(Thanks, C. :)

Reader Charles Miler writes (and I'll respond, following):

=====

Dear Hobie, thank you for the question. That’s true engagement seeking resolution through open dialogue held in good faith.

I do not believe there is any misunderstanding in either Anna’s position or mine.

Either the foundational documents are valid in force and affect or they are not.
Either the people created governments to serve us or we did-not.
The people as principals and constructors of the contracts creating governments are the only ones capable of canceling those contracts.

I have seen no evidence anywhere that the foundational documents of our country have ever been negated, canceled, superseded or in any other manner voided by We the People.

What I have seen over and over, and challenged over and over, are the claims that some secret agreement, or treaty between parties not contracted to the construction of our governments, somehow superseded our powers and authorities.

Anyone not a first party to the contract that attempts to affect them is called a trespasser. In international law that’s a breach of the peace which is the highest crime of international law.

I was a tradesman at the top level my trade for close to 30 years. One of the time honored principles from the very beginning of one tradesmen teaching another is, you don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Make the wheel better, yes!

I feel no need to challenge the corrupt operations that Anna and her cohorts describe so often.
The reason I feel no need to address Anna’s issues is very simple and direct.
Once a fraud always a fraud. The only value a fraud gets is the energy it steals from those dealing with it.
It’s like standing in the sewer saying you don’t stink.
Once the people give their energy away, dealing with someone else’s lies, trespasses, perversions, overlays and usurpations, We have none for ourselves and fail to serve the original principles.
What else does the corruption need except your belief to be successful???
Once the, usurpation, overlay, perversion, of the structures that We the People created is recognized the fraud issue comes into play.

The premise that I am challenging is also very simple and direct.

Why would I ever give up the foundational positions created beginning 1776?
I do in fact have a perfected legal relationship that is binding with the United States government and each of its component parts. This is public record and unimpeachable. The records reside in the White House. The records reside at the Vatican. The records reside other places and other jurisdictions as well.

The positions taken in my world rely on public records, never conjecture or belief.
Public records are undeniable and inescapable.
Will someone please show me the international law allowing nations to go bankrupt.
Will someone please show me the records of the United States bankruptcy.
No law, no records means that something is not clear.
Will someone please show me any maritime contract that I ever engaged in.
Will someone show me the authority of Congress to create a corporation.
Will someone show me how a nation becomes subject to a foreign corporation.
Will someone show me how maritime jurisdiction attached to the venue of the American experience.
Will someone show me how I can be bound to another’s assumptions of what my legal standing in capacities are.
Will someone show me where I ever agreed to be bound by another’s legal determination of my legal relationships to the governments We the People created.

Until those documented positions are put in public record and before me all the assumptions relied on are merely someone else’s assumptions.
Given the context of the American experiment in self constructed liberty and the public record supporting that position, I know that anyone attempting to induce me to believe in something that is not provable by public records is enticing me to involuntary servitude.

So Hobie, I do-not believe there is any confusion between my verified by public record positions and Anna’s positions.

I invite all of yours are Anna’s readers to provide me with the documents supporting the positions.

Until those are presented I will continue to rely on the public documents ratifying my positions in local, national, and international law beginning 1776.

There is no argument here. This is because opinions and beliefs are always personal and do not apply to others.

=====

(hobie here.) Thanks. :) What follows is my best, current understanding of what Anna's been saying. If I'm incorrect, I'd be glad for someone to enlighten me.

Anna's not saying there are secret agreements that need to be challenged. She's not saying that a government went bankrupt. She's not saying a government was made subject to a foreign corporation. She's not saying that "the foundational documents of our country have ever been negated, canceled, superseded or in any other manner voided by We the People."

You're asking her (or anyone) to supp[y documentation to support positions she's not holding. :)

Anna's saying that two overlays that look like governments are instead 'subcontractors', lawfully contracted to handle certain affairs of the actual government, and that miscreants have led Americans to believe themselves to be 'citizens' under the jurisdiction of one or both of those subcontracted government-look-alikes.

She is not saying there's any need to challenge or create controversy or ask permission. She's saying the needful thing is to undertake and complete the Reconstruction that should have occurred following the so-called Civil War. And the key aspect of doing that is for people to declare their actual status as American nationals.

--hobie

**************************************************************************