reconstruction would be for the Federation of States to reboot and operate the Federal Republic, an action which would restore the "original jurisdiction" of the District Government and help get things back on track.
In this as in all other areas where the same word or phrase is used to describe radically dissimilar things we have to test the context and know whether we are talking about American original jurisdiction, or Federal original jurisdiction.
By Anna Von Reitz
Recently, Dr. David Martin electrified a crowd at the "Red Pill Expo" by observing the difference between "vaccine" and "bioweapon" and the need to use the right words.
Here's another good example--- the difference between "policeman" (or "patrolman") and "peace officer"--- and a demonstration of exactly why the difference is of crucial importance.
A policeman is hired by a corporation; he serves as "private security personnel" for that corporation. He is there to obey the corporation's private by-laws and public policies--- and to enforce those by-laws and policies.
A peace officer, by comparison, is hired by an unincorporated government as an Officer of the Law. He is there to obey and enforce the Public Law. A peace officer owes a duty to serve the Public.
Here's a note I got from Ed J. recently:
"Police are government workers, salaries paid from government coffers — tax dollars and, yes, fines, sanctions, penalties, fees, and surcharges. Most people think that the police have an obligation (“duty”) to protect the citizens in the jurisdictions they serve. Many police forces even have a motto along the lines of “To Protect and Serve.” The unfortunate reality is that the police are under no obligation to protect you. The police do not even have an obligation to respond to your call for help.
The most well-known case on this topic is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981).
In short, four women lived in a boarding house. One lived on the 2nd floor with her 4 year old daughter, and two lived on the third floor.
Two men broke into the house and proceeded to assault and rape the woman on the second floor. The women on the third floor, hearing the screaming and cries from the floor below, called the police and were assured help was on the way, only to watch the police drive by the house, knock on the door and leave when no one answered.
The two women on the third floor then called the police (again) and were assured (again) that help was on the way.
The police never came, but thinking the police might be in the house, the two women called out to the third woman being assaulted. This resulted in the two assailants becoming aware of the other women in the house. The assailants proceeded to kidnap the three adult women at knife point and rape and beat them for the next 14 hours.
The three women sued the District of Columbia based on numerous failures of the police department in this event, but their case was dismissed at the trial court level. The Supreme Court of the United States explained that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
If the police have no duty or obligation to protect citizens, what is their purpose?"
That's Ed J's $100,000.00 question....
....and my answer:
Even though police working for an incorporated County or State-of-State organization are being paid for with tax money, they owe no "necessary duty" to the Public. They are police. They work in a private capacity for a private corporation. It's right there in the definition of "police" if anyone bothered to look.
The fact that these things operating "as" county and state-of-state governments are nothing but commercial corporations like any other commercial corporation is also on public display and fully admitted by Federal Titles 5 and 22.
I also want to draw your attention to the deceitful nature of the court's decision and it's coded meaning --- take a look at it again:
[It is a] “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
Actually, this garbage isn't a fundamental principle of "American" law, it's a fundamental principle of British corporate law.
And the "government and its agents" in this case aren't actually a government at all. They are undeclared foreign agents working for commercial corporations that are posing as "representatives" of our lawful government.
Finally, note the words "individual citizen" ---- the rats don't owe and don't provide protection to their own "citizens", including their own employees, but they are obligated to protect you, if you are an American.
Problem is, they claim that you are one of their citizens, and not an American. And you have never done anything to rebut this presumption.
So they just gratuitously do nothing much to protect anyone other than themselves, and misuse the police as undeclared revenue agents instead of protecting the Public Interest.
By now, you should have been scratching your head and wondering, hey, when did any commercial corporation have the power to tax me? And the answer is never.
Commercial corporations have no power to tax anyone, but they can act under color of law and pretend that they have the powers of government, if you let them.
A good many people reading this will have their jaws agape, trying to take it in, but this is nothing new. This is the way that the Rotters have been operating ever since the Civil War, it's simply gotten more blatant.
Now that you have gotten a clear picture of the difference between "police" and "peace officers" you are also better prepared to understand the Supreme Court's findings in Mack and Prinz v. USA, Inc., in which the court ruled that Sheriffs may use their own "discretion" as to whether or not they enforce the Constitution and provide constitutional guarantees.
Because virtually all the Sheriffs now working in the United States are working for incorporated "Counties" and not for the unincorporated government, they are police agents, not peace officers by definition.
So, as in the Warren v. District of Columbia case discussed above, the Supreme Court affirmed that the "Sheriffs" operating as policemen owe no general duty to the public, and don't need to enforce the Public Law.
So now you have a bird's eye view of why the police are so corrupt and why the streets are unsafe and why your Constitutional Guarantees languish without enforcement: lack of real peace officers.
We are beginning to address this problem along with many others, but in order for us to be effective and protected while we grapple with issues like these, it's necessary to reclaim and assert your birthright political status as an American.
Declaring and recording your choice of political status puts an end to any plausible deniability or excuse for treating you as a corporate "citizen".
That's Job One.
After that, it's time to join with other like-minded Americans in your State Assembly, get organized, and elect actual Sheriffs and Deputies to peacekeeping offices.
Many of you were shocked today that the Appeals Courts overturned "President" Biden's Vaccine Mandates as unconstitutional and unenforceable.
You were also surprised when he came out in public and said that businesses should obey his mandates even though they are unconstitutional.
All that "President" Biden is president of is a foreign commercial corporation, so he has no general duty to the Public and no authority, either.
He's just a political hack acting in a private capacity, like the police, with no more authority than the "President" of Exxon. He believes that obeying or not obeying the Constitution is "discretionary" on his part, in exactly the same way.
This is when all the members of the Armed Forces should remember their Oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all Enemies both foreign and domestic --- because, with respect to them and their District Government, Joe Biden has flagged himself as a domestic threat.
He may owe no general duty to the Constitution, and he may ignore it at his own discretion, but the rest of us have a Public Duty to enforce the Constitution and its Guarantees.
while pimping more booster shots for the gullible
So clear, such perspective. Plus DIY maintenance and recovery for the jabbed and injured.
For more from Dr. Judy Mikovits: