Judge Anna Von Reitz
Tue, Dec 29, 2015
Subject; Inhabitants of the Land Kings
The End of a Perfectly Good public servant relationship.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE OATH!
So what about the oath of office?
Attention FBI – Obama = Treason
FBI Complaint Letter
Congressman Rohrabacher… Guilty of treason? Guilty of fraud?
Rohrabacher – Grand Jury Presentment
The U.S. Congress’s Assault on Citizens – Letter to
A Message To, For, and About Great Britain
Here are some pearls from Ed Johnston—
16th American Jurisprudence Section 177
(16 Am Jur. 2d. Const. Law Sect. 256)
The State did not give the Citizen his rights and thus cannot take
them away as it chooses. The State did not establish the settled maxims and
procedures by which a citizen must be dealt with, and thus cannot abrogate
or circumvent them. It thus is well settled that legislative enactments do
not constitute the law of the land, but must conform to it.
From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators
bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S.
Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid,
must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law
violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time
of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding
it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as
if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it
purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that
it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power
or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid
one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid
law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of
the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of,
in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his,or her own actions,
commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th
Amendment and vacates his or her, office.
Please note that The Constitution is for inhabitants of the Federal
United States LITERALLY the law of the land— because when they come in
from their watery international jurisdiction, they are required to operate
by the rules established by The Constitution on the land.
When reading Federal law, you must always read it from the Federal
perspective. They operate in the international Jurisdiction of the Sea, so,
of course, the national law they are obligated to respect when dealing with
us is –from their perspective— the Law of the Land.
It's the same reversal when they speak of "inhabitants"—- we are
"peaceful inhabitants of the land" (14th Amendment of the corporate
Constitution) from their perspective, whereas they are "inhabitants" of the
"maritime regions and insular states" from ours.
We did not suddenly lose our political status as one of the "free
sovereign and independent people of the United States" under the terms of
the Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 because they called us "inhabitants of
the land" in their private corporate "constitution" of 1868—-even though
the two different uses of the same word in two completely different
documents was no doubt meant to confuse identities and issues of political
status that should never have been confused at all.
Why call a corporate "constitution" the Constitution of the United
States of America, if you did not mean to confuse it with The Constitution
for the united States of America?
Why call us "peaceful inhabitants of the land" if you did not mean to
confuse us with the British Subject "inhabitants" referred to in the
Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783?
This use of "deceptively similar names" has been carried on throughout
the long effort to mischaracterize and defraud the people of the United
States by operatives of the British Crown and the British government.
How better to undermine our lawful government, if not to do it under a
veil of "friendship" and treaties promising "perpetual amity" and while
acting in the guise of being our "Trustees" in the realm of international
commerce and as our"allies" in war? Who could ever suspect our "Mother
Country" of seeking our demise?
Foxes in the hen house doesn't begin to express the gravity of the
international criminality and breach of trust that we have suffered at the
hands of the Federal United States and the British Crown and the parade of
"Royal Majesties" since Edward VIII stepped down—- and what is true for
us is also true for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, India,
most of Europe, Ireland, Scotland, Wales……
The Enfranchisement Act of 1867 championed by Benjamin D'Israeli
toppled the English government from within, engaged Queen Victoria in
unlawful acts against the people of Britain and betrayed their established
government all the way back to the Magna Carta. D'Israeli enslaved the
people of Great Britain to finance the enslavement of the Indian
Subcontinent under the Raj. As long as Queen was going rogue at home and
secretively enslaving the people of Britain, what did she care about
pillaging and betraying her allies in Europe, the Americans, the
Australians and a few Canooks?
This is the thanks we all get from the British Royals for our
sacrifices and loyalty through two World Wars and countless police actions
ever since: press ganging, enslavement, inland piracy, unlawful conversion,
personage, barratry, and fraud, fraud, fraud.
We are dealing with exactly the same criminality and the same evil
that Gandhi faced in India, but unlike Gandhi, we are not facing it alone.
In evaluating this deceptive and perfidious Enemy of all free people
everywhere, consider the lack of conscience and morality involved when a
government taxes poor people for salt that they need to live and which they
have harmlessly harvested from the sea for millenia?
That's what the Raj did in India. That's what the British Crown is
That is what Prince William's throne is built upon. It's not his
fault. He is inheriting the situation his Great-great-great Grandmother
left him and he will be hard pressed to make sense of it or find a way
forward out of this system of betrayal and criminality without a velvet
boot up his backside pointing him the the right direction.
It's our job to be that boot and make sure that this system of things
is brought to a peaceful and sane conclusion in which still more innocent
people do not suffer. Gandhi and Jesus have both showed us the way to
defeat this Evil in high places—- millions of people must join hands and
expose the cruelty and criminality and oppressive nature of the British
government so that it becomes so embarrassing, so obvious, so
insurmountably distasteful that both from within and without the denizens
of Westminster are forced to relinquish their vile claims of ownership and
control over the rest of us..
Now that we have identified at least a large part of The Problem, let
us quietly and determinedly proceed to hold the Lord Mayor of London, the
Lords of the Admiralty, and the Queen fully accountable for these outrages
against the British people and against all the rest of us, too. We were all
promised and guaranteed certain things and we all know what we have
As it was in the days of King John, it is again, when the leaders of
the people must rise up and demand their rights or lose them, must expose
the criminality we have lived with too long or condemn our children. It is
time for the Natural Rights of Mankind to be asserted and for idolatry to
end. They may kill our bodies, but they cannot kill our spirits; and they
shall not win.