(Thanks, C. :)

NOTE: This shall end this thread. It's apparent the two parties will not find agreement at this time.

Reader Charles Miller now wishes to express:

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

Re: From Anna Von Reitz: 'Instead of acting as....

PART IV, AGAIN, ANNA, THANK YOU FOR THE EVIDENCE.

Anna, your response to civil questions, as always, attempt to redirect the dialogue into your confused SECRET worlds of undisclosed positions and documents,
Changing the subject, shape, form or flow of dialogues does not change the facts of record. Witness these RMN publishes.
Rather than simply produce the requested documents verifying, your at this point naked claims, specific pointed subject matters to be disclosed, presented, some how get lost in your responses.
You have not been requested to violate any privacy or confidentiality obligations you may be bound by. So that excuse is dead.

What you have been formally requested to produce are the verified files that support your claim that somehow put you in a position to be in some kind of charge over public records, and government processes, foundational documents creating our American governments, and according to you are presently or will affect all Americans.
In short you stand on the principles of open government and the right to speak and act as secured by law.
Yet at the same time you claim you are restructuring governmental proceedings that affect every American and do so in secret.
Secret government of any kind always leads to slavery and collapse of a culture.
My works are public record, many available here on RUMOR MILL NEWS. Presented to all Americans for consideration. Many served properly to public servants in various jurisdictions with open public records indicating affects and effects directly related to the publishes in open public forums.
What I have shared is available to any one so they have another perspective to add to their knowledge prior to making choices.
So, in essence I operate openly with others because that’s how I want to be treated.
Anna, you apparently believe the special class you and your cohorts have set up are some how deserving to be part of your secret operations that according to you all affect every American.
What happened to consent, informed consent in your world?
How is consent gathered when secrets are in control?
How is consent gathered when your private contracts that you claim are or will affect every American fail to expose what is being consented to?
Operating as you do while standing on the fundamental principles of the American Adventure, free speech and access to law protecting that, and then operating in secret certainly appears to be way beyond confusion, actually approaching the point of deception.
Principles, facts, laws, time proven procedures do not change no matter how dressed up the cover up or deep the hiding from them is!
Contracts, parties to them, properties or rights in properties do not change because ANNA V. says so!

Silence is admission and confession something is wrong when formal requested such as presented to you are ignored.

Please explain to me and all the readers how or why you consider me an Armchair anything when you finally come out of hiding and actually engage even if the engagement is off point, confusing subject matters, misdirecting dialogue and calling me a rat.
Name calling is the last bastion of the impaired.
Seems like the schoolyard to me where we all knew sticks and stones will break our bones but names will never hurt us!

Below is a copy of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin, duly served to every prison and employee in that legitimate federal agency.
That Memorandum was caused by my April 2009 Civil Rights and Habeas Corpus civil action filed from federal prison to the ONLY Article III district court in the country.
Read it carefully and find the only valid criminal statutes in operation for the United States are the 1909 D.C. acts of Congress.
The sources of unimpeachable integrity and authority are cited very precisely.
Anna, this is what a verified open forum public record looks Like.
And, more to the point, I did that and caused that from my Armchair in federal prison.

e. Verified letter from Nancy Erickson, Secretary of the Senate, “....Thank you for your recent letter requesting confirmation on the status of H.R. 3190 from the 80th Congress. I asked the Senate Historian’s office to review the correspondence you enclosed, and they were able to verify that no action was taken by the Senate on H.R. 3190 prior to the December 19, 1947 sine die adjournment.

f. Verified letter from Lorraine Miller, Clerk, dated August 24, 2010:
“Thank you for contacting the Office of the Clerk. Our office has conducted research of the House Journal and the Congressional Record in regards to HR 3190 and the voice vote that was taken on May 12, 1947. After researching these official proceedings
of the US House of Representatives we have been unable to find the names of the 44
Members who responded to the voice vote.... This letter is in the Clerk’s Library.

g. Independently verified Memorandum Harley Lappin from Harley G. Lappin: “From:
‘Harley G. Lappin’ <Harley.lappin@usdoj.gov. Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:17 PM. Logo for U.S. Department of Justice.
“Attention all Department Heads, there has been a large volume of inmate Requests for Administrative Remedies questioning the validity of the Bureau’s authority to hold or classify them under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4081, et seq., (1948). On the claim that Public Law 80-772 was never passed or signed in the presence of a Quorum or Majority of both Houses of Congress as required by Article I, § 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Although most courts have, thus far, relief on Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892) to avoid ruling on the merits of these claims, however, there have been some which have stated that they were not bound by the Field case, but these cases did not involve any Quorum Clause challenge. So out of an abundance of caution, I contacted the Office of Legal Counsel, the National Archives and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to learn that there is no record of any quorum being present during the May 12, 1947 vote on the H.R. 3190 Bill in the House (See 93 Cong.Rec. 5049), and the record is not clear as to whether there is was any Senate vote on the H.R. 3190 Bill during any session of the 80th Congress. There is only one Supreme Court case that says in order for any bill to be valid the Journals of both Houses must show that it was passed in the presence of a Quorum. See United States v. Balin, Joseph & Co., 144 U.S. 1, 3 (1892). The Clerk of the House states that the May 12, 1947 vote was a ‘voice vote.’ Bu the Parliamentarian of the House states that a voice vote is only valid when the Journal shows that a quorum is present and that it’s unlawful for the Speaker of the House to sign any enrolled bill in the absence of a quorum. On May 12, 1947, a presence of 218 Members in the hall of the House was required to be entered on the Journal in order for the 44 Member 38 to 6 voice vote to be legal. It appears that the 1909 version of the Federal Criminal Code has never been repealed. Therefore, in essence, our only true authority is derived from the 1948 predecessor to Public Law 80-772. “Although adjudication of the constitutionality of congressional enactments has generally been thought to be beyond the jurisdiction of federal administrative agencies, this rule is not mandatory,” according to the Supreme Court in the case of Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 215 (1994). Therefore, the Bureau under the advice of the Legal Counsel feels that it is in the best interest of public safety to continue addressing all of these Administrative Remedy Request by stating that only the Congress or courts can repeal or declare a federal statute unconstitutional. Signature. Harley G. Lappin. Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.”

Additional verification from public record. Link http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/law/news.php?q=1351266977

Second verified position ratifying the Sovereignty of the People which you all apparently believe died some how. Sourced properly with know authority from open public records.
Who are the only parties that could de-construct the governments the People created?
The People as the grantors recognized in the Peoples Document of Title, our preambles to our constitutions!
The creators of any thing are always the owners!
And you ANNA V., want me a SOVEREIGN, grantor, bailor, beneficiary, and depositing creditor to governments to recognize you as my fiduciary, or fiduciary to my country with out producing one wit of evidence that you have any legal relationship or standing to do so! NOT!
If you in fact and law are the underwriter holding all liability for Public Interest and underwrite all business enterprises and public infrastructure and public bonds associated to my country, YOU DAMN WELL BETTER BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE PROOF TO ANY AND EVERY AMERICAN THAT DEMANDS THEM!!!
Otherwise you are committing FRAUD , THEFT, CONVERSION , and a whole herd of criminal acts under both common law and good standing state and federal statutes.
Anna, you also better be able to produce the APPOINTMENTS TO FIDUCIARY duly signed by herds of Americans being born and living in our country right quick. Other wise a major TRESPASS will be perfected by your own actions which will be proved to be deceptive by non production of requested proof of claims.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, declares; the Peoples Sovereignty over governments We Created.
Anna, where did that Sovereignty go?
Why are you Anna V. declaring over and over that the Peoples Sovereignty died somehow and you can restore it when you refuse to produce one document to back up your naked claims.
“ When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are sup- [118 U.S. 356, 370] posed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Emphasis added.

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