By Anna Von Reitz
Month after month I watch all these good people throwing themselves against the proverbial wall, hurtling headlong against it, going "splat!" and getting up and going for it again and again, trying to get satisfaction and protection from the courts, never understanding that those aren't our courts, aren't our judges, and most of all, that we aren't even asking the right questions that would allow them to act in our favor.
It's like trying to drive a nail with a potato. Good luck with that. I can't bear to watch.
Now, granted, it's difficult for most people to imagine, but.... those courts that you are addressing aren't American courts just because they are staffed by Americans. They are, in fact, foreign courts. Moreover, they are practicing foreign specialized forms of law.
Bar attorneys are prohibited from working in our American Common Law Courts, so you can be sure that what I am telling you is true, and those courts that you are familiar with --- aren't our courts at all. Never were.
They are specialty courts of "limited jurisdiction"---- commercial courts and Admiralty Courts preserved by the Municipal United States Government and the British Territorial United States Government, respectively, that are as foreign to us as flamingos.
This is why when people look for me among the Bar Attorneys they come up short and think that I am a "fake" judge---- because they assume that all judges, or to be exact, justices, are Bar Attorneys.
Americans are so ignorant about their own government and history that they don't know that Bar Attorneys aren't allowed to work in American Courts. But that is the fact.
In order for me to work for you, I can't be a Bar Attorney.
Our American courts are largely "missing in action" for lack of people learning to practice their own Public Law and enforce it. So, here I am an American Justice staffing an American Court and that causes confusion for my own people, but there isn't a Bar Attorney anywhere who questions it at all.
No, they know.
And that's why I have been holding my office since 2008 and there have never been any questions or charges of impersonating a judge or anything at all like that. They all just stand aside and back water, because they know what they are doing and they know what I am doing and they know who holds the greater weight.
Now, with all that as a preamble, there are only a couple of questions that need to be asked of all these petty tyrants like Mayor de Blasio and Governor Newsom.
For de Blasio: Where is the proof that the actual State gave New York City, much less NYC, Inc., any land in New York?
There has to be action by the actual State Legislature specifically ceding land to the city and/or municipality, and no such action exists; the actual New York Legislature hasn't met since the 1860's and at that point, New York was still taxing New York City as a foreign entity.
Calling the Mayor's attention to this Fine Flying Factoid puts the lie to his entire claim of authority. He's just a squatter who owes 160 years of back taxes. He has no authority on the soil of New York, regardless of what loyalty he claims from his employees.
So the Public Law of New York (including the Constitutional Guarantees) supersedes all his Municipal Corporation mumbo-jumbo, and he is just SOL with all his mandates and blah-blah-blah.
For Newsom: Where is the actual State approval of your Territorial State-of-State's assumption of contract?
The only relationship that the State of California has with California is vicariously through The Constitution of the United States of America (the Territorial Constitution) as a franchisee of the parent Federal Corporation.
And that contract doesn't allow for the Territorial State of California to say "Boo!" about our health, our land, our soil, or much of anything else within the borders of our State of the Union.
Where's your authority to do or say squat about our Public Health, Newsom? Much less our individual health?
Again, none exists.
He can demand whatever he likes as a condition of employment from his employees and their direct dependents, but he has no power over the General Public.
He may bluster and fluff and point at "The Constitution of the State of California" but that is just an in-house corporate franchise agreement, by which members of the corporation (shareholders) agree to support the State of California franchise. So what?
Don't the shareholders of IBM do the same?
The point is that by far the largest part of the population of California is not obligated to follow the dictates of any Territorial State of State corporation engaged as a subcontractor to provide certain enumerated essential government services --- and no more.
If you would have peace and plenty in America, you must wake up and push these points home like daggers into the heart of these issues of private corporate overreach.
These corporations don't own the land underneath their feet. We do.
Our Forefathers knew the necessity of controlling the government and gave us a system of checks and balances to do that, but in order to operate this venerable system, you must first know who you are and what capacity you operate in, and secondly, you must know who THEY are and the limitations of their roles and offices.