Again, About the Arbitration by Phil Hudok and Others

anna-2   by Anna von Reitz

Again, About the Arbitration by Phil Hudok and Others

The following is a snippet from a conversation with one of those advocating and all excited about Phil Hudok’s Arbitration. It starts abruptly by answering the notion that the Queen or I or anyone else has the ability to determine someone else’s political status….
________________

Pardon me, but neither I nor the Queen have a word to say about your political status choices.

You [those advocating Hudok’s solution] are the ones claiming to be subjects of the Queen by continuing to (1) espouse “US Citizenship” without declaring which “US” you belong to; (2) by standing voluntarily under the King’s Law, and (3) by accepting the relief offered by his courts (as in “welfare relief”).

By these acts, you voluntarily subject yourself to the King (or Queen), and you look ridiculous if you then claim otherwise.

What you and others, too, fail to comprehend —even though I place it before you almost daily—- is that there are multiple governments at work here in America. Not just one.

The American Government of, for, and by the people does exist, but so does the Queen’s British Territorial Government, and the Pope’s Municipal Government. All three.

That circumstance, of having three different governments actively employed here at the Federal level, is the result of the “Power Sharing Agreements” that are in front of your faces— The Definitive Treaty of Paris, 1783, the implementing Constitutions, and if you were to dig further, you would find the related Treaties of Versailles and of Westminster dating 1778-1784.

Each one of these separate governments — American, British Territorial, and Papal — has specific jobs to do by contractual agreement. In performing those jobs, the subcontractors exercise our own “Delegated Powers” and operate “in our names”. This adds to the confusion.

So here you are, claiming the leniency and mercy of the King, on one hand, championing his law and subjecting yourself to it, and on the other hand, claiming to be an American Patriot. Pardon me, again, but I am not the one who is confused.

You can be counted as an American and claim your birthright as a State National, or you can go a step further and claim to be a State Citizen. See the Definitions in 8 USC 1101 (a) 21 and 8 USC 1101 (a) 22 (B).

You can also voluntarily choose to be considered a British Territorial United States Citizen (which is what you and Phil Hudok are doing, whether you realize it or not) or, you can choose to act as a Papal Municipal “citizen of the United States”. These citizenship statuses were created by the Constitutions implementing The Definitive Treaty of Paris 1783 — Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, and Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3.

Both these foreign citizenship statuses cited directly above, were created by the Constitutions and without the Constitutions, they cease to exist.

This is why preserving the Constitutions is of primal importance to all those who claim their political status based upon the Constitutions.

We, Americans, don’t base our nationality nor our citizenship status on the Constitutions. Our political status pre-dates the Constitutions by a decade.

So, if you want to style yourself as a British Territorial Citizen and wish to subject yourself to the Queen, who am I to criticize or say differently? The Constitutions give you that right, just as they preserve my rights and guarantees.

_________________________________________________________

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.