Anna Von Reitz: "For All The Jural Assemblies 46 -- No Pledges Ever"
Posted By: hobie [Send E-Mail]
Date: Friday, 5-Apr-2019 18:56:45
Thursday, April 4, 2019
For All The Jural Assemblies 46 -- No Pledges Ever
(See LEGAL NOTICE on that page regarding copyright)
By Anna Von Reitz
We all grew up being exposed to "The Pledge of Allegiance" as schoolchildren. We were indoctrinated from an early age to mindlessly recite something without knowing what it really meant.
Start with the fact that a "Pledge" is a Feudal Oath given by a Serf or Tenant to a sovereign, promising "allegiance" another word from the feudal relationship vocabulary, subjecting yourself to the sovereign and promising to support and protect the sovereign.
And what was standing in the "sovereign" position in "The Pledge of Allegiance"?
The flag of something calling itself "the United States of America" --- they just didn't bother to tell anyone which United States of America.
Most Americans have been kept from ever knowing that there are many different variations of both "United States" and "United States of America" and yes, it does matter which one you are talking about.
There is the unincorporated version of The United States which refers to the sovereign soil jurisdiction State Republics and their "Union" formed in 1776, and there is the unincorporated version of The United States of America, our Holding Company formed September 9, 1776, which refers to the sovereign International Land Jurisdiction of the unincorporated States of the Union.
These are the two entities that Americans naturally think of when someone says, "United States" or "United States of America", but in addition to these unincorporated entities that hold the land and soil jurisdictions of our country, there are other incorporated entities that are supposed to work for our States and People.
These include two other "kinds" of United States and United States of America that operate in the Municipal jurisdiction of the the Holy Roman Empire and the International Jurisdiction of the Sea, respectively.
These incorporated versions are "doing business names" of foreign corporations that are on our shores, purportedly to provide specified governmental services under the provisions of their respective Constitutions.
Their "United States" which is actually "the United States, Inc." is run by the members of the Territorial Congress acting as the government of the Washington, DC Municipality, which is an independent international city state like Vatican City and the Inner City of London known as Westminster and more recently, New York City and the United Nations have made bold to become ---without our permission, separate international governments standing on the land and soil of New York.
Time for the People of New York to wake up and put these Freebooters in their place, but that's another story.
Right now, just take in the fact that "United States" in this context means the Municipal Government being run by the members of Congress as a "plenary oligarchy" that is only supposed to operate and exist within the ten miles square of the District of Columbia. [Article I, Section 8, Clause 17]
Also take note that when this version of incorporated foreign "United States" is being referenced, the definite article associated with it is not capitalized and not part of the name. That is, our actual government's Proper Name is "The United States", while their strictly limited foreign Municipal government providing services "in our names" is "the" United States.
The same sort of confusion occurs with "the" United States of America, which refers to the British Territorial service providers under contract to our States. In the same way, the Proper Name of our unincorporated version is "The United States of America" and "The" is both capitalized and part of the name. Their foreign incorporated version --- again --- is "the" United States of America.
So when we look at their "Pledge of Allegiance" what do we see? Which "United States of America" is being referenced? Ours or the British version?
We already know that a "Pledge" is a Feudal Oath and we know our Founders weren't into Feudalism, so we should not be surprised to observe that the Queen's subjects are pledging themselves to "the" United States of America via their Pledge of Allegiance to the Queen and the British Territorial corporation doing business as "the" United States of America.
Read it and weep:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America" ---- this is the war flag of the British Territorial Commercial Corporation doing business "in our name" --- the United States of America, Inc.
"and to the Republic for which it stands" ----- we got a passing mention and a presumed Dual Citizenship obligation thrown in.
"one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" ---- and the problem with this is? (1) It isn't clear which "God" we are subjecting ourselves to; (2) they are just subcontractors and we owe them no more loyalty than they show us; (3) we, Americans, enjoy freedom, not "liberty" which is what British sailors get when they arrive in ports of call.
As you can see, pledging is a British thing. It has nothing to do with us, our American Government, or any natural obligation we have as Americans.
Americans don't do pledges because we are sovereigns in our own right, and pledging to a foreign sovereign obligates us to serve them instead of serving our own sovereignty.
So we never, ever, under any circumstance make "pledges" to anyone or anything, including the flag being flown "for" us by a British Territorial Corporation.
Think of the insanity of what is being employed against us? A living man subjects himself to an inanimate symbol like a flag? Can you think of a worse form of idolatry?
This innocent-sounding "pledge" disrespects all three major western religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all forbid the worship of idols.
Yet, here we have had generations of clueless American schoolchildren -- and adults, too--- pledging their lives and substance to an inanimate object, an idol, being used under contract by a British Territorial Commercial Corporation as a war flag.
Needless to say, this venal and undisclosed practice of "pledging" has to stop and it has to be known and repudiated by any and every thinking man and woman in this country.
No sentient Christian, Jew, or Muslim can ever take such a pledge, nor should they.
If you do knowingly ever take a "pledge" of any kind, be aware that whatever you are "pledging" is encumbered and that whatever you are "pledging to" becomes the ruler over you.
Do you want to be ruled over by a war flag being borrowed from our actual government by a British Territorial Commercial Company operating out of Puerto Rico under Spanish Law and calling itself "the United States of America"?
Didn't think so, but had to ask, because that is what happens when you recite "The Pledge of Allegiance".
Much of what we have been told in Public Schools across America and also taught to accept and to do, is wrong, or a half truth, or a sin by omission leading us to make wrong assumptions to our detriment.
This is just one particularly evil example of betrayal of our trust.
As American State Jural Assembly members we never take pledges. We operate in our capacity as Lawful Persons and the only sovereign State we serve is our own.
See this article and over 1700 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
What do I take away from that? Don't be so quick to trust. Of course telling kids not to trust adults who their parents believe to be trustworthy confuses. And yes, there are people in this world that seek to take advantage of anyone and everyone they can. We can be kind and say those ones are young souls, special ed, short bus riders, etc..
Reader Charles Miller: "I question the logic behind the positions, Pledge being Feudal Oath."
Posted By: hobie [Send E-Mail]
Date: Saturday, 6-Apr-2019 19:35:04
In Response To: Reader JT: "But that is just the beginning of the feudal law in the world today." (hobie)
(Thanks, C. :)
Reader Charles writes:
Re: Reader JT: 'But that is just the beginning....
Again, I question the logic behind the positions, Pledge being Feudal Oath.
What I don’t understand, and request someone please explain to me, is very simple.
Either the American people, our government, and our land was released from feudal law of Britain in 1783 or we weren’t.
Why am I being asked to give credibility to the feudal law system when I was released as a subject to that law system under a treaty 1783?
Under what the set of circumstances was the feudal law of Britain created to not control the Royals subjects?
Why do I need to reference the feudal law of Britain in order to define my positions, actions or understandings of words now?
Does the good English Crown own and control English common law and equity as private property?
Are the dictionaries and histories published in Britain property of the crown?
If I am using the Queens is private property am I bound thereto under some sort of use or obligation?
We weren't "released", but we were indoctrinated to think so, but don't assume their hold was legit to begin with. Look at all the laws in their original statue books, before they became codified, and you will see the head games being played. Semantics. Common words have their legal definitions defined somewhere in the revised statutes. This is to obfuscate perception by normal people. Psychopaths cheat, lie, and steal, through force, fraud and murder.
No one is asking you to give credibility to the feudal law system. At least not in the referenced article by Anna. I may not have been keeping up with a particular thread, so point it out for me if I missed something somewhere. Treaties, constitutions, laws, statutes, are all based on previous perceptions that may or may not be based upon previous events, lies, semantics, and head games. What legitimacy do any of those have with this comprehension? Along the same line of thought, the pope is not an authority over all mankind, never was. The king was nothing, except in his own mind. There has never been any legitimate authority over an entire population, let alone a single other human being. Its always been made up.
There wasn't any set of circumstances that the feudal law of Britain created to not control the Royals subjects.
You don't need to reference the feudal law of Britain in order to define your positions, actions or understandings of words now, unless you go along with pretend shit, in a pretend "court"/governmental-construct, to gain favor with said pretend "authority".
The "Crown" owns and controls English common law and equity as private property, in their own mind, like all control-freaks and financial-junkies think they own everything by "divine"/pope-decreed delusional right, If you buy into that crap.
The dictionaries and histories published in Britain are property of the crown if they can convince the population through ownership of the publishing houses, by copywright ownership, by the victor rewriting history/herstory to change perception of the population over time, etc..
Using the Queens/psychopaths property can only bound one thereto under some sort of delusional semantic headgame and/or perverted kangoroo "court" ruling, and only when enforced by retarded minions, who themselves have bought into said headgames.
Reader Charles Miller: "Thank you to all who responded to my requests for dialogue. What I find interesting and very telling is ..."
Posted By: hobie [Send E-Mail]
Date: Tuesday, 9-Apr-2019 04:36:09
In Response To: Reader Charles Miller: "Again, I question the logic behind the positions, Pledge being Feudal Oath." (hobie)
(Thanks, C. :)
Reader Charles writes:
Re: Reader Charles Miller: 'Again, I question ....
Thank you Hobie and RMN fo opening a dialogue.
Thank you to all who responded to my requests for dialogue.
What I find interesting and very telling is that there are still no direct answers to my questions. More to the point asking and answering questions is civil dialogue from which both parties benefit.
Apparently I have posted my questions in the wrong place.
I am not surprised by the reactions to legitimate questions.
I will make two points that hopefully may cause a civil return.
If the good King George defined him self as the “arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire ect.” is that an agency which binds George’s principal and franchiser for his Royal position?
If Congress never created a statute nor holds assigned powers by Constitution to create corporations are all those creations null tiel entities? And, more to the point how could the void color of corporation contract with anyone or act to hold anyone to account?
Wow, what happened to the American pass time of spirited debate and straight answers to straight questions?
"If the good King George defined him self as the “arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire ect.” is that an agency which binds George’s principal and franchiser for his Royal position?"
No. The king appointing himself to positions in a construct based on a falsity is a falsity on its face. The roman empire defining itself as an authority over all mankind is a falsity on its face. The claim of divine right is a falsity on its face.
"If Congress never created a statute nor holds assigned powers by Constitution to create corporations are all those creations null tiel entities? And, more to the point how could the void color of corporation contract with anyone or act to hold anyone to account?"
Yes, and they can't, legitimately.