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.


Sunday, July 10, 2022

This Has Only Been "News" Since the 1890's

 By Anna Von Reitz

Yes, it's true that if you are an American, you don't need a Driver's License to travel on our public roads.  That's the way it is, and the way it has always been.  The recent flurry of excitement over the U.S. Supreme Court's put down of Administrative "Law" in Virginia v EPA misses the whole point.  

We, Americans, have never needed a license to travel around this country.  Ever.  That was decided over a century ago.  

Since the 1890's and early 1900's, this question has been decided by the Supreme Court and by multiple County, State, and Circuit Courts, always with the same result, which is nicely summed up by Jeffrey Phillips in this compendium of cases proving this point beyond any possible doubt: 

I am reposting his information for your convenience (below) so that you can literally see for yourselves how conclusively the issue of "needing or not needing a driver's license" has been decided. This is by no means the first such compendium of actual court decisions in support of our freedom to travel and to use the public roads for private purposes without licenses.  Americans need no "permits" to go wherever we want to go without obstruction or interference from private law enforcement officers aka "patrolmen" arresting and detaining people over "code infractions" that don't apply to the General Public --- and never did.  

This is the absolute truth of the matter.  The only question is -- are you an American?  A member of the General Public?  And are you using the roads for private, non-commercial purposes?  

Our law is simple.  If you haven't injured anyone else or injured anyone else's property, there is no crime and no issue to be adjudicated and no reason for any Highway Patrolman to stop you. 

The all-too typical situation of Patrolman Busybody stopping you because your left tail light is out and issuing you a $100 fine and "order" to get the tail light fixed, is in fact illegal, if you are Jane Doe on her way to pick her kids up from school, or John Doe on his way home from work. 

They have no authority to stop you, no authority to fine you, and the only plausible and allowable reason for them to interrupt your day at all, would be to politely inform you that your tail light is out --- much as a friend might tell you the same, out of concern for your safety.  That's all.  No "tickets" and no "citations" of Motor Vehicle Code should ever be involved in a traffic stop involving a non-commercial driver. 

Unfortunately, we have all been strong-armed into "registering" our automobiles as "motor vehicles" and as "public property" when they really aren't.  This forced registration extortion is really at the heart of this debate --- not licensing, which has been decided for over a hundred years.  It's the forced registration of private cars and trucks that provides the Highway Patrol with the excuse to "presume" that you are engaged in commercial activities in the first place, even if you aren't and even if that is perfectly obvious.  

In order to pull off their otherwise illegal registration demands, the Perpetrators had to offer remedy to private non-commercial drivers, and that remedy is Regulation Z of the Securities Laws adopted by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.  You and your private car are actually exempt from registration requirements and you can claim that exemption as long as you are an American who is not employed by the Federal Government corporations. In many States including Alaska, you simply need to ask for "Z tags" or "Private Plates".

No, you don't need a license to travel from Point A to Point B for your own private reasons and you never did need a license to travel.  The entire idea behind licensing is rooted in the fact that some people drive as a profession and make their living off of the use of public roads, and some people drive very large and potentially dangerous loads on the public roads -- the origin of Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDLs) -- as a business.  The courts make a distinction between private use --- Grandma going to the grocery store --- and ABC Trucking, Inc. doing a double-decker long haul via semi-trailer truck from Georgia to Nevada.  

And we think that is reasonable.  What's not reasonable is forced registration of our private trucks and cars and obstruction when we claim our Regulation Z remedy.  What's not reasonable is when we have to defend ourselves against Highway Patrolmen threatening us with bodily harm over broken tail lights.  What's not reasonable is when we are being "mistaken" accidentally-on-purpose as foreigners in our own country.  And what's really not reasonable is when our ability to travel freely is being impeded or prevented by rules, codes, regulations, ordinances, mandates, and statutes that don't apply to us, because someone thinks that they have the right to redefine "interstate commerce".  

Read on for a nice fat list of court citations that absolutely and definitively deal with the issue of whether or not we need a driver's license when we travel for private purposes --- and the answer is "No!" just as it has been since the 1890's.  But be aware that the greater fish to be fried is the imposition of forced and largely false registration of private cars as "motor vehicles" and obstruction of our access to our Regulation Z exemptions.  

____________

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

---------

And there you have it, as nice a listing of appropriate court decisions as you could ask for.  Now all you have to do is start educating the politicians and the police and claiming your Regulation Z exemptions, so that the "license plates" serve notice that you are not subject to licensing.  

And, as always, be aware that the British Territorial Persons named after you and the Municipal citizens of the United States named after you as UNITED STATES CITIZENS are all subject to all the codes, rules, regulations and statutes.

You're not, but they are.
So while you are educating the politicians and police, be sure to draw the distinction between you and these "hue-men" persons that have been created using your Good Name and Trademarks without your knowledge or agreement.

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

See this article and over 3700 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.

Who Is a Federal Dependent?

 By Anna Von Reitz

I get lots of questions from retirees especially who are concerned that they might be considered "Federal Dependents" because they receive a check from the Federal Government.  

Simply receiving a check from the Federal Government every month does not make you a Federal Dependent.  

Those who are receiving money from the Government who did not "vest" in the Social Security Program may be considered Federal Dependents, but the vast majority of people who did work and contribute ten years or more to FICA have "vested interests" based on their earnings and contributions.  For them, it isn't "welfare benefits" --- it's earnings dividends, and while they are "benefited" by the program, they are not in receipt of "welfare benefits" from it.  

Social Security was set up as a pension program for Federal Workers, and most of us were not ever strictly speaking eligible to participate in it, nor were we required to.  Like so much else, we were deliberately misled and misinformed by self-interested federal subcontractors.  

The correct information we should have been given as teenagers would have been, "You need a Social Security Number if you are going to work for the government."  Most of us never went to work for the government and had no intention of working for the government, but we enrolled in error, were never informed of the truth, and have been victimized and taxed accordingly.  

Over time, the use and misuse of Social Security Numbers as a means to track and organize and tax and make False Presumptions about the political status of Americans became ubiquitous and universal, to such an extent that it has become difficult for people to live in this country without a Social Security Number.  

In fact, having a Social Security Number or not having one, does not prove anything about your political status.  

This is because a preponderance of people who have Social Security Numbers don't work for the Federal Government, so if anything, the possession of a Social Security Number is more likely evidence that you are employed by the private sector and got suckered into misidentifying and taxing yourself to pay for an undesirable and unaccountable Federal pension program.  

We were all railroaded into paying FICA taxes and enrolled in a foreign government's workers' pension program under color of law.   We and our private sector employers were told that we "had to" when in fact we didn't have to participate in Social Security.   Our Federal Employees lied to us, and because they represented our government (as subcontractors) we believed them.  

These and many other topics are ripe for public discussion, now that our actual American Government is back in Session.  Our Federal Subcontractors have been leading us all a wild chase since the 1930's and have been operating in ways detrimental to our Public Interest, but nonetheless profitable for them.  

Instead of Federal Workers contributing to their own pension program (like the rest of us who contributed to private pension plans) they had hundreds of millions of Americans contributing 7.5% of their gross earnings to their Federal Pension Plan, plus an equal amount was being extracted from the non-Federal Workers Employers --- and all of it was going to benefit them and their "Social Security".  

The vast Federal Pension Funds thus purloined from the General Public were then used as investment capital and siphoned off by the endlessly duplicitous Territorial U.S. Congress and the outright crooked Municipal United States Congress.  

Hundreds of millions of Americans and American Employers have been bilked by "Social Security" ---- and believe me, this issue is one of the Hot Button Issues we have with the Territorial and Municipal Congress Members. They've made such an incredible wreck of things for their Employers that the Principals of their corporations are being called to task for it. 

Fortunately, every dime extracted by the Social Security Program since its inception can be accounted for and our Pensioners stand at the head of the line as the Preferential Creditors.  

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

See this article and over 3700 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.

Granna Beats the Dead Horse Again

 By Anna Von Reitz

The Internal Revenue Code and the Motor Vehicle Code and all other Agency Codes and Administrative "laws" have been very recently struck down --- again ---  in Virginia v. EPA  by the U.S. Supreme Court, with reiteration of support for an almost century-old Tennessee Supreme Court case, Norton v. Shelby County. 

What people are misunderstanding --- and this is a pernicious misunderstanding that is hard to root out --- is that this has always been the actual law in this country.  This is nothing new.  

The way that our rights and prerogatives are being eroded is not by any fundamental change in the law.  It's a fundamental change in your own individual political status that makes you subject or not subject to codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, mandates, and statutes. 

Think of it this way --- if you are a Brit, you are subject to British Law, but if you are an American, you are subject to American Law.  That's a no-brainer, right?  So the question is -- are you a Brit or an American?  Which law applies to you?

In the same way, you could be a Municipal citizen of the United States and be subject to the laws of the Holy Roman Empire. Again, the question to be answered is --- are you a Municipal HRE citizen, or a Brit, or an American?  Which law applies to you? 

They "presume" that you are a Municipal HRE citizen and they drag you into their British Court System and they subject you to their foreign laws, and if you have no proof otherwise, and you fail to object to their presumptions, they get away with it.  

Only the situation is even a bit more insidious than simply "mistaking" your nationality and which law pertains to you.  They actually deprive you of your standing as a man or woman, and reduce you to the level of being a "hue-man". 

As an American standing under American Public Law as a man or woman, you are owed all the protections of the Constitutions, and all these wonderful old stare decisis court decisions like those provided by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Norton v. Shelby County and the County Court findings in First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly --- apply to you.  

But as a British Merchant Mariner, say, a Warrant Officer acting as a "Taxpayer" collecting for the Queen, you have no such rights or protections.  No, you are then merely a British Territorial "Person" and you stand under British Territorial Law, which offers no such protections.  

Even worse, if you are a Municipal citizen of the Holy Roman Empire, you are a slave owned by the Pope, and the law that applies to such "persons" is even more merciless and arbitrary. 

As I recently explained, these "Persons" are considered "Hue-mans" --- and don't have the rights or prerogatives of men and women.  Given that, it makes sense that they don't have the protections of men and women, either, and don't stand under the same laws as men and women.  

So, millions of Americans have been unjustly prosecuted as foreigners in their own country, illegally and immorally subjected to foreign laws by foreign courts that are supposed to be observing their "strictly limited jurisdiction" while in this country--- and which are failing to do so. 

Why? 

Well, the quick and dirty answer is that our own American Government wasn't in Session, and our foreign subcontractors took it upon themselves to "presume" that our people were "stateless" and up for grabs.  

So, they proceeded to latch onto millions of Americans and create phony political status records (Birth Certificates) identifying each one of us (incorrectly) first as British Territorial Persons and then, later, (via secondary BIRTH CERTIFICATES) as Papist Municipal citizens of the United States, all operated as PERSONS--- incorporated franchises of commercial corporations operated under our NAMES, without our knowledge or agreement.   

So long as we didn't record and publish our Good Names and political status as Americans, they were free to "presume" whatever they liked about our political status and were free to prosecute us under whatever foreign law they chose.  

All that free-for-all is coming to a swift end and the courts and politicians responsible are being brought to account for it.  

They assumed a usufructuary relationship with each and every one of us and operated these foreign corporations "in our names" for their own benefit without our knowledge and agreement.  

They latched onto our property assets as collateral benefiting themselves and their corporations.  

They gratuitously misidentified us as the owners and operators of these foreign corporations operated in our Names or NAMES, and charged us for their taxes. 

They dragged these foreign Persons/PERSONS (which were named after us) into their equally foreign courts and prosecuted them under their foreign laws, and they pretended that we were "the same as" these foreign Persons/PERSONS --- and all the while, we didn't have a clue what they were doing or presuming about us.  

It was all done under a veil of secrecy and touted as an issue of "national security" --- but for which "nation"?   Certainly not ours. 

And now comes the Judgment Day, the Day of Reckoning, when we charge them for their abusive Breach of Trust, their infringement on our Good Names and Trademarks, and all the unjust enrichment they secured for themselves via these abuses.  

Our American Government, homegrown and tatty as it is, is in Session. 


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

See this article and over 3700 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.

Fifth Sunday After Pentecost

 Rev. Fr. Leonard Goffine's

The Church's Year

At the Introit implore God's assistance and say, with the priest:

INTROIT Hear, O Lord, my voice with which I have cried to thee: be thou my helper, forsake me not, nor do Thou despise me, O god, my Savior. (Ps. XXVI.) The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

COLLECT O God, who host prepared invisible good things for those that love Thee: pour into our hearts such a sense of Thy love, that we, loving Thee in all, and above all, may obtain Thy promises, which exceed all out desire: Through our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the Unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end, Amen.

EPISTLE (I Peter III. 8-15.) Dearly beloved, Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, being lovers of the brotherhood, merciful, modest, humble: not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing: for unto this you are called; that you may inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile. Let him decline from evil, and do good: let him seek after peace, and, pursue it: because the eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and his ears unto their. prayers: but the countenance of the Lord upon them that do evil, things. And, who is he that can, hurt you, if you: be zealous of good? But if also you suffer any thing for, justice' sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled: but sanctify the Lord Christ, in your hearts.

How can and how should we sanctify the Lord in our hearts?

By practicing those virtues which Peter here recommends, and which he so exactly describes; for thereby we become true disciples of Christ, honor Him and edify others, who by our good example are led to admire Christianity, and to become His followers. Moreover, we thus render ourselves more worthy of God's grace and protection, so that if for justice' sake we are persecuted by, wicked men, we need not fear, because God is for us and will reward us with eternal happiness.

ASPIRATION O good Saviour, Jesus Christ, grant that I may make Thy virtues my own; especially Thy humility, patience, mercy, and love; grant that I may practice them diligently, that I may glorify Thee, sanctify myself, and thus become worthy of Thy protection.

Fifth Sunday After PentecostGOSPEL (Matt. V. 20-24.) At that time, Jesus said to his disciples: Except your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill: and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. If therefore, thou bring thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee, leave there thy offering befog a the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming, thou shaft offer thy gift.

In what did the justice of the Pharisees consist?

In external works of piety, in the avoidance of such gross vices as could not be concealed, and would have brought them to shame and disgrace. But in their hearts these Pharisees cherished evil, corrupt inclinations and desires, pride, envy, avarice, and studied malice and vengeance. Jesus, therefore, called them hypocrites, whitened sepulchers, and St. John calls them a brood of vipers. True Justice consists not only in external works of piety, that is, devotional works, but especially in a pure, sincere, self sacrificing feeling towards God and man; without this all works, however good, are only a shell without a kernel.

How are we to understand that which Christ here says of anger and abusive words?

The meaning of Christ's words are:. You have heard that murder was forbidden to your fathers in the desert, and that the murderer had to be given up to justice: but I say to you, whoever becomes angry with his neighbor, shall be in danger of divine judgment, and he who with abusive words, such as Raca, Villain, gives vent to his anger, using expressions of contempt and insult, as fool, scoundrel, profligate, wretch, is more liable to punishment. These degrees of anger are punished in different ways by God.

Is anger always sinful?

No, anger is sinful only when we wish or actually inflict some evil to the body, property, or honor of our neighbor; when we make use of such insulting and abusive words as injure his character, provoke and irritate him. If we become angry at the vices and crimes of others, when our office or the duties of our station demand that we watch over the conduct of those under our care, to punish and correct them, (as in the case of parents, teachers, and superiors) then anger is no sin. When one through pure love of God, becomes irritated at the sins and vices of his fellowmen, like King David, or if one urged to wrong, repels the tempter with indignation, this is even a holy anger. Thus St. Gregory Says; "It is to be understood that anger created by impatience is a very different thing from anger produced by a zeal for justice. The one is caused by vice, the other by virtue." He, then, who becomes angry for justice' sake, commits no sin, but his conduct is holy and praiseworthy, for even our Lord was angry at those who bought and sold in the temple, (John II. 15.) Paul at the magician Elymas, (Acts XIII. 8.) and Peter at the deceit of Ananias and Saphira. (Acts V. 3.) Anger, then, to be without sin, must proceed from true zeal for God's honor and the salvation of souls, by which we seek to prevent others from sin, and to make them better. Even in this respect, we must be careful to allow our anger no control over our reason, but to use it merely as a means of doing good, for we are often apt to take the sting of anger for holy zeal, when it is really nothing but egotism and ambition.

Why must we first be reconciled with our neighbor before bringing an offering to God, or undertaking any good work?

Because no offering or other good work can be pleasing to God, while we live in enmity, hatred, and strife with our neighbor; for by living thus we act altogether contrary to God's will. This should be remembered by all Christians, who go to confession and holy Communion, without forgiving those who have offended them, and asking pardon of those whom they have injured. These must know that instead of receiving absolution for their sins, they by an invalid confession are guilty of another sin, and eat their own judgment in holy Communion.

How should reconciliation be made with our neighbor?

With promptness, because the apostle says: Let not the sun go down upon your anger. (Eph. IV. 26.) But if the person you have offended is absent, says St. Augustine, and you cannot easily meet him, you are bound to be reconciled to him interiorly, that is, to humble yourself before God, and ask His forgiveness, making the firm resolution to be reconciled to your enemy as soon as possible. If he is accessible, go to him, and ask his forgiveness; if he has offended you, forgive him from your heart. The reconciliation should be sincere, for God sees into the heart; it should also be permanent, for if it is not lasting, it may be questioned if it was ever sincere. On account of this command of Christ to be reconciled to our enemies before bringing sacrifice, it was the custom in ancient times that the faithful gave. the kiss of peace to one another at the sacrifice of Mass, before Communion, as even to this day do the priests and deacons, by which those who are present, are admonished to love one another with holy love, and to be perfectly reconciled with their enemies, before Communion.

ASPIRATION O God, strike me not with the blindness of the Pharisees that, like them, I may seek to please man by my works, and thus be deprived of eternal reward. Banish from my heart all sinful anger, and give me a holy zeal in charity that I may be anxious only for Thy honor and for the salvation of my neighbor. Grant me also that I may offend no one, and willingly forgive those who have offended me, thus practicing true Christian justice, and become agreeable to Thee.

MEANS OF PREVENTING ANGER

The first and most effectual preventive is humility; for as among the proud there are always quarrels and contentions, (Prov. XIII. 10.) so among the humble reign peace, meekness and patience. To be humble, meek, and patient, we must frequently bring before our minds the example of Christ who did not sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, (I Peter II. 22.) yet suffered great contradictions, many persecutions, scoffs and sneers from sinners, without threatening vengeance to any one for all He suffered; He say's to us in truth: Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart. (Matt. XI. Z9.) A very good preventive of anger is to think over in the morning what causes will be likely to draw us into anger at any time during the day, and to arm ourselves against it by a firm resolution to bear all with patience and silence; and when afterwards anything unpleasant occurs, let us think, "What will I effect by my anger? Can I thereby make things better? Will I not even make myself ridiculous and injure my health?" (for experience as well as holy Scripture teaches, that anger shortens life.) (Eccles. XXX. 26.) Finally, the most necessary preventive of anger is fervent prayer to God for the grace of meekness and patience, for although it seems difficult and almost impossible to our nature to be patient, by the grace of God it becomes not only possible, but even easy.

INSTRUCTION ON SACRIFICE
Offer thy gift. (Matt. V. 24.)

In its wider and more universal sense sacrifice comprehends all religious actions by which a rational being; presents himself to God, to be united with Him; and in this sense prayer, praising God, a contrite heart, charity to others, every good work, and observance of God's commandments is a sacrifice. Thus the Holy Scriptures say: Offer up the sacrifice of justice and trust in the Lord. (Fs. IV. 6.) Offer to God the sacrifice of praise. (Ps. XLIX. iq..) Sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit; a contrite and humble heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Ps. 1. 19.) It is a wholesome sacrifice to take heed to the commandments, and to depart from, all iniquity. (Ecclus. XXXV. 2.) "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "every good work which is united in sanctity with God, is a true sacrifice, because it refers to the end of all good, to God, by whom we can be truly happy." As often, then, as you humble yourself in prayer before the majesty of God, when you give yourself up to God, and when you make your will subject to His divine will, you bring a sacrifice to God; as often as you punish your body by continency, and your senses by mortification, you bring a sacrifice to God, because you offer them as instruments of justice; (Rom. VI. 13.) as often as you subdue the evil concupiscence of the flesh, the perverted inclinations of your soul, deny yourself any worldly pleasure for the love of God, you bring a sacrifice to God. Such sacrifices you should daily offer to God; without which all others have no value and do not please God, such as these you can make every moment, when you think, speak, and act all for the love, of God.

Strive then, Christian soul, to offer these pleasing sacrifices to God, the supreme Lord, and as you thus glorify Him, so will He one day reward you with unutterable glory.