You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Red Alert! The Red Flag Bill No One Is Talking About!
You are trying to aver that judicial officers are managers of some property-specifically you say a charitable public trust.
Why do you say that it is a charitable public trust? Our rights which are property do not come from government, but from nature. The constitution is not property; It is a document that outlines the functions and parameters of our government and the judiciary has the power to interpret it the document.
I provided the section that specifically states that they are Trustees by role. Do you need the definition of a trustee or what don't you agree with? Do you understand what a Judicial Officer is? another word for Judge, and by definition, a judge acting in the public interest and in a public capacity is a Trustee of the Public. The constitution is a Corporate Charter, it's not Our Government, it's never going to be Our Government.
http://annavonreitz.com/fundamentals3.pdf
If you understand what the PCT Public Charitable Trust is then you should understand why and how it applies to the Role of your so-called "government", if you are not aware of that then it's ok to confuse the function of the constitution and think that it's up for Interpretation.
http://annavonreitz.com/theconstitution.pdf
A constitution and a charter are two different things, regardless of someone's opinion piece. The constitution is a constitution, it is not a public or corporate charter. Your premise then that a judge (or other judicial officer) is a trustee of a public civil trust is untenable.
Sadly, I am not up on my Hebrew. The only definition I could find for militia was מיליציה-which didn't include a definition of people. The author is your second article divined that people meant militia, and build her argument up upon a false belief-a delusion.
In your second article your author stresses how beneficial the constitution was to King George and certain Colonist. Our contenentals weren't worth the paper they were printed on following the war, and the English had significantly cut off trade with America and began dumping products making it difficult for Americans to engage in trade. It was for Americans to try to open up more trade with countries like France. England's recovery post 1790 seems to be more from the Industrial revolution, and America's for providing grains when England and France were fighting in the 1790s. You can read more of a summary of details here. your author goes on to stress the importance of a Navy in the constitution. The Navy was created in 1775 for the war, disbanded following the war, and later recreated in 1798. The navy wasn't as important constitutionally as she claims. The letters of Marque authorized by the constitution was for the private sector to handle. Article 3 of the constitution also undermines her argument that the British monarch had jurisdiction over matters of admiralty. Much of the international law was defined by Hugo Grotius almost 200 years prior. Likewise her argument that the government placed life insurance claims against us on behalf of corporations is also silly.
I don't think for a moment that she has read the declaration of independence and understood the nature of each indictment against the king. Or the sacrifices that our founders made.
There is much to be read about the founding of this country, thousands of years worth of ideas and debates. Probably would take a few years to digest the important documents and its evolution, but the basic ideas are so simple a person of ordinary intelligence can understand them. Many of the original works are public domain and translated into English. Tis better to find and read the source material when possible than some sovereign citizen quack on the internet.
A constitution and a charter are two different things, regardless of someone's opinion piece. The constitution is a constitution, it is not a public or corporate charter. Your premise then that a judge (or other judicial officer) is a trustee of a public civil trust is untenable.
A post is a post and is not a pillar and a spoon is a spoon and a fork is a fork. A constitution is a constitution and a charter is a charter, even though the charter for a corporation is in function the same as a "law of the land", and it's no law of the land when it's for a Corporation. Virgina Corporation? The commonwealth? The Mayflower Company? Do you even commerce Bro?
We know who the Sovereign is, and we know the numerous Trusts set up.
http://annavonreitz.com/roleofthetrustee.pdf
The Country you talk about is either a Federation or Confederation of States, and in reality, not in what you believe, they are all corporations and even if they weren't they wouldn't have the authority of a sovereigns pinky finger because without consent there is No Law, only Tyranny.
A Pilar vs A post.
We don't Consent:
http://www.annavonreitz.com/classicdisinformation.pdf
If the Constitution be the Law of the Land then what our public servants have done is nothing but Treason!
http://annavonreitz.com/howyouweredefrauded.pdf