By Anna Von Reitz
For the last several days I have been getting stupid comments from wannabe patriots who are, as usual, completely misunderstanding the Law and The Constitution, both in function and in jurisdiction----but who are nonetheless trying to use both as a means to tear down the valid efforts of their more informed countrymen to restore the Public and Organic Law of this country and enforce the provisions of The Constitution we are owed and rebuild the American Common Law Court System which we owe ourselves.
American Common Law modeled on British Common Law flourished in this country from the time the first pilgrims stumbled ashore to the 1960's. Some of us are old enough to remember its fading glory, before it was swept under the rug by corporate interlopers abusing maritime and administrative courts to pillage the American People.
Central to the issue is simply this---- are you a "citizen" meaning a British Subject here to provide our states with governmental services per Article IV of the Constitution, or are you a "national" meaning one of the free, sovereign, and independent people of the United States?
In other words, do you choose to function as a "person"---- a corporate entity---- or as one of the "people"---a living and breathing being?
Depending on your answer, you are bound by The Constitution or protected by it.
You either exist to serve the government, or the government exists to serve you.
It is one or the other---- government slaves or free people, and you get to choose, so long as you have knowledge enough to make the choice and live accordingly.
A group of "Don't Know Who We Are, But We Think We Are Going Somewhere" patriots have the mistaken idea that we are all "citizens" and that we are parties to The Constitution and that we are bound to the limitations and prohibitions of The Constitution.
If we are acting as British Subjects we are indeed bound by The Constitution while living on American soil, but if we are American Nationals, we are not parties to The Constitution and not defined, limited, or bound by it.
The Constitution is not the source of any of our rights and material interests. It exists to create and define and limit the activities of the "Federal Government" and that includes Federal employees and dependents, African Americans, and political asylum seekers.
It's only function with regard to the People of this country is to protect them and their National Trust, which includes the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and the right to Common Law provided for in Amendment VII, and the exemptions established by Article IV.
Period.
So here comes Mr Goodman and Hartford Van Dyke, both good enough men and well-intentioned, but fundamentally ignorant of some very important and basic information.
They want to object to the restoration of the American Common Law Court System and they want to object to the induction and instruction of Federal Continental Marshals, because they say that this is not part of The Constitution. Why would it be?
The power to appoint Federal Continental (Land Jurisdiction) Marshals falls under Article X of The Constitution---- rights reserved in international jurisdiction to the states and the people of the states.
And by states, we mean the actual geographic states.
Likewise, the right of the people to assemble their own Jural Assemblies, and elect their own sheriffs, judges, and other court officers, to create and enforce the organic and public law of this country is not covered by The Constitution. It far pre-dates The Constitution and functions totally outside and without regard to The Constitution, which applies only to the Federal Government and Federal Citizens.
People who think that The Constitution is the "be all and end all" are missing by far the greater portion of the Public Law and don't have a clue as to the proper functioning of our government. In fact, they mistake themselves as British Subject "Citizens" of one stripe or another, and attempt to curtail the activities and abrogate the rights of others according to their own ignorant and limited vision.
The recent attacks against Judge Bruce Doucette are emblematic of this idiocy.
The free people of Colorado have the guaranteed right to elect him as their judge and all the British Subjects functioning as "US Citizens" and living under the limitations of The Constitution don't have the right to say "Boo!" about it.
Picture it as two groups --- one Irish, living under Irish law, and one Spanish, living under Spanish law--- in the same community.
What happens when the Spanish mistake an Irishman for one of theirs? Does he become subject to Spanish law? Of course, not.
And the same thing happens when a British Subject Citizen who lives as a "person" under the prohibitions of The Constitution mistakes Judge Bruce Doucette, one of the people of Colorado, as one of theirs and attempts to complain about him as if he was their judge.
The plain and simple fact is that Bruce is one of the people, not a "person" and he has been elected to serve as a Judge by others living in Colorado, who have also elected to live as people, not persons.
He is in a completely separate jurisdiction and is owed complete immunity from attacks, presumptions, or demands based on any "Constitution" whatsoever.
I will say it again:
British Subjects called "citizens" and "residents" who are here to provide governmental services per Article IV are bound by The Constitution, which creates, defines and limits their activities on American soil.
American State Nationals are instead protected by The Constitution and are not bound by it. We recognize and enforce the limits of The Constitution, but to us, it is simply an agreement our states made a long time ago to receive certain stipulated governmental services and which set the rules and parameters within which those services are provided. We are not even parties to The Constitution. Our states are.
So long as we elect to function as people instead of persons, we are not bound by any "Separation of Powers" or other limit established by The Constitution.
We are not obligated to live as subjects of any government. We are not citizens of any kind or stripe. We can locally elect among ourselves anyone we like to serve as our Justices and Judges, our sheriffs and our clerks and bailiffs and so on and nobody who wishes to continue to live as a British Subject under The Constitution has any right or reason to object or say one word to us about it.
It's our business. Not yours.
Judge Bruce Doucette isn't your judge and isn't pretending to be. He is the freely elected Judge of the people of Colorado---not the "persons" of Colorado---- and if you are still ranting about The Constitution and calling yourself a "citizen", you aren't one of the people----you are operating as a British Subject, a foreigner, with no right to complain and no right to object and no right to interfere in the operations of the American Government.
In fact, you would do jolly well-enough to pay attention to the mammoth mis-administration and criminality of your own government---- the Federal Government and its "State of State" franchises--- which are on the verge of collapse and international indictment as a result of their numerous crimes against the American people they are bound to serve and the many other nations which have suffered from their unique combination of guile and self-interest.
And so much for the "interpretations" of Mr. Goodman and Hartford Van Dyke and the 90 British Subjects bringing their complaints against the American Judge Bruce Doucette.
---------------------------------------
See this article and over 300 others on Anna's website here:www.annavonreitz.com
No comments:
Post a Comment