By Anna Von Reitz This past two weeks has been hectic here and none too happy for everyone all round, simply because of the chaos and uncertainty. It's a bit like being on a ship and feeling the storm swells beginning to rock everything --- gently, but persistently, and with increasing force, we are seeing the effects of disastrous "Public Policy" on the economy and health and morale of the people worldwide. It's not just in this country or in yours, though the source of the malaise did probably start in Europe during the Thirty Years War. Two very important things happened in the 1750's that continue to rock our world today: (1) Maritime contracts, except for four specialized forms of contracts, became subject matter for the Common Law Courts in England, and (2) Central Banks, designed to control the flow of commodities, were created in Germany. Let's deal with the first big innovation, the admixture of land and sea contracts in the Common Law Courts. Lord Mansfield, a Scottish Admiralty Lawyer, came to power over the courts in England, and as part of his administration, Maritime (Commercial) contract law, was moved into the Common Law Courts. Depending on how you look at this, this "purified the Admiralty" which was incredibly corrupt, or, it polluted the English Common Law Court System by tasking it to oversee the Law of the Sea as well as the Law of the Land and was bound to lead to various corruptions and confusions. Suddenly, Land and Soil Courts dealing with people acting as Lawful Persons and sorting through lawful Business Contracts, were also stuck trying to deal with Legal Fiction Persons and sorting through Maritime (Commercial) contracts. Interestingly (and to show the problem Lord Mansfield was attempting to deal with) this shift of former Admiralty concerns and "powers" out of the Admiralty Courts and into the Common Law Courts, was not entirely complete --- the Admiralty Court continued to exist and four things remained under its exclusive control: (1) Seaman's wages and their recoupment. (2) Hypothecation of debt. (3) Naval and Maritime Salvage claims. (4) Bottomry bonds. These four things "just happen to be" the four things that have been used to horn in on our peaceful land-lubbers world with such disastrous impact. Are you Brits quite sure that your Lords of the Admiralty haven't been secretly at war with everything and everyone on Earth--- including you? First, we have the "seaman's wages" which at first glance would not appear to be important on land ---- until you consider that, as we found out from an 1801 Seaman's Manual, "Taxpayers" are Warrant Officers in the British Merchant Marine Service. All "taxpayers", who contrary to most people's assumptions are actually "tax collectors", are "seamen" and their wages are covered by the Admiralty's jurisdiction. What, you say, nobody ever paid you for acting as a "Taxpayer"! --- well, you did the job as a volunteer for the good of Queen and Country, you good old sod. Otherwise the Queen would have to pay you for your services. However, as you will see, your "wages" --- or rather, the wages of your incorporated doppelgangers, are mistakenly involved. If you are a "Taxpayer" you are British-affiliated, you are acting in the Maritime jurisdiction (Commerce), and your wages are subject matter for the Admiralty Courts, which makes you subject to them. That's how they've hooked everyone into not only paying "income taxes", but entering their jurisdiction and acting under their complete control for the privilege of doing so. But let's consider --- do you or anyone or anything associated with you --- make "income" from commercial activities? Probably not, if you are honest. Your incorporated dopplegangers, Legal Fiction Persons that have been named after you and run for the benefit of the British Crown Corporation, probably did make a bob or two, and God forbid that the Queen or the Lord Mayor of the Inner City be asked to pay taxes on their profits each year. No, that's where you come in and pay their income taxes, as a franchise of the British Crown Corporation. Anything that operates in commerce (business between two incorporated businesses) owes the Pope money for the privilege --- "income taxes". When the Big Corporations looked at this, they said, well, that will cut into our profits! Can't have that! So, they created "corporate franchises" for themselves-- all named after you, so that you could pay "your fair share" of the taxes they in fact owe to the Pope for making use of his business models. But here we have to make an important distinction --- aside from your volunteer occupation as a "Taxpayer" --- you may "benefit" from things that take place in commerce, but you are not a "beneficiary" unless you actually get shareholder dividends or other fat checks, like debentures, in the mail. So technically, the average Liam isn't in receipt of any "income" and should not be paying any income taxes, and if there is any blame for taxing the Legal Fiction Person named after you unfairly, it's your own fault and you can be prosecuted for mishandling a seaman's wages. Someone stayed up all night thinking this bunk up. Hypothecation of debt is another knock you up the side of the head. Hypothecation --- literally the legal supposition of "theoretical" debt is one of those subjects that has remained in the baileywick of the Admiralty Courts and it is as twisted as a corkscrew, too. How can anyone owe or be owed a "theoretical" debt? This is a means of getting around the Law of Contracts, and "presuming" a contract to exist even when no such verbal or written agreement exists. This got its start quite legitimately in the realm of salvage operations at sea. Say that you are a fisherman out plying your trade one day and you come across an abandoned ship adrift ---- so you "latch" onto it and tow it back to your own home port to salvage it. You've lost a whole day of fishing, plus all the work to haul it to port, your crew's time and labor, your boat's time and labor, your time and labor ---- so a debt has been created for whoever's boat has been saved, but there is no verbal or written contract supporting this debt. It certainly exists as a loss ---or as an investment -- on your part, but it has no verbal or written agreement supporting it. It has to be "hypothecated" from the circumstance. It doesn't take long to derive how "hypothecation" of debt can be abused, especially on land, where such theoretical debt-spinning tends to be far less cut-and-dried in its nature. At sea, the imperative is clear: someone has to take care of the boat, or it will sink. On land, not so much. On land, you might just be a busy-body, interjecting your services into a situation where such service is neither wanted nor needed, and that is, indeed, what has happened. Click the clock back to 1865. It's the end of the "American Civil War". Everything is in chaos. The "State of State" organizations that are supposed to take care of routine business while the State Assemblies aren't in Session are all either ruinated in the South, or bankrupt in the North. What's a British Territorial Commercial Corporation in the business of providing essential government services to do? In Scotland a group of investors hurriedly threw together a new corporation doing business as "The United States of America, Incorporated". This just happens to be the name of our unincorporated Federation of States, so they were deliberately infringing on our common law name, copyrights, and trademarks----counterfeiting our Good Name --- and using this deceit, substituting their commercial corporation for our unincorporated Federation of sovereign States of the Union. Call that a national-level identity theft and substitution scheme, a fraud of unimaginable proportions. They got away with it at the time. And they settled in to provide all the services that the American States-of-States had been providing prior to the war, on an "emergency basis". Someone had to "latch" on to the purported "ship of state" and haul it home to salvage it.... and that allowed them to "hypothecate" debt against the ship's owners under Admiralty Law. However, what they latched onto wasn't the "Ship of State" --- it was a completely different entity, a non-commercial corporation operating as the "States of America", and otherwise known as the Federal Republic. Our Federation of States was in fact the "ship's" owner, and we didn't need any assistance to haul it into dry dock and reconstruct it. We didn't need help to provide the services that our own States-of-States had been providing prior to the conflict. We weren't broke-- far from it, and we had the manpower and resources to do our own "salvage" work ---- if anyone in Washington, DC, had bothered to inform the people of this nation what was going on.... But mum was the word. The Scottish Interloper slid into position like any Cuckoo Bird, set up new "States of States" --- the State of Vermont instead of The State of Vermont, for example--- forced some very confused people to write new State of State Constitutions to create a contract for themselves, and settled in to act in this unauthorized "custodial" role and, of course, to hypothecate debt against us, the purported "ship's" owners. Did any contract to do this exist prior to 1865? No. Was any contract ever established between the new British Territorial States-of-States organizations and the Federation of States? No. Was any of this necessary? No. This was not a legitimate salvage operation on the sea or the land. This was deliberate, deceitful, opportunistic, self-interested malfeasance of the busy-body kind on the part of our British Territorial Subcontractors, amounting to unnecessary interference into the business operations and the asset management of the actual owners who were and are competent to: (a) reconstruct our own States-of-States and our own Federal Republic, if we so choose; and (b) to operate those functions directly ourselves during any interim. The Scottish Interloper doing business as "The United States of America, Inc." ---pretending to represent our Federation of States ran up incredible debts which were hypothecated against us, the "ship's" owners. The guilty corporation then went bankrupt at our expense and left us as the "presumed" Secondaries to pay their debts. Soon after, the Federal Reserve showed up and offered the corporate cretins in Washington, DC, the opportunity to allow them to caretake our gold and silver "for" us. And other foreign corporations were slid into place to act in this presumed-to-exist custodial capacity "for" us. Soon, they were all hypothecating debts against us for services that George Washington never dreamed of. And they were poking their noses ever deeper into our business and into our personal lives under color of law. Using their Admiralty Courts to decide every aspect of the Seaman's wages they exerted coercive force on the lives of millions of Americans who are not knowingly acting as seaman and aren't obligated to act as "Taxpayers", either. Using their Admiralty Courts to decide every aspect of the Hypothecation of Debt against the "ship's owners" they found in their own favor 96% of the time, and made sure to charge exorbitant rates for their "services" to do so. And this con game was so successful that they applied the same scheme to every country they occupied in the wake of every mercenary conflict they've caused ever since. They also found very imaginative ways to make use of their control of "bottomry bonds" as insurance to benefit themselves, too. And now it comes down to this --- we have discovered and exposed the Source of all the rot: the Lords of the Admiralty and their misapplication ---by deceit and by misrepresentation--- of Admiralty Law to people and to things that have nothing to do with the Admiralty and any of its legitimate concerns at all. The question remains --- what are we, the people of the land and soil -- going to do about it? It looks to me like Boris Johnson engineered his own departure in hopes of escaping the wrath of God and it looks like Vincent Keaveny disappeared -- went to ground -- where he is apparently trying to weather it out. Queen Bess II is unwilling to appear at her own Jubilee Party --- and probably for good reason. And still, none of these royals, politicians, and bureaucrats are addressing the actual problem --- the misapplication of Admiralty Law under circumstances and in situations where it does not belong. Forcing people to act as "Taxpayers" and dunn themselves to pay the taxes of corporations they don't actually "benefit" from and the performance of the Lords of the Admiralty who have condoned, promoted, and profited from this outrageous con game both at home and abroad-- these are issues that must be dealt with. ---------------------------- 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.
0 Comments
By Anna Von Reitz If you are going to live on this planet and have the peace and joy and plenty that is your birthright, you have to develop your Shinola Sensor. Have to. You have to become both skeptical and circumspect, or you will be cheated and fleeced and beaten like an abused dog. And the people that you trust and employ to protect you will be the ones beating you. All right? This is your Grandma telling you the truth and I have no reason to lie. There are families and institutions on this planet that have herded all the other people around like cattle for centuries. They do this by telling Big, Fat Lies. And they farm us just like animals, too. They plot out your life cycle and "monetize" and "securitize" every asset you have for their benefit, just like a rancher maximizes the value of a steer. They even refer to us as "livestock" at their cocktail parties as they lounge around their ill-gotten swimming pools. These People Farmers are called "Slavers", too --- and its both illegal and unlawful for them to do what they are doing to people, so they decided to misrepresent you as Persons/PERSONS, instead. It's "legal" to enslave Persons/PERSONS --- not men and not women --- so they created corporations named after you and prosecute these counterfeit "Legal Persons" as if they had something to do with you----when they don't. The Judges and Prosecutors in these courts never "technically" address you as a man or woman or even as a Lawful Person. They address "Legal Persons" named after you. Look at this, kids --- this is how they control and seize upon you and your assets --- by pretending that you are a franchise corporation and prosecuting these phony baloney corporations. State of Texas, Inc. Internal Revenue Service, Inc. Bank of Fort Worth, Inc. LaVinia Marie Snodgrass, Inc. Joseph Louis Parker, Inc. Get it? Your Proper Name has been "mirrored" as the name of a British Territorial Corporation technically designated to be a "U.S. Federal Public Person". Now look at this: STATE OF TEXAS, INC. IRS, INC. BFW, INC. LAVINIA M SNODGRASS, INC. JOSEPH L PARKER, INC. You've been mirrored twice. First, they created this phony baloney U.S. Federal Public "Person". Second, they created all these Municipal PERSONS named after "him". So now you also have a bunch of Municipal CORPORATIONS named after you. And all these "courts" are constantly, consistently, misaddressing these Things/THINGS as if they were you or had anything to do with you, when they don't. It's con. It's lies, smoke, and mirrors. And they are 100% personally and commercially liable for this. So how do they continue to get away with this? Your ignorance and trust in what you have mistakenly believed was "your" government. They have "legalized" their patently illegal and unlawful activities by offering remedies and guarantees that they hide from you and deny you. The British Territorial Officers owe you their good faith service and remedy at 18 USC 241 and 242. The Municipal CORPORATION OFFICERS owe you remedy under various iterations published as "Regulation Z" attached to legislation like the FEDERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT of 1956 (Regulation Z) is the remedy for being forced to register your car as a Motor Vehicle. Regulation Z is the remedy for being forced to pay for a mortgage owed by a defunct federal corporation franchise. And they all owe you the guarantees of the Constitutions, both Territorial and Municipal, because their Congresses have covered their butts and placed special language in the Enabling Clause of every Act of Congress since 1860 clearly stating that whatever their Act does, it does not change any right or interest established prior to it. Got that? Your rights and your Great-Grandfather's rights are all "grandfathered in" and can't be changed by any Act of any current Congress. Have you got this information fully, completely, once-and-for-all-time in your mind and firmly fixed? Until you wake up and turn your Shinola Sensor on "High", you are a cow. And what happens to cows? They get milked. And then they get turned into shoe leather. And their bones get turned into fertilizer. If you want to be treated as a man or a woman, and not a cow, you are going to have to use your brains --- not my brain, your brains --- stand up on your two feet, and back these white color criminals into their respective boxes. Not just you alone, but all of us together, can get the job done and it won't take long. Once the American people wake up, nothing will stop us. ---------------------------- 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. By Anna Von Reitz I just wrote a brief Article for you on Federal licenses which typically involve health care professions (Uniformed Officers as defined under Federal Code Titles 11 and 37) and some kinds of real estate, securities and insurance licenses--- also shedding some light on what counts as "Federal Income" and how "licensed professionals" can structure their businesses to pay less Federal Income Tax or even no Federal Income Tax. If you get funds from Federal Workers, you get Federal Income. If you get funds from making use of a Federal License, you get Federal Income. But what State-of-State Licenses? Bonding? Permits? Remember that in this country at the current time, all "States of States" are business franchises of foreign Federal Corporations, so these "State Licenses" issued to contractors, bankers, securities brokers, and some kinds of healthcare professionals, real estate vendors, insurance vendors, and others --- are not really State Licenses. They are being called "licenses" but in effect they are permits to do business with Federal Citizens, including Federal Corporations, and those permit/licenses guarantee a certain level of professional competence and/or agreement to adhere to certain published standards, and like bonding, are designed to provide a basis for consumer protection and damage claims if work is substandard. These provisions are not there for the benefit of the General Public. Those provisions and "requirements" are there for the benefit of Territorial and Municipal Corporations, their officers, employees, and dependents--- and that's all that they apply to, too. In other words, if you aren't applying for a Federal or State of State franchise contract you don't need to have any permits, licenses, or bonding. The situation is exactly analogous to the earlier discussion about Federal Licenses, because in fact, the State of State licenses are just another form of "Federal Franchise License", and they all work the same way. If you are doing a job for an incorporated business, especially under contract, they will require you to be licensed and bonded and get all the permits to do the job. But, do you do business with a lot of Federal or State of State Corporations, or do you do business with unincorporated Mom and Pop businesses and other men and women? A great many licensed and bonded contractors and people in the trades --- plumbers, carpenters, millwrights, machinists, etc., etc., etc., --- have fallen into the same trap of assumptions that doctors and nurses and dentists have accepted, and so, they believe that they "have to have" a license and they "have to have bonding" and so on, which isn't necessarily true. It depends on who or what your clientele is, and what you are willing to put up with, and how you choose to structure your business. Occupational licenses like Professional licenses are conditions of employment if you want to provide services to and do business with these foreign corporations and their personnel. During the Covid Madness I advised small businesses all over the country to post disclaimers openly saying that U.S. Federal Public Persons and Municipal CORPORATIONS and their Employees and Dependents are entering the premises (of the bar, restaurant, hotel, retail shop) at their own risk. What does that do? That puts the whole issue of doing business with Federal and Federal franchise corporations and their employees "on the hand that fits". It tells them flat out, well, if you want to do business with me and obtain my services, it's on my terms. Otherwise, hike down the street and find someone who will pander to your mandates, licensing, bonding, and other "requirements" to do business with you. As long as your business isn't incorporated, it's yours. You get to determine who you serve and what the terms of service are. If you aren't particularly stuck on serving the 10 to 12% of the people who are Federal Workers, you don't need to be licensed or bonded or anything like that to provide services to the rest of us ------or to them, if they are advised of your terms of service and decide to "waive" their "requirements". A simple disclaimer given to each and every potential customer either as part of your initial intake paperwork or posted in a prominent position in your place of business, places the entire responsibility for accepting or not accepting your services on them. Now you may encounter some Ninnies and some Ignoramuses who look at you wide-eyed and say, "But, but! --- It's the Law! Arizona Statute AS 101.22.333 says: blah,blah,blah, blah, blah...." But no, occupational licensing is not the "Law" for everyone, it's only the "Law" for those wishing to contract with U.S. Federal Public Persons (Territorial U.S. Citizens) and Municipal CORPORATIONS, their employees, and their dependents. This is part of what was brought home in the recent U.S. Supreme Court Case, Virginia v. EPA, which reiterates the findings of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Norton v Shelby almost a century ago: Administrative Law does not apply to the General Public. If you aren't a corporation and aren't working for a corporation and not seeking to contract with corporations, it doesn't apply to you at all. It's not your law. It's their law. And you can happily tell them that they are welcome to it. The same considerations of Federal Income apply. If you go to work for the State of Utah, you are working for a Territorial United States (USA) Federal Franchise Corporation and adopting the role of a U.S. Federal Public Person and as such, you are receiving Federal Income. It's "franchise income" but it is still "federally connected" income, so you still pay Federal Income Taxes on it. If you have a small unincorporated retail business called "Nancy's Nifty Nook" and you post your Disclaimer behind the cash register or similar obvious spot, and a Federal Worker has the temerity to do business with you (say that despite the fact that you are an American Philistine, your donuts and other pastries are too good to resist) the "gift" of any "Federal Income" is on them and thanks to your Disclaimer, you are free to presume that only Americans operating in their private capacity are belly up to your bar hogging down those fritters. All you need to do to close the loop is to redeem the fiat notes and checks as lawful money as provided for by Section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act by making the proper notations for endorsement on the checks ---and for cash, on the deposit slips. So do you need (or want?) an "Occupational License" to be a hair-dresser? It depends entirely on the clientele you want to serve and what you are willing to put up with to provide such service. Licensing usually carries with it additional, sometimes hidden, obligations, such as requirements that you file Federal Income Tax forms or you go back to school for training for three weeks every year or, or, or.... and again, it is entirely up to you and your situation whether the customers you gain by accepting a license is worth the cost and "voluntary" regulatory obligations the license carries with it. This applies in the same way to "Business Licenses" which allow your business to do business in a foreign Territorial State-of-State with their officers and employees and dependents. Or, in a foreign Municipal STATE OF STATE, serving Municipal CORPORATIONS and their officers and employees and dependents. A Business License of this kind allows you to do business in their jurisdiction, under their rules, and lets you provide services to their Corporations/CORPORATIONS and their citizenry, as a non-resident alien. This is all very odd because they are in fact the ones intruding into your space and doing business in your State of the Union--- but, from their perspective when you elect to do business with them and their employees, you are entering their turf and subjecting yourself to their rules by "voluntarily accepting" a Business License from them. You could just as well stand on your two little feet and ask them where their license to operate in your State is? When you do this, you will cause a great deal of bureaucratic consternation. They will cast about and mumble something about the State of State Constitution, but no, while the State of State Constitution allows them to provide certain services, it isn't a Business License. It's a Service Contract. No Federal or Federal State of State Franchise has any authority to regulate you or your business or license you with the following exceptions: they do have the authority to regulate the interstate manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Otherwise, they are just bluffing and racketeering and getting you to "voluntarily" comply and pay them for a license to do something that you have every right to do anyway. The practice of law, medicine, banking, barbering, and numerous other occupations that have been subjected to "voluntary" licensing, are in fact occupations of common right that anyone can engage in with impunity, leaving nothing but proof of your own skill to decide whether or not you can make a living at it. By these incremental and insidious impositions of private corporation codes, regulations, ordinances, licensing obligations, and statutes misplaced upon and enforced against the General Public, these "governmental services corporations" and their franchises have been able to gradually usurp against the Public Law and enforce their "standards" and "requirements" on everyone else with no granted authority to do so. Just as they have imposed Professional and Occupational Licensing using private Administrative Codes and Legislative Statutes that apply only to their own corporations and personnel and dependents (collectively called their "citizenry") they have imposed and illegally enforced Motor Vehicle Codes and Internal Revenue Codes and Real Estate Codes and other forms of Administrative Law on members of the Public. This is now, finally, coming to a halt and being recognized and reversed. The only question that remains is ---- are you a member of the General Public, or are you a Federal Employee? If you are a Federal Employee or a Federal State of State Franchise Employee, or you wish to contract with these characters and their corporations, you may need an Occupational License, a Professional License, a Driver's License, a Business License, and probably, before long, you will need a License License. By accepting a license you accept whatever obligations the license requires. Or, you can stand under the Public Law as a member of the General Public and Populace and carry on your own unincorporated business with none of this foreign regulatory clap-trap. ---------------------------- 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. By Anna Von Reitz It's up to you each and individually to determine whether you have "Federal Income" or not. Generally speaking, if you are receiving a check from the Federal Government (that isn't an earned pension based on private sector earnings) you are in receipt of Federal Income. If you are the unemployed spouse or minor child of a Federal Worker --- Military or Civil Service --- you are in receipt of Federal Income because your Head of Household is supplying you with his or her Federal Income. If you are a "Medical Doctor" and using your "Medical License" to treat "U.S. Citizens" or "citizens of the United States", you are in receipt of Federal Income. If you are a private physician who screens your clients to be sure you are only treating Americans in a private capacity and you properly endorse all checks to redeem the payment as lawful money, you are NOT in receipt of any "Federal Income". Most doctors don't use their licenses for anything but writing prescriptions and less than ten percent of the people who walk through their doors are Federal Employees --- strictly speaking, they should ask patients to disclose whether or not they work for the military or federal government, and only pay Federal Income Taxes on money received from the 10% that are government workers or dependents of government workers. All of this hinges on your individual circumstance and how you structure your business and handle your bank accounts. That should be perfectly clear to anyone who thinks about this for more than a minute. What if I am a man who has retired from the military, then worked running his own private non-federal lawn mowing business for ten years, and then worked for the Post Office for ten years, so that when he retires his retirement pension is based on two different kinds of "federal income" from his time in the military and his time in the Post Office, plus whatever he paid in from his lawn mowing business? Does he have "federal income" as a retiree? Yes, he is receiving pension funds based on Federal Income he earned in the past, so he has to pay Federal Income Tax on that portion of his pension that he earned in Federal jobs. If more Federal Workers understood how they get shafted and shafted again for working for the "Federal Government" a lot of them wouldn't stick around. Having a Federal License doesn't necessarily mean ANYTHING. If I have a license to run a radio station and don't have a radio station, having a license to run one is immaterial. Say that I am a Real Estate Agent --- the word "Agent" is a tip-off that you are working in a federally regulated industry --- same with "Insurance Agent" --- and yes, I might have Federal Income as a result. If I am selling houses to U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States and expediting their receipt of "Titles" to the property, then the "commission" (think military commissions) I receive on the sale is most certainly Federal Income and I am using a "license" to do this activity which obligates me to pay the Federal Income Tax ----and redeeming the funds as "Lawful Money" does not release my obligation to pay Federal Income Tax on the gross receipts. If, however, I am working in a private capacity to help buyers find homes and helping sellers to sell homes, and I screen that portion of my business so that I am working for Americans on a private basis, then all I have to do is make sure that the buyer actually pays "ten dollars" in silver money "in hand" to the seller and provide information to the buyer on how to claim their Land Patent, then I haven't used my "Real Estate License" and I am not in receipt of Federally-connected income. I still have to redeem any checks as "Lawful Money" but otherwise I am in the clear and above board. Now, this is all just common sense. If you are providing services to Federal Workers and receiving their money, you are in receipt of "Federal Income". If you are receiving money as a result of employing a Federal license, you are in receipt of "Federal Income" to the extent that you employ that license. It's up to you to determine if you used that license to enable you to provide service to that specific person, or not. One way for doctors to use their "Medical License" to prescribe meds and not claim the total patient receipts as "Federal Income" when actually treating members of the General Public, is to track how much "income" they receive specifically from writing the prescription or sale of the medication and only claim that as "Federal Income". A physician, could, for example, establish a flat fee for writing prescriptions -- say, fifty bucks for up to two prescriptions, a hundred for three or more. With respect to a non-Federal Employee patient, he would only owe "Federal Income Tax" on the prescription fee. I am giving you these examples and expect you to sit down and think about the logic that applies throughout---- and share this information with others so that they have to sit down and use their own brains to solve their own puzzles. There is no "one size fits all" and certain people are going to have to use their brains to figure out what they are "licensed" to do and when those "licenses" apply and when they don't. Some doctors treat a lot of Federal patients and some treat virtually none at all. Some real estate deals involve actual money in hand and others don't. Those that don't result in transfer of titles instead of transfer of land and the receipts from those transactions are "Federal Income". So far as the Assemblies are concerned, the only issue is --- does the person have Federal Income? Yes or no? If yes, how much Federal Income? Having genuine Federal Income in amounts greater than The Standard Deduction precludes us from revoking election to pay Federal Income Taxes. Anyone who has actual Federal Income in excess of The Standard Deduction is obligated to pay the Federal Income Tax. The problem is that millions of Americans have been taxed on their private sector earnings and millions of people have paid Federal Income Tax on all their receipts when they are actually only required to pay Federal Income Tax on the portion of their receipts that derives from the use of a license or from providing service to Federal Workers and their direct Dependents. Receipt of substantial amounts of Federal Income also prevents us from acting as State Citizens. Remember that the whole idea of being a "State Citizen" revolves around the fact that you are free from other allegiances, obligations or conflicts of interest ---- and having Federal Income is a potential conflict of interest that could lead one to make decisions favorable for the Federal Government but against the best interest of one's State of the Union. If someone has Federal Income less than the amount of The Standard Deduction each year, it is regarded as totally insufficient to create a conflict of interest. For example, someone spent two years in the Navy back in 1966-67 and as a result, a very small amount of the monthly Social Security pension check -- about $40 a year --- is based on Federal Income. This is much less than The Standard Deductible and doesn't have to be reported and is immaterial so far as the Assemblies are concerned with respect to any conflict of interest. For example, someone has a Real Estate License, but they don't use it anymore, or have no Federal Income resulting from it because they are doing cash sales with actual money paid, or, they use the license very occasionally and have Federal Income less than The Standard Deduction or less than ten percent of their total income --- so long as this is true, there is no reason for the Assembly to be concerned about any conflict of interest. It shouldn't even be a question. For example, someone has a Medical Doctor's License, but 97% of their patients are non-Federal Workers, and the bulk of any Federal Income they receive comes from fees for writing prescriptions ---- even though they might have Federal Income in excess of The Standard Deduction and might have to file the paperwork, if less than 10% of their total earnings comes from Federal Income, it presents no possible presumption of conflict of interest. Assemblies and Vetting Committees are expected to apply some Common Sense when determining whether or not a financial interest is sufficient to create a conflict of interest or not. Generally speaking, anyone who has less Federal Income than The Standard Deduction is 100% held harmless. Anyone who has less than ten percent of their total income from Federal Sources is 100% held harmless. What you have to ask yourselves is --- would a Prudent Man given these facts find that the potential for conflict of interest exists? People who have substantial portions of their income derived from Federal sources should not be serving as State Citizens, but a veteran who has $40 of Federal Income per year can serve as a State Citizen because the amount of Federal Income he receives poses no rational threat of any conflict of interest and provides no motive to undermine the welfare of his State of the Union. Keep your focus on "What makes sense?" and "Why are we concerned about this?" And remember that every case is different. ---------------------------- 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. By Anna Von Reitz This morning I got a British historical diatribe in my "inbox" together with a request that I make a reply. For example, the writer claims that Pope Innocent "annulled" The Magna Carta, quite ignoring the fact that Pope Innocent had no such power to annul the words and acts of the Norman kings of Britain who held the land by conquest and force of arms, and who enforced The Magna Carta with no blessing from Pope Innocent required, for a thousand years and beyond. The same writer would probably also claim that The War of Independence never happened or had no effect, and that the British King still has a right to rule here --- when in fact the British were very soundly beaten and the King himself fully admitted that our land and soil were ours and that we are free men in possession of our sovereignty and guaranteed our republican form of government. No, indeed, there has never been a quibble from the British Government or the Government of Westminster claiming to own an iota of The United States or The United States of America ever since The War of 1812. What they do claim to own and control is their version of "the" United States (Trading Company) and their version of "the" United States of America (Trading Company). And we won't quibble about that, because they've made a terrible lot of bad business decisions ---as is typical of their entire history --- and both their now-incorporated businesses formerly doing business as "the" United States, Incorporated, and "the" United States of America, Incorporated, are bankrupt. One of the key bits of historical knowledge that British pundits are either unaware of, or choose to ignore, is that the Treaty of Paris 1783, like a all things dubbed "Treaty of Paris" in any other year, is a sea treaty, having nothing to do with land or soil ownership, and only concerning the business affairs of a commercial company interest in "the" United States of America (Trading Company). This version of "United States of America" was the British owned portion of the original investment and trading company of the same name which existed before The War of Independence. The original United States of America (Trading Company) broke into two parts as a result of the war -- creating one British-owned "United States of America" (Trading Company) and one American-owned "United States of America" (Trading Company.) The same thing happened with "the" United States (Trading Company) which similarly broke apart as a result of the war into British and American components. The confusion that this has caused over the last two centuries can hardly be estimated, but when British apologists say that the Crown Temple owns and controls "the" United States or "the" United States of America, either one, this is what they are talking about. Our American version, The United States of America (Trading Company) never incorporated, and is still alive and well, as is The United States (Trading Company). Wouldn't it have been helpful, if they had bothered to add "Trading Company" or later, "Incorporated" to the names, so people could see what they were talking about? And know that they were discussing the business affairs of four business entities, two British and two American, operating under very similar names? The only difference is that following The War of Independence, the American versions started using the names "The United States" and "The United States of America", while the Brits used "the" United States and "the" United States of America. We contracted with the British version calling itself "the" United States of America to provide us with certain enumerated services and delegated the power to provide those services to them when we adopted "The Constitution of the United States of America" --- see it now? We were contracting for services from the British Trading Company, which, much later, incorporated as a franchise of the British Crown Corporation. So that is what British writers are talking about when they claim that the Crown (British Crown Corporation) owns and controls "the" United States (now a bankrupt governmental services provider) or says that it owns and controls "the" United States of America (now another bankrupt governmental services provider). It doesn't mean that our country is bankrupt. Sovereign entities can't go bankrupt, and aren't eligible for bankruptcy protection, so you can be sure that our States of the Union are not bankrupt by definition, and our unincorporated American versions of The United States and The United States of America aren't bankrupt, either. These bankruptcies involve the British Service Providers only, both of which are franchises of the British Crown Corporation, which the BCC has run into the ground while embezzling from the American People using a sophisticated personage and barratry scheme. The only silver lining to that cloud is that we have become their Preferential Creditors as a result and own every scrap of everything they ever claimed to own. These are the facts and this is what happened --- and while the British writers are correct in saying that the Crown owns and operates "the" United States and "the" United States of America --- two British commercial corporations dba "the United States, Incorporated" and "the United States of America, Incorporated" ---- the only inconvenience that presents for us, the Americans, who are their Preferential Creditors, is gearing up and providing our own services. Beyond that, I would say that there is a common British misconception that rights come from Constitutions or are granted by the Queen or dictated by the British Crown Corporation ---- none of which is true. Rights come to us from the hand of God, from Nature itself, and they are not the result of anyone's devising. Rather than creating any rights, Constitutions are meant to safeguard them by limiting the powers assumed by governments and by providing written guarantees that those governments will not Trespass on the rights and prerogatives of their employers. In the present case, the Rotters have sought to evade their constitutional obligations by secretively "redefining" their employers as employees, but that won't stand the light of day, either. Lastly, I would observe that there has always been an element of flim-flam in what the Temple Bar proposes to do, which is to "represent" the actual physical world on paper, and try to use rules and procedures and definitions to control these papers. It's like creating a map of Georgia and pointing at it and saying that you "own" Georgia, when in fact, you own a map of Georgia. That's what these fellows are engaged in, and in my opinion, it's delusional. Public Records establishing claims to land and homes are certainly more durable and reproducible than grocery receipts, but if you think of it, they do the exact same thing: they prove -- if they are correct -- that you paid for something. The salient question always is --- what did you pay for? Broccoli, lettuce, dog food? Land, a land patent, or a land title? Disturbingly, most people in this country (and elsewhere) own a land title and think that they own the land described by that title, but instead, by analogy, they only own a map of Georgia provided by the Temple Bar. That's why, as Fiduciary for The United States of America, I stepped forward and claimed all the United States Land Patents and cadastral surveys and copyrighted titles to land that have been created to "describe" our land and soil assets. I claimed them for The United States of America and I rolled them into my own trust as the Secured Party Creditor of all these corporations, and I published my Irrevocable Will granting every American the return of their portion of land and soil assets. This had to be done to put a stop on the British Flim-Flam described above. As an example -- the British Crown Subcontractors literally paid people to wander around this country and make up fictitious land descriptions in a dazzling array of categories and organizational systems and all of them are "maps of Georgia" in one way or another. We have Plat Maps and cadastral surveys, we have Townships and Sections, we have Lots and Blocks, we have Subdivisions, and then, we have Land Patents, and last, we have (mostly false) claims of "real estate" and "real estate descriptions" that include various copyrighted names and number systems, like "256 Sunnybrook Lane". Imagine the horror of an American "home owner" who discovers that he bought a tenant interest in a property that had already been mortgaged to the hilt by the Queen's Government ---even though they never had any rightful claim or ownership interest in the property --- and even after he pays off all the Queen's debts, he will still only hold a tenant's interest in a "future lease purchase agreement"? And all he's really got in "equitable exchange" for all his time, labor, love invested in his home, is ownership of a copyrighted title describing his house and land. What if I decide to call his house and land "999 Horrorstruck House" and copyright that new "land description"? Will I then be the new owner of his house? You see how this works and where it leads. Someone shows up and looks over the fence at your house and land, and they arbitrarily decide to call it, "40193 Happy Valley Lane" and they then match this description to a map description and they copyright this and claim to own your house and land based on their copyrighted description of it. That's what a "land title" is --- someone else's arbitrary description of your land, which they've copyrighted. Anyone smell the manure under British boots yet? Well, they may own their copyrighted description of your land, but they don't own your land. The United States of America owns your land and your Fiduciary locked it in her trust and published her Irrevocable Will to make sure that everything ever used to "describe" your land is yours. All you have to do is come home and claim it. Meanwhile, in reading the British screeds everyone is well-advised to take a jaundiced view. For example, when they claim that The Declaration of Independence is invalidated because it was signed by five "Esquires" of the Crown Temple --- no, that's not what it means at all. There were actually three (3) Declarations of Independence published on the Fourth of July in 1776, and the Esquires signed as representatives of the International Jurisdiction of the Sea, just as members of the clergy signed as representatives of the Global Jurisdiction of the Air. This country declared its independence in all jurisdictions--- air, land, and sea, and American representatives of each jurisdiction signed the documents in full agreement. A final example, "all constitutional rights are dictated by the Crown Temple" --- ??? No, there are no "constitutional rights" ---that is, no "rights" conferred by any Constitution. There are only constitutional guarantees and those are not dictated by the Crown Temple. Those are dictated by the stipulations of the contract itself. Take no wooden nickels. Never accept anything Brits say as gospel. And if you find yourself facing a dogpile, just stir it around a bit, and you will find the Brits at the bottom of it. Between their BS, omissions, and half-truths, you will eventually find the truth if you roll up your sleeves and look for it. ---------------------------- 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. 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. By Anna Von Reitz With regard to IRS and Mortgage claims --- The presumptions of mortgage debts are invoked under the Internal Revenue Code --- (IRC) which has just been thrown out in its entirety by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Virginia v. EPA that was heard last week and which reinforces the stare decisis Tennessee Supreme Court case, Norton v. Shelby County, which established the Public Law concerning this almost a hundred years ago. The fact that mortgages are enforced under the IRS at all indicates that they apply only to federal employees and dependents ----who are the only ones in voluntary receipt of any "Federal Income". The IRC Sections used to extract mortgages from people are: IRS 26 section 1091, section 408, and section 61, 108, and 751. The new decision reiterates that these "Federal Agencies" have no legislative powers and their Administrative Codes have no power or effect on the Public, nor can Congress shuffle off its responsibilities by delegating any part of them to such Agencies. The original stare decisis case from Tennessee clearly says, the rules and edicts and administrative codes adopted by such agencies "Have no more power than as if you or I wrote them." ---- that is, they have no representational capacity or force of law whatsoever and NEVER HAVE HAD any such authority. So the IRC --- "Internal Revenue Code" --- is under the bus and six feet underwater with respect to any claims brought against anyone but Federal Employees. Now, according to the IRC, if one means to invoke Regulation Z to exempt oneself from a mortgage, one has to bring it up at closing. However, since this tome of bureaucratic flatulence never had any authority with respect to any member of the General Public to begin with, its restrictions on invoking Regulation Z are out the window, too. This also brings up the Jerome Daly Credit River Decision, which similar to the Tennessee Supreme Court case referenced above, created stare decisis with respect to bank mortgage claims related to credit advanced to members of the General Public for the purpose of buying homes. The Daly case found that the bank was in fact borrowing the assets from the purported Borrower, using them to generate seven to ten times more credit than needed to finance the transaction (fractional reserve banking) and then charging the victim for the use of his own credit. Understandably, the jury found against the bank, and as every American should know, once a jury has spoken, the issue cannot be raised again absent new or substantially different information. And there is none. For your convenience, I am attaching a photographic copy of the actual Daly case. I am recommending that you "fully inform" the judge, the clerk, and the prosecuting attorney and the law enforcement officers in your respective cases that all of this was already on the record of the courts concerning you as members of the General Public and that foreign laws pertaining to Federal Employees were misapplied to you and your property assets. Address them in their personal capacity --- not at judges, clerks, or officers, but as men and women, and hold them 100% personally and commercially liable for any harm done to you, your reputation, or your assets. Remind them that they owe you the protections spelled out under Article IV of both The Constitution of the United States of America (Territorial) and The Constitution of the United States (Municipal) as a member of the General Public covered by these stare decisis cases and findings cited above. You may also use this letter of reference and direct any questions they may have to me. Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary The United States of America In care of: Box 520994 Big Lake, Alaska 99652 avannavon@gmail.com (907) 250-5087 ---------------------------- 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. By Anna Von Reitz Dear IRS, First, I am not a federal employee or dependent of any kind. Never have been. I have no "federal income" and redeem all fiat notes as lawful money. Second, neither I nor my Mother ever gave anyone permission to use my Good Name as the name of a British Territorial U.S. Citizen "lost at sea", nor did we give the Municipal United States Government permission to create any CORPORATIONS named after me. Got that? Third, clearly, you are misaddressing me, and any bills owed by either the British franchisee or the Municipal CORPORATIONS are related to THEIR income and THEIR taxes, and have nothing whatsoever to do with me and my earnings. Both the Territorial and Municipal United States Government Corporations need to get their acts together to balance the accounts they are holding as usufructs "in my name". I have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this and will not be paying any taxes for these foreign entities. Last, but not least, the U.S. Supreme Court has just reinforced earlier rulings in a case, Virginia v. EPA, in which it very clearly states that none of the Alphabet Agencies have any power or authority to legislate and Congress may not delegate any responsibility to create law. That includes the IRS and the IRC. Sincerely, Joe Blow American ---------------------------- 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. By Anna Von Reitz There are three classes of "citizenry" in this country. Two of these classes are federal employees. One of these classes are volunteers who serve their State Assembly Government. The two classes of federal employees are: (1) U.S. Citizens and (2) Municipal citizens of the United States. The State Citizens are, well, State Citizens --- people who live in their State of the Union and who claim no other allegiance or obligation to any other government on Earth--- only their State Government vested in their republican State Assembly. All right? That's the way it is, and that's the way it has always been. "Citizens" are government employees. All the rest of us are not "citizens" of any kind. We are nationals of our States of the Union. Over time, people forgot these facts because new generations of Americans were not being taught American History in their own Public Schools. Only "U.S. History" was being taught, and that gave the impression that everyone was a citizen. But we're not. From THEIR perspective, everyone in THEIR "district" is a "citizen" so they presume that you, Joe Average American, have to be a "citizen" too ---- but as just explained, unless you are a government employee, you're not a citizen. Being a citizen means that you serve the government in some capacity. If the government serves you, you are by definition NOT a citizen. Okay? So what's the truth here? Are you a government employee? Or are you a government employer? Most of us are employers, not employees, but we are being lumped in with the employees and bossed around as if we were part of their organization and receiving a paycheck from them when we are not. Go to: www.TheAmericanStatesAssembly.net to learn more. ---------------------------- 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. By Anna Von Reitz In 1898 the Scottish Interloper doing business as “The United States of America, Incorporated” fought a war known as The Spanish American War “for” us. Using our money, our soldiers, and our resources, they won. The war was settled in the normal way with a series of peace treaties – a Treaty of Versailles to settle land claims, a Treaty of Paris to settle sea claims, and various Treaties of Westminster and Ghent to settle commercial claims. They acted as our “representatives”. This is all well-known and well-documented in the public records here in America, in Spain, and yes, also in the Philippines. As part of the settlement the land mass of the Philippine Islands was granted by Spain to The United States of America, our unincorporated Federation of States --- as it had to be under international law. The Scottish Interloper additionally paid Spain --- again, in our behalf --- $20 million of our gold, for the physical infrastructure on the Islands, including the government buildings. If the massive gold deposits had been in the Philippines at that time, and if that gold belonged to the family of the King of Spain, do you think he would have granted away the land to the Philippine Islands and sold off all infrastructure on the Islands for only $20 million in gold? The whole idea is ludicrous. You can read the Treaties for yourselves, you can use your own common sense, and you can believe the present King of Spain, who has also told everyone the same truth about this as we are. The massive amounts of gold began to arrive in the Philippines from The United States (note—not “the” United States) the following year and shipments via U.S. Navy ships continued for decades thereafter. We have the deposit receipts and ship’s manifests. So, we know for sure where a very substantial amount of the gold came from. And it wasn’t anything to do with Queen Isabella, her family, or her fortune --- which remain in the care and custody of Spain. We also have the records of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration and their issuance of the 1934A Series Bearer Bonds against our gold reserves in the Philippines --- used as payola to other governments and government officials by “the” United States, Inc., Municipal Government without our knowledge or agreement. Now the new Central Bank of the Philippines and the Philippine Government itself has gone completely mad and claiming that Ferdinand Marcos owned all this gold --- again, a ludicrous claim. Marcos himself fully admitted that he was only an attorney working for The D’Avila Family Trust, and a Trustee with respect to the American gold stored in the Philippines. We have Tiburcio Villamore Marcos (the third one) claiming that he is a relative of Queen Isabella and that this is her gold that he is inheriting. Based on these claims, the Philippines is trying to transform itself into a monarchy and all sorts of crazy stuff is transpiring. For all we know, this new version of “TVM” may be related to Queen Isabella. He may even have a claim on her fortunes in Spain. We are not any judge of that and leave it for him to present his case, properly, in Spain. But the point is, that Queen Isabella’s fortunes are under a completely different account system – Code LEO, not Code FLAT, and are warehoused out of Spain, not the Philippines. Okay, so let’s review --- we know that the gold was not in the Philippines in 1898. We know that vast quantities of gold were exported to the Philippines by the U.S. Navy beginning the following year. We know that the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration of the foreign Municipal United States Government operating as “the” United States, Incorporated, issued Bearer Bonds against our gold reserves in 1934 and used them as payola to buy off various other governments and government officials to participate in his New (Enslavement) Deal. We also know that most of those Bearer Bonds were later destroyed or recovered and re-warehoused in the Philippines. We have the Spanish King agreeing with us and telling you that no, Queen Isabella’s gold was never in the Philippines. So, Queen Isabella’s fortune isn’t in the Philippines, but our gold and the D’Avila Family Trust assets are. This disqualifies the latest version TVM’s claims about the gold in the Philippines belonging to Queen Isabella and to him as one of her heirs. Now we come to the final factor that disqualifies all Filipino claims on the gold stored in the Philippines. The Scottish Interlopers weren’t stupid. They set things up so that no Filipino could ever bring a valid claim against the gold they rat-holed in the Philippines. By obtaining the Spanish Land Grant “for” us and in our names, the Scots disinherited all Filipino Kingdom claims. The Filipino people have no land of their own, hence, no Kingdom. The land treaties of the Versailles series stand unaltered, and unless we come to a deal, are unalterable. Nobody has come to us to ask for the land grant back and nobody has paid us the $20 million in gold (updated to modern figures) to buy back the infrastructure, so, we, our unincorporated Federation of States, still owns the Philippine Islands. It is a fundamental tenet of international law and the far older Law of Kinds, that only physical entities inherit physical assets. Only unincorporated entities can possess and hold land and soil and other physical assets, so you may be sure that our Federation of States is “The United States of America” in possession of the Spanish Land Grant. You may also be sure that our possession of the Spanish Land Grant is not changed or altered by the Queen of England’s attempts to set up a Territorial District Government in the Philippines and issue “land titles” related to property interests there. The so-called Treaty of Manila Bay and transfer of “land titles” related to it and ever since, are only “sea treaties” among incorporated British Crown franchises and their personnel. The land remains in our possession and keeping. We are not averse to working something out with the Filipino People, to return their homeland to their actual ownership, but the facts are facts. Vast amounts of American blood and money have been expended in defense of the Philippines and many Filipinos have direct cause to remember that. The least that we are owed is the return of what is ours, and that means both the gold that was transported to the Philippines by the U.S. Navy and The D’Avila Family Trust assets. Why, you may ask, are The D’Avila Family Trust Code FLAT assets American, when they are a Spanish family? Because the heir of the Code FLAT assets already long confirmed by the Spanish Supreme Court and the Central Bank of the Philippines moved to our country decades ago and lives in one of our unincorporated States of the Union. He is one of our people now and we have the responsibility and granted right to protect his assets. We don’t wish TVM or any of the Marcos family any ill-will. We don’t bear any ill-will toward the Filipino people. At the same time, we are not going to stand here and fail our own honor and fiduciary duty to rebut the irrational claims that are being made. If TVM is an heir of Queen Isabella of Spain, he needs to do what we have already done regarding the Code FLAT Accounts ----and address the Spanish Supreme Court with his claim to her LEO accounts, together with his lineage, and his DNA. As you can see, the gold and other assets stored in the Philippines are a separate and already determined issue. ---------------------------- 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. |
AuthorAnna Von Reitz Archives
December 2022
Categories |