(Thanks, i8. :)

(Which court?)

Reader i8 writes:

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

Re: Anna Von Reitz: 'Separating Wheat and Tares'

Hey Hobie,

Anna Von Reitz doesn’t teach law.

99.9% of her diatribes are her OPINION on political history, rather than useful facts and law that people can take into court to defend themselves.

POLITICAL OPINIONS and BELIEFS are NOT admissible as evidence in a court of law, per Federal Rule of Evidence 610.

Her approach serves to make her followers SITTING DUCKS if they have legal problems and also causes them to spread DISINFORMATION like this posted in the Facebook page, for example:

Link https://www.facebook.com/americanstatenational/posts/pfbid02sLk4gjScZxkiX9fdxogCvNWZd1RRErMG2oNp2z5YLWGsjH82ZUn86mjK4UtrMpbxl

Looking up legal authorities and court rulings on every subject she talks about would help this, and SEDM has encouraged her to do so, but she REFUSES, even though she identifies herself IRONICALLY as a “judge”!

Link https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhosWho.pdf

Link https://sedm.org/what-is-an-american-state-national/

quote: "If we don’t use any words in civil statutes to describe ourself, then we do not convey to the jury the authority to speak about us or our property in court and “justice” itself therefore DEMANDS that they must “leave us alone”: "

So, therefore, to embark on using Anna's opinions, she herself knows that any one is going to have to do their homework to dig up actionable facts and admissible evidence.

Still, it is at least entertaining to read her and, perhaps, more useful to read from others too.

Take, for instance, educatedinlaw.org and livinglies.me and winincourtnow.com

Thanks!

i8

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