Guest Posting

If you wish to write and/or publish an article on Operation Disclosure all you need to do is send your entry to applying these following rules.

The subject of your email entry should be: "Entry Post | (Title of your post) | Operation Disclosure"

- Must be in text format
- Proper Grammar
- No foul language
- Your signature/name/username at the top

Send your entry and speak out today!

Featured Post

Restored Republic via a GCR as of April 26, 2018

Restored Republic via a GCR Update as of April 26 2018 Compiled 12:07 am EDT 26 April 2018 by Judy Byington, MSW, LCSW, ret. CEO, Child Ab...

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Anna von Reitz -- My "Official" Answers to Eric Williams of RNB Fame

My “Official” Answers to Eric Williams of RNB Fame

Anna von Reitz

Eric in upright letters, Anna in italics

Eric to Anna:

Due to excessive length and time constraints I was not able to provide you the relevant details of my experience in Federal Court against the IRS. I have set down the content thereof herein below for your review.

However, of much greater importance is what I have provided herein thereafter, for your review and consideration. I do sincerely request that you read what I wrote in its entirety. If thereafter you would rather I refrained from further contact of you I will respect you advisement thereof.

The case was called, The Prosecutor stood and began his opening statement, “Citizens of the United States have an obligation to blah … blah … blah …” At which tome I stood to object. The judge said:

1. Judge: “Why are you objecting Mr. Williams, he hasn’t said anything yet?”

Me: “Well, he said citizens of the United States have all the obligations he was mentioning, and that may be true, but I contend he does not have anything to put me in that class.”

2. Judge: “Are you renouncing your citizenship?”

Me: “How can I renounce that which I never applied for?”

3. Judge: “Where were you born?”

Me: “At the time I was born I had just gone through a terrible ordeal, I was gasping for breath, I could not read or write, I did not know where I was or who I was or even what I was.”

4. Judge: “What did your mother tell you?”

Me: “At the time I was born I did not understand the child mother relationship. I could not pick my mother from a lineup of one.”

5. Judge: “What was on your birth certificate?”

Me: “At the time I was born I did not,understand the importance of such a document. I do not know if one was created regarding my birth or not,” and, pointing to the prosecutor, I said: “and he can’t prove it.”

6. Judge: “I am taking this matter under consideration and you will be notified”

Here is seems to be clear that the judge’s questions, each and every one, individually, were intended to elicit from me an acknowledgment of citizenship’

The judge’s first and second questions indicated his presumption that I was then a citizen but was intent of renouncing such.

The third question indicated he would declare me a citizen based on my birth in the United States as most people born here believe.

The fourth question would elicit what most mothers tell their children in regard to their citizenship established by birth here.

The fifth question would reveal I was born in the United States and therefore a citizen due thereto.

None of the judge’s questions were in regard to my filing any naturalization papers although such a line of questions might have been thwarted by my answer to his second question. However, his continued questioning of me was in his effort to get me to provide some manner of information that would enable him to declare me a citizen based on other issues than my self determination of my citizenship or political status.

Initially he presumed I was a citizen and that,I was attempting to wiggle out of the charges based on the inability of the prosecutor to prove I was a citizen, which was why the judge proceeded to question me rather than calling upon the prosecutor to do so.

Anna to Eric:

Your challenge works because if you don’t know who you are, neither, obviously, do the prosecutor nor the judge. They certainly can’t prove it if you don’t do it for them. That said, your protest seems dishonest and an avoidance rather than a defense. I suppose we do what we have to do. I have also used Draconian tactics against the IRS in the past.

Such as forcing them to define what a “Withholding Agent” is, and then asking by what right and evidence they claim that I am a Withholding Agent against my will? If filing a 1040 for them for free is not a voluntary act, then surely signing a 1040 or other form for them under coercion is peonage—involuntary servitude in connection with a debt, albeit a public debt? Also, signing such forms requires one to sign under penalty of perjury, so by what right may the IRS or the Prosecutor or the Judge require anyone to commit a knowing act of perjury? How can I swear to being a “Withholding Agent” when I have asked them to define what a “Withholding Agent” is, and it is clear that I am not one and don’t volunteer to be one? If I were to file a 1040 or other incriminating document upon the direction of the court, would I not be impersonating a public officer in violation of their own rules stated at 18 USC 912? Would it not be an act of extortion and racketeering for the court to demand that I falsify documents and would the result not be an illegal taking by agents of a foreign government? And is the Prosecutor not demanding that I commit an act of identity theft against myself and against my own best interest by forcing me to pretend that I am operating my own NAME as a public franchise and separate persona? And, come to think of it, what evidence do they have that I ever knowingly, willingly, and under conditions of full disclosure ever gave my consent to the creation of such a franchise named after me? And if I didn’t give such consent, who did it in my behalf? Where is there any evidence that I knowingly and willing assumed the distinctly unsavory political status of a “citizen of the United States”? Why would any prudent man, born in a vastly more advantageous status do that?

I can go on all day with embarrassing and unanswerable and outrageous questions that leave the Tax Administrators and Judges trembling and anxious to find a reason—-any reason—- to dismiss.

And then I just stand there innocent as the flowers in May and don’t give them an out.

You can also revoke your election to pay, so long as you are not actually any kind of federal employee, an African American, welfare recipient, foreign asylum seeker, or voluntarily operating a public franchise of the UNITED STATES.

They are trying to get into the trust fund they established in your NAME and are trying to make you function as the Trustee and pay them whatever they demand for their “services”. So you can also file a Form 56 and make the Judge your Trustee instead of letting the Clerk misuse him as an Administrator.

The methods and madness go on and I suppose that we are all justified in whatever remedy we pursue to fend off these charlatans and crooks in robes to prevent them from committing personage and barratry against us—-but that does nothing to dismantle their cozy crime syndicate nor does it educate the public about the need to do so.

I acknowledge that there is some possibility that the authorities have backed off in all the cases where my group members have served my N&Ds based on the Thirteenth Amendment because of the provision of the Naturalization Act but that does not address the point wherein I find fault in your application of that Act.

The right not to incriminate oneself (which also means refusing to commit a crime, such as deliberate perjury) is just as valid as objecting by any means to the peonage forbidden by their own Thirteenth Amendment, but if you have spent any time in these courts, it is flamingly obvious that they do not function under The Constitution and are merely “federal debt collection agencies”.

In my opinion the fundamental flaw in their system IS the Naturalization Act and their lack of any proof that any American ever complied with it. Thus the Public Law is brought to bear against their “private contracts” and the private contracts all lose—-Driver Licenses, Voter Registrations, the whole kit and kaboodle are out the door— absent proof that you complied with the Naturalization Act.

Additionally, I contend that a challenge based on a CONstitutional provision is more effective, more readily recognized and acknowledged and much more likely to be known of than an obscure Naturalization Act.

See above.

As I recall, you contend that all state citizens are aliens to the United States and must therefore comply with the provisions of this Naturalization Act as such being the one and only means by which state citizens could become US citizens.

Yes, but I don’t contend that anyone is naturally a “state citizen” either— so you are misstating my position. We are not born “citizens” of any kind and are under no obligation to serve as “citizens”. If you look up the legal meaning of the word “citizen” you will see that a “citizen” subjects himself to the government and serves it, instead of the government serving him. .

Our universal and proper status is that of a “State National”. Why? Because our states are nation-states. We are Virginians, Ohioans, and so on, at birth, not “citizens of the United States” and absent our action pursuant to the Naturalization Act, we remain so.

I argue that the fourth section of that Act provides that children of state citizens who have acknowledged US citizenship are considered to be US citizens. I think that this is a situation that is impossible to document because no one knows when or where they were born and because a high percentage of the population have been here for so long that they have lost track of their family origin and have no documentation to trace their linage back to immigrants who were naturalized or to antecedents who were here on this land before the revolt ousting King George III. I remember when I was a child that my parents had documentation indicating the family linage went back to the Mayflower, but I do not have a copy because it was stolen from me by my ex wife.

In order for our parents to become “United States Citizens” of any stripe, there would have to be proof that they complied with the Naturalization Act as well, and as no such evidence exists, I would say that pretty much shoots your argument in the butt. As of 1888 the rats began naturalizing everyone who came through the door as “United States citizens” and only secondarily did they become citizens of the states where they were living. However, they did become “state citizens” and free to then become “state nationals”— as the status of “citizen” has to be voluntary or it violates the Public Law and the international laws against involuntary servitude, press-ganging, and conscription.

As an aside, I cannot perceive why any thinking person would choose to declare themselves to be any manner or style of citizen.

Agreed. See above. And exactly why do you think that I am pushing anyone to claim to be a “citizen” of any stripe? In America, the government is meant to serve the people, not the other way around.

There is a current need for State Nationals to serve their own County and State level governments —and in order to occupy those State Offices, they must temporarily (for the duration of their term) serve as “State Citizens”—but that is the price we all pay for self-government.

Be all that as it may, the primary reason why I contacted you was not in regard to the Naturalization Act but rather, because of what must be done to salvage this country, working with the tools that are actually available rather than pie in the sky, such as John Darish’s NLA Grand Jury fiasco or a July 4th election of officers to populate the dejure government as was suggested by one of my Group members. Is there any realistic possibility that the defacto government is going to permit themselves to be displaced?

Only living people claiming to be State Nationals can “populate” the government owed to the land jurisdiction of these fifty nation-states, by volunteering to act as “State Citizens” for the purpose of jury duty, for example.

Unfortunately Mr. Daresh didn’t see the need to expatriate from any “presumed” status as a United States Citizen before trying to convene a valid Citizens Common Law Grand Jury under American Common Law. Others are not so clueless.

One cannot act as a United States Citizen and as a State Citizen at the same time. They are mutually exclusive offices.

This is in fact the answer to your second query about “displacing” the current government of the United States—- the government of the Several States operates on the land jurisdiction and is mutually exclusive and separate from the government of the United States which operates in the international jurisdiction of the sea and always has.

As such, there is no conflict. There has only been a vacuum of power for a number of years owing to our failure to convene a properly constituted Continental Congress and take care of business.

Doing so requires us to “assemble” as jural assemblies, elect people who are acting as State Citizens to fill our vacated county government offices, elect state offices in the same way, and finally, elect State Deputies to serve as Delegates to our Continental Congress.

As you and everyone else should be aware , our government works from the bottom up, not the top down. Thus any attempt to simply elect new members to a separate “de jure” Congress and operate from the top down is provably unworkable and fraudulent.

It is absolutely necessary for the people to organize themselves as jural assemblies and so, to operate a County and State government on the land jurisdiction of their states. At each step, power diminishes.

The people hold all the power in our government. They delegate a portion of power to the counties for the elected county officers to administer. The counties delegate power to the state. And the states together contract and delegate some of their remaining powers to the federal government which is dead last on our Totem Pole of power sharing.

It should now be apparent that the government on the land has not organized and exerted its own sovereignty properly— a problem that Americans are rapidly addressing now that they realize that what has been passing as a “state government” is merely a corporate “State of State” franchise of the UNITED STATES, INC. busily selling us an extra layer of government services.

These “State of States” such as the “State of Washington” operate entirely in the foreign and international jurisdiction of the sea and they are definitively not our state governments though they provide services to and for our state governments.

And all this advocacy of returning to the common law? Does anyone ever consider why statutory law was adopted? The reason was because the common law does not work well in our modern electrified society. Does anyone today have any realization of the complete turnaround of human society because of electricity? The common law was phased out because of the vast difference in the beliefs of the common people who were called for jury duty. Without any guide, other than some admonishment of the judge, the jurors had nothing to guide them other than their very diverse personal opinions. They needed something more concrete. How would common law assure high rise apartments were safely constructed without building codes? How would travelers have confidence of safety enabling them to travel at sixty miles per hour without vehicle codes. Would you feel safe driving at night if there was no traffic code requiring tail and stop lights on the vehicles ahead of you?

The problem is not in the adoption of statutory laws, the problem is in the destruction of the power of petit juries to judge the laws validity and application independently of any instructions by any presiding judge. This is of primary importance in our actions to get our country back! And the NLA and others should be working on reestablishing the authority of the petit jury!

If you had bothered to read what I have written on these subjects, instead of just lumping me in with whatever impressions you have of “patriots” in general, you would know that I fully admit the limitations and quirks and Draconian nature of the Common Law and do not advocate it as a panacea.

However, given a choice, I would rather entrust my fate to a jury of my peers instead of a jury of foreign bureaucrats. Also, I would prefer that jury to have the power of jury nullification –the ability to overturn any obnoxious, unjust, or unworkable “law” passed by the legislature—which is not available under statutory law.

I find it curious that you advocate jury nullification in one breath, deplore the Common Law which is our only access to jury nullification with the next, and then extoll to glories of “petit juries” with the next.

You are clearly very confused.

Continue Reading at Source:

Receive News from Operation Disclosure via Email

Shoutbox Disclaimer

Please be advised that the Shoutbox is NOT moderated. Use it at your own will.