Additional Clarification – by Judge Anna 04-09-2015Posted on April 9, 2015 by arnierosner
On Apr 9, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Anna Von Fritz
Each state or as noted commonwealth has its own roots and verbiage and common law tradition. That is why each one requires its own research.
However, such is the miscibility of intent that when the Alaska State Superior Court speaks to land jurisdiction, all other States ( or Commonwealths) may benefit under the Equal Footing Doctrine, regardless of whatever names are chosen.
Furthermore each State on the land has established a court which is “superior” and which may be exercised as such.
Thus when the Alaska State Superior Court files a Public Order and Declaration of Law the other “superior” courts may choose to do likewise and may either act in kind or choose wording and names more specific to their traditions and needs.
Remember that among the Continental United States each State is sovereign– not any federation of States.
Further remember that within each nation State of the land jurisdiction each member of the populace is enabled to act as a sovereign state.
Our government was modeled on the internal government of the living man—
Conscience equals the judicial branch.
Logic equals the legislative branch.
Free will equals the executive branch.
That is where the three branches of government comes from– an external projection of the internal state.
As such, each living civilian birthright state has more civil power on the land than the entire “federal” government– that is the true genius of our Forefathers. We are each recognized as sovereign nations unto ourselves, able to execute acts of state, to bring suits at law, and to prosecute them.
Why is this important?
Under International Law, in order for an armed invader to claim victory they must establish “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” — which in our case requires such invaders to control nearly 400 million minds to the extent that nobody stands up and objects.
Well, the people in Alaska just operated their land jurisdiction court to object. Others are invited to do the same.
The odious claims and criminal behavior of the Federal United States must be objected to by those who have standing to complain and counter-claim, otherwise the rest of the world assumes that these cretins truly do “represent” us and our will and our spending and valued and all the rest of it.
Pope Benedict XVI was addressed and attacked for his failure to properly protect our National Trust, when he was clearly responsible for doing so as the Global Estate Trustee. His gentle reply– “How did I know? Nobody complained!”
It matters less whether you inhabit a State or a Commonwealth, whether you have a court called a Superior Court or a Court of Common Pleas– for at the bottom of it, you possess sovereign will and act as a sovereign state. It is far more important that you clearly express your will and the pertinent facts and do so in public, so that other Americans similarly endowed with and having cause to defend their natural rights against foreign usurpations and corporate greed may follow suit and secure the Common Good.
The Timeline explains the fraud and logic (legislation) and the Declaration of Law yields the judgment based on Public Law of the Land that already exists and is well-established in public record.
For example, the obligation of the Federal United States military to defend the Continental United States is beyond question, and so is the military’s obligation to obey the civilian authority— but who or what civil authority, when the members of Congress fail to occupy the public offices they were elected to fulfill as fiduciary officers of the separate States on the Land?
Why, then, the members of Congress are merely occupying private corporate offices without any authority related to the civil authority the Federal United States military is under contract to and obligated to obey.
The responsibility for our own security in such a situation returns to us and depends upon us to speak as the sovereign States on the Land and to present ourselves instead of allowing shysters who merely claim to “represent” us in the same sense as an actor may “represent” King Lear—to steal us blind and enslave us and press-gang our assets into the foreign and international jurisdiction of the sea and even propose to use mercenary armies bought and paid for with our money as instruments to control and harm us?
No, no, no– dear Sir, in such a circumstance it doesn’t matter if you act as a Superior Court or a Court of Common Pleas.
What matters is that you act.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 9, 2015, at 10:25 AM, ARNIE ROSNER
A question on procedure.
robert:carr commented on Instructions – Public Order
On Apr 8, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Anna von Reitz <email@example.com> wrote: Instructions Technically, the Public Order …
Please forgive me, robert:carr, again.
To avoid confusion or the possibility of deliberate obfuscation I have found in The Pennsylvania common wealth “constitution” ( at Philadelphia, 28 September, 1776) a few items of interest…..
The stile/style of all process shall be “… The common wealth of Pennsylvania…”. (The 2 words written are distinct: common and wealth also both lower case, whereas “Pennsylvania” is a proper noun
“…. The supreme court and the several courts of common pleas ……. in The common wealth of Pennsylvania..”
Both quotes from constitution of 1776
The corporate franchise COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA has/have set up THE COMMONWEALTH COURT (ADMINISTRATIVE/EQUITY) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA (intermediate appellate court) and MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURTS (TRAFFIC CITATIONS and is formerly Justice of the peace) and the SUPREME COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA all under “THE UNITED JUDICIAL SYSTEM”.
Since the original “trial” court (land jurisdiction) was “the several courts of common pleas of The common wealth of Pennsylvania.” I was trying to avoid the “…the Superior Court of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth….”
Also, as one quite familiar with THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA………
I was thinking that this ….. “one of the several courts of common pleas for the Pennsylvania common wealth would be synonymous “the Superior Court for the Pennsylvania common wealth”.
Any thoughts or just stick with the instructions?
Thank you as always, robert: carr
Thanks to: http://scannedretina.com