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.


Monday, April 25, 2022

Your Sheriff or My Sheriff?

 By Anna Von Reitz

There are two kinds of cops --- public peacekeepers and private law enforcement officers-- that is, private security personnel hired by corporations to protect their business interests. 

We call the first class of elected public officers peacekeepers. Their purpose is to keep the peace and protect the people and property of a community.   County Sheriffs are the most common public peacekeeping officers in this country, and their paid or volunteer assistants are known as Deputies. 

Unfortunately, as many County Governments  were quietly converted into commercial corporation franchises in the 1960's, the public offices of our honorable County Sheriffs were unlawfully converted into private corporate offices instead. 

Their offices went from being American public peacekeeping offices to being private law enforcement positions obligated to serve foreign corporations---not the American Public. 
The Sheriffs themselves went from being considered "Law Men" to being "Human Resources" and none of this was explained to any of them.  

This change from Marion County to Marion County, Incorporated, was virtually invisible and in most places, it went unnoticed, but it meant that the County Sheriffs went from being the highest ranking Officers of the Law in each County to being the lowest men on the totem pole in a private Law Enforcement hierarchy that was intent on enforcing  Statutes, Codes, Rules, and Regulations instead of the Public Law. 

This sudden sleight-of-hand conversion and the complete shift of duties and concerns away from the best interests of the public to the best interests of the corporations employing these newly redefined "Sheriffs" caused no end of consternation.  

The sudden and self-evident disrespect of Constitutional Guarantees drew attention and led to the landmark Supreme Court case Mack and Prinz v. USA, Inc. --- with USA, Inc., being the foreign parent corporation of the Plaintiff's redefined "County, Incorporated".

The upshot of Mack and Prinz v. USA, Inc. was that as the employer could not dictate away the Public Duty each man owed to his country and community, it would be left to the Sheriff's personal discretion whether or not to uphold the Constitutional Guarantees owed to the people in his community. Likewise it would be left to his discretion whether or not he would, for example, defend them from murderers or thieves. 

That was no longer his job as "Sheriff" according to the corporation employing him, no matter what the people on the street -- the ones actually paying for his services -- assumed.  Instead, his job was to make money for the corporation and protect the corporation's interests at the expense of the people actually paying his salary and benefits. 

You can well imagine the cognitive dissonance that this caused, both for the men who continued to call themselves "Sheriffs" though they had in fact been unlawfully converted into "Constables" and for the people in their communities, who could no longer count on "their" Sheriff being friendly, respectful, or willing to protect them. 

The United States Attorney General's Office shed some light on this confusion in a series of decisions published as  57 Opinions of the Attorney General 614 (1972), and 60 Opinions of the Attorney General 647, 652-653 (1975), in which it was clearly stated that "Under the common law the duty to attend the justices and magistrates courts lay with the constable rather than with the sheriff." 

In other words, all these "District Courts" whether Municipal Districts (Magistrate Courts) or Territorial Districts (State of State franchise courts) are supposed to receive their security and enforcement from a Constable.   

A Constable?  We don't have Constables in this country, or do we?  

Our Sheriff's Offices were unlawfully converted into foreign Constable offices when the County Governments incorporated themselves, but nobody told us and nobody told them.  So we have British Constables roaming our streets, but they are calling themselves "Sheriffs" just the same. 

This deceit keeps the American People in the dark, confused about why their expectations related to their Sheriffs are no longer being met by foreign corporation Constables masquerading as Sheriffs. 

Just recently I was treated to another tear in the web of deceit surrounding the nature of these foreign "Sheriffs" when one of them brutally attacked and evicted one of our people without cause or warning. This armed "Sheriff" came with no less than seven "Sheriff's Detectives" to man-handle a single elderly woman and her cat. 

Since when have we ever had "Sheriff's Detectives"?  No such office exists in our government, but.... there are Pinkerton Detectives.  Remember? The railroads and coal mines hired these British thugs to bust the Unions.  Nothing has changed. 

These corporate Pukes calling themselves "Sheriffs" aren't our Sheriffs.  They have no Public Office. By rights, they should be arrested for impersonating a Sheriff, but the rest of us have to get off the couch and accept our Public Duty to do that, and have enough people standing with us in the Public Interest to make it stick.  

Every time I think about these foreign corporate marauders swaggering around our streets with guns on their hips pretending to be our Law Officers, our Sheriffs, our Deputies that we pay to defend us and our property ---- I turn ten shades of red, and no, I am not blushing. 
I'm angry to the bone. 

I am angry with the politicians who allowed such a situation to ever develop.  

I am angry with the bovine stupidity and complacency of the people who have made careers as "Sheriffs" without caring that they are committing crimes. 

Most of these phony "Sheriffs" wouldn't know their Public Duty if it bit them in the buttocks, and even if it did, they wouldn't care. 

When these thugs who have no Public Office related to our country broke down my friend's door and started trashing her home, she told them to cease and desist.  She explained why they had no business trespassing on her land.  She told them that they were committing crimes.  

They laughed.  They thought it was a big joke.  Oh, ha-ha, we're going to throw this old woman out on the street and make a lot of money for the bank.  La-dee-dah.  We've got attorneys to protect us.  We're the gubmint.... 

No, they aren't.  They are for-hire commercial mercenaries without any American Public Office of any kind, and those attorneys they depend on are just more lawless hypocrites. 

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

See this article and over 3600 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

47 comments:

  1. Anna, I hope to read a followup article soon that tells the story of these thugs losing their bonds, being unemployed and being prosecuted to the full extent of OUR law. As an elected peace official, this really burns my biscuits and I take it personally. My job is to protect people, not victimize them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I tried of hearing the problem. What is the solution ? What can everyday people do to reverse this? If it were me i'd terminate the bailment of the birth right to bailed to these thugs and demand return of your inheritance by physically presenting at the local court house to start an inheritance claim on your ancestors will. Nothing will change if good men to nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i think maybe "bailment" indicates that you would be making an inheritance claim in Admiralty, but i would be surprised if Admiralty had anything at all to do with "inheritances". maybe it does though, you know how they interweave thier FICTIONS.

      the idea of the "termination" of the "bailment" of the "birthright" does sound interesting though, in its principle.

      Delete
  3. What is getti g an inheritance do. If people arent will to stand together for what is right without a dangled carrot. Then they arent going to after they get the carrot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Replies
    1. I second the thought of sheriff Mack hes a Constitutional Sheriff. Im sure he has some ideas on how to address this situation. We need to do something about these policy enforcers..Imtired of being misidentified. What im doing is writing a warning notice to my county sheriff to stop the racial profiling and educate them self and the ones under him regarding the diffrence of nationals and citizens. if it dosent stop the next letter nill bring suit against them.

      Delete
    2. Wayne can you send that to me danacarini@gmail.com . started a talk with sheriff and wiould like to be informed on how to move forward. New York needs education , in numbers and with force!

      Delete
  5. Just heard on the Dana Loesch(?) (e.g. Lash) radio show:

    hereby Paraphrased: Rhode Island State of State legislature introducing bill, whereby he who is not vaccinated has to pay 2x the established property tax rate.

    And to paraphrase Martin Short's humor in the Three Amigos "sew sew like the wind . . ." or

    "paper! paper! over their presumptive piracies, paper like the wind . . ."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Please explain this. You write "...many County Governments were quietly converted into commercial corporation franchises in the 1960's..." where many means 4 or more, and there being over 3,000 counties in the usa, the number of fake sherriffs could be a very small percentage. Thank you for this inside information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI - the "State of (State) Connecticut," et al, by dejure/defacto? "depopulated" the counties IN connecticut, and applied the "Counties OF Connecticut" merely as boundries. There is nobody but a few that I may know of who are IN a county In connecticut. And there is seemingly no adminstrative type legality/LAW in the COUNTIES OF CONNECTICUT (yet subject to anyone's broader clarification or knowledge.)
      I am limited.

      Delete
    2. interested,

      youre trying to spin a storyline that quells your fear?...
      ...afraid people are listening to and grabbing ahold of their right to use our American common law? (...they are!) it looks to me like: rather than being a DIS-traction, people are AT-tracted to what i am saying about their rights being man... is that scaring you?

      i said im not at war...you must be referring to yourself being at war. you dont have authority to tell another man or woman what their intent is unless you think youre a slave owner.

      woman:janmarie

      Delete
    3. no dear child, you are simply short on both history and wisdom:

      Leon Trotsky once said: "You may not be interested war, but war is interested in you."

      Yes, and I implore you to step aside from it, along with the rest of us.

      be well woman:janmarie, may you florish and prosper.

      Delete
    4. i couldnt care less what the Marxist Trotsky said, i am not a Follower of Marxists or of Marxist philosophy.

      no, im not at war and am sending your words of war back to you, tripled... you cover yourself with the war you speak of, its doesnt belong to me.
      your "imploring" is neither impressing me nor intimidating me; and keep your wellwishes too, theyre not necessary.
      iow, nothing you have, are, or say is accepted by me.

      Delete
    5. Ok, should I join you? What is your anthem? Which way are we going, what are we gonna do? should we scrap this freebie forum? And set out on our own? Help guide me. How do you and shelby now operate as team. How long is your bench? are you man(wo) or mouse?

      Delete
    6. "mouthy" (darn spellcheck)

      Delete
    7. shelby and i are not team.
      _________
      what my posts are about is men and women using our rightful: "de jure" authority, American common law, to make claims in law and peace for what has been taken from us without our intent.

      if you think there is anything piratey or mousey or wrong with that then just continue making your shitty remarks about me and i will continue making shitty remarks back to you if i have time to mess with it and feel like it.

      Delete
    8. yes, it seems those who Follow Marx and his Marxist philosophy do count free men and women to be "mouthy".

      Delete
    9. It is evident - you are rhetorically wrong, and you warrant/invite, upon yourself, your tone scale level, in reply, as ad hominem
      "humor" or ridicule.

      Rhetorically, your are seemingly shadow boxing, seemingly flailing about within a paradoxical metaphorical wet paper bag. I hope you soon break free, and find your team/kin/colleagues/compatriots/ta dah ta dah ta daha . . .

      Delete
    10. Game over, thanks for playing, women:janmarie.

      I, as I suggest for you also, now return to annavonrietz to learn, and concern my life with process and plans toward state assembly with man and woman of soil and land.

      be graced woman:janmarie
      and find mirth and joy in prayer.

      Delete
    11. interested,

      oh, i see,... you dont want to "play" anymore.
      well, im not surprised.
      what im finding to be true almost 100% of the time is that when people are throwing insults at you, if you start throwing insults back at them, they decide it isnt fun any more and want to quit.

      Delete
    12. Sure! lets play again! As you've been tested (and as per your presumptive claim - as if no "game" set match meets again - what sport!) Let's meet on a tennis court!. Drop me a line sometime.

      Although, better this - In the interim share with me your progress with your county/state assembly?

      Delete
    13. interested ,

      no.

      no "Gotcha" moment for you, although your type would pretend like there is one EVEN AFTER i say i dont accept anything from you... WHY? ...BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR??

      i:woman
      • commented being woman
      • allow no one to speak for me
      • dont recognize peoples presumptions
      • didnt make a claim
      • didnt make an invitation.
      • wasnt "playing" any "game":
      in fact, i:woman made simple observation about your aberrant-type behavior; and YOU, somehow believing you have man-made Authority to begin Acting on i :woman using some Inferior and man-made "Jurisdiction": "assign" intent to what i:"other man" says, trying, it seems, to hide your own failure to be able to keep up with what you started by:
      • CONJURING UP from your own desperation an invitation from me that doesnt exist and tried to make an "ATTACHMENT" of it onto me!
      • YOU DESPERATLY CONJURED UP A PRESUMPTION that you made up yourself and tried to "ATTACH" to me!
      • and conjured up a claim i did not make
      • and so on and so forth
      AND ARE THEN A LIAR FOR ALL THAT [AND MORE?]:
      all, it seems, to try to hide behind because it is very, very clear that
      what **i:woman** was doing was merely pointing out the fact that you, like the rest of your type are cowards and mentally weak and "can dish it out", but go scampering off when someone hands your dish of shit back to you.

      YOU failed and are a failure as a man as far as im concerned.

      Delete
    14. imo, the above exchange may show the "method-ology" of how BAR ATTORN-ERS-types try to "Slip Us The Green Weenie". :)
      that is:
      start "ATTACHING" what THEY make up, onto YOU!

      woman: janmarie.

      Delete
    15. that is, just for an example:
      (there are MORE, i just dont want to waste my time pointing them ALL out!!):
      4.25, 3:52 i say i dont accept anything from interested.
      4:14 interested starts trying to make "ATTACH"-ments:
      join me.
      whats my national song
      wants to know which way "we" are going and 3 more Qs
      then asks for help. asks about my connections to others;
      refers to me as a "judge"?: "how long is your "bench""... (all man are judges and we dont have to have any "bench".
      wants to know if i am an animal

      Delete
    16. next, interested says i *WARRANT*!! ridicule.
      i suspect: is someone connected with the BAR perhaps? :):)

      interested has already quoted Marx 4/25/2022 2:31pm to me... *interested* saying to me:
      "you may not be *interested* in WAR, but war is *interested* in YOU".
      well, what a co-inkydink.

      bubba is showing that the Amer8can Bar Association is

      Delete
    17. i believe:
      bubba is already showing that the American BAR Association is, what? SOCIALIST or something?
      ON onesearch there are articles that say:
      the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and National Lawyers Guild have something or other to do with
      being "Socialists". idk...its all over the internet though-- seems very easy to find right now, but im busy with the law im under authority of: American common law.

      Delete
    18. so then 4/27 4:21:
      look how excited *interested* gets!!! does he think he "set the 'hook'?" :):):)
      GOTCHA!?!?!:):):) --- no. no gotchas.
      there is no intent or agreement between i:woman:janmarie and *interested* of any kind at all,
      and i:woman say i refuse any and all kinds of connects with or attachment to this man/other who is commenting as interested:):):)....
      iow there is no agreement from me to accept anything from him and in fact, i:woman return everything back to him, back where they came from being: unaccepted.
      and also i:woman:janmarie stay in my naturalborn state be-ing woman.
      AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN HAVE RIGHT TO USE AMERICAN COMMON LAW THAT I TALK ABOUT: THAT IS SUPERIOR TO "LEGAL ADMIRALTY, AND ECCLESIASTICAL AND ALL OTHER MAN-MADE 'JURISDICTIONS'.

      woman:janmarie

      Delete
    19. so anyway, just summarizing and finishing up what i:woman believe is true using this particular example for now concerning American common law under authority of our DeclarofIndep July2[two], 1776:
      1. no man speaks for another man unless the man being spoken *for* intends it.
      2. agree-ment is required to be in place BEFORE the speaking is done.
      3. MAN CAN BREAK ANY AGREE-MENT IF IT HARMS HIM; OR EVEN IF HE JUST DOESNT WANT IT ANYMORE; and the agree-ment breaker may be required to restore the other man if breaking the agree-ment has caused the agree-ment- breaker no harm: he just wanted to break it.

      its pretty simple.
      woman:janmarie

      Delete
    20. Thank you for telling me that.

      Delete
    21. interested,

      i:woman didnt "tell" you anything;
      i:woman's intent is: i:woman *say* "no" to you.

      Delete
    22. added on to my previous example:

      all American men and women:
      YOUR Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union: in effect since its ratification from the people: is what applies to our States concerning BOTH:
      TRADE AND COMMERCE!!!!

      YOU GUYS, THIS IS MAJORLY HUUUUUGE!!:):):):):)
      DO YOU GET WHAT I JUST SAID? :):):):):)
      OUR ARTICLES
      RATIFIED BY US people
      APPLY TO ***BOTH*** :
      Trade
      AND Commerce --
      at MINIMUM: Between our States!!!!!

      i mean this is huge huge huge huge!
      if any one wants to thtow the FIRIEGN CORPSES "CONSTITUION" in there

      Delete
    23. that is:
      if anyone wants to throw the FOREIGN CORPS.ES "CONSTITUTION"(S)/ other into our Trade and Commerce business/es, i believe we, in law and peace, have "superior standing."
      and, it *seems* even THEIR OWN FOREIGN-TO-AMERICANS' ARTICLE 6 CONST. acknowledges same: but whether it acknowledges it or it doesnt does not matter in law, because, our peoples' American common law authority: under authority of the laws of nature and natures creator/God is superior to ANY man-made Construct/ Policies, Boards, Committees, Chairs, Thrones, Crowns, Constitutions, Religions/other: that are all man-made and are therefore subject to the peace-ful and law-ful men and women who are naturalborn upon this land.
      and it is so.

      woman:janmarie.

      Delete
    24. in our American common law (and alot of others, i believe):
      you are man
      you:man are over ALL that is man-made.
      if you didnt make it yourself, you are over it anyway, as concerning anything that affects you. maybe more.
      nothing made by man is over another man.
      nothing.

      and you do not agree unless you intend to agree.
      and no other man can agree for you.
      YOU are the only one who can make agree-ments for YOU.

      YOU are the only one who says what you mean.
      no man interprets what you say for you, because no one else knows --
      and they dont get to apply their definitions that they make up onto your words; you apply your own definitions to the words you speak.

      i believe child/children is/are PRESUMED TO BE a Commerce word(s.)
      sons and daughters are creator- created with man and woman; and be-long in their fathers home/ "house"; and have certain specific right/s to what be-longs to their father(s) and mother(s) (/"grand", great-grand, so on.)

      there are no PRESUMPTIONS that another man/other can make that bind you for GaaawdsSake!!! :):):):):)
      what a bunch of PATHETIC SCROUNGES if men are doing that to other men.
      these azzfekkeescare EVIL if theyve been doing that kind of "PRESUMING" upon other man!!
      they are required to restore.

      i:woman do intend, say, and do send ALL mans' evil and lies/other, if any, back upon them to do its intended harm upon its own creator/s.
      and it is so.

      woman:janmarie.

      Delete
    25. also, i believe man is not just in authority over the land but also over the sea and air.
      -- its all necessary for us to live-- and so they are ALL our creators gifts fore-given to us to use and enjoy.

      imo, for someone to claim that dead entities Rule the sea andor air is absolutely ridiculous!!
      whats dead is dead and does not rule ANYTHING AT ALL!!! Even itself! ITS *DEAD*!

      imo, thats all nothing but myths, fables and more tall tales and nothing about it is true and nothing about it is accepted by i:woman.
      i:woman say the land and the air and the water l.a.w. are all under authority of our creators law and are gifted to us to use and enjoy.
      and it is so.

      woman:janmarie.

      Delete
  7. Hahaha... forwarded this one to the local Sheriff to see what he had to say about the claims. Most Counties in TEXAS are NOT incorporated, its the TOWNS that incorporate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm Curious Bellerian1, did you get a written response or a knock/kick at the door?

      Delete
  8. Actually never considered that all sheriffs weren’t incorporated.
    They tried to force all local governments to adhere to 1940 state plan .
    All offices according to fed was to agree in all matters (collusion).
    And Anna pointed out by 1970 a full court press to get everyone to incorporate.
    However the system of color of law and using warehouse orders .

    ReplyDelete
  9. mack and-cheese v:usa

    ReplyDelete
  10. Offering the common law actually our only law on this land permitted.
    Declaration of Independence
    Your have brought Admiralty and vice Admiralty beyond it’s ancient limits .
    In other words bringing ships up rivers and holding court .
    That’s military style common law that’s UCMJ tailored after after code of Harabi.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Judge Dale page 97 great America adventure:these corporate laws and regulations are called statutes and their affect and controld over human beings is deceptively obtained by consent through civil contracts “.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Foot note in NIV Bible, in book of Revelation - "in ancient times people believed statutes talked to the."

      Definition of Merriam Webster Dictionary - "torries or "tory" some tribe in the realm of the Britian or Ireland (?) who pillaged the land and people, or some such?

      Interested surmises - Statue Tory, statutory - How to steal from people using "statues."

      Delete
    2. . . . I believe a "statue" may be talking/commanding to us several comments above?

      Delete
    3. bubba,
      that still leaves the *man* out of the picture though because (a) *man* cant enter into contract. only a dead entity can contract.
      so all "civil contracts" or so-called "social contracts" cannot be with (the) man...only with the CITIZEN / FICTIONAL ENTITY.
      AND man can never be forced to be in OR remain in an agreement that causes him harm. EVER!!!
      plus, he can leave just because he wants to leave, but will probably be required to pay for harm, if any, caused to the other man for breaking the agreement..
      boots

      Delete
    4. man/woman will do almost any foolish endeavor. So might monkeys.

      imagine a limited circumstance. e.g. two "monkeys" alone on a "deserted" food barren island - two monkeys need each one and other in order to acess a sole banna tree eternally fruited. monkey1 wants to contract, monkey2 wants merely to "agree" now both with heavy clubs in hand stand off in challenge. which monkey perishes by starvation?

      Delete

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.