A Message To, For, and About Great Britain
By Anna Von Reitz
Here are some pearls from Ed Johnston---
16th American Jurisprudence Section 177
(16 Am Jur. 2d. Const. Law Sect. 256)
The State did not give the Citizen his rights and thus cannot take them away
as it chooses.
The State did not establish the settled maxims and procedures by which a
citizen must be
dealt with, and thus cannot abrogate or circumvent them. It thus is well
settled that
legislative enactments do not constitute the law of the land, but must
conform to it.
From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:"The
general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the
appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is
the supreme law of the land,
and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for
both the
Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is
succinctly stated as
follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form
and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective
for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its
enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it
.
As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it
had never been
passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just
as it would be had
the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the
general principles
follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office,
bestows no power or
authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed
under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the
land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in
opposition or
contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her own actions, commits treason
and invokes the
self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his or
her, office.
__________________
Please note that The Constitution is for inhabitants of the Federal United
States LITERALLY
the law of the land--- because when they come in from their watery
international
jurisdiction, they are required to operate by the rules established by The
Constitution on the land.
When reading Federal law, you must always read it from the Federal
perspective. They
operate in the international Jurisdiction of the Sea, so, of course, the
national law they are
obligated to respect when dealing with us is --from their perspective--- the
Law of the Land.
It's the same reversal when they speak of "inhabitants"---- we are "peaceful
inhabitants of
the land" (14th Amendment of the corporate Constitution) from their
perspective, whereas
they are "inhabitants" of the "maritime regions and insular states" from
ours.
We did not suddenly lose our political status as one of the "free sovereign
and independent
people of the United States" under the terms of the Definitive Treaty of
Peace 1783 because
they called us "inhabitants of the land" in their private corporate
"constitution" of 1868----
even though the two different uses of the same word in two completely
different documents was no doubt meant to confuse identities and issues of
political status that should never have been confused at all.
Why call a corporate "constitution" the Constitution of the United States of
America, if you
did not mean to confuse it with The Constitution for the united States of
America?
Why call us "peaceful inhabitants of the land" if you did not mean to
confuse us with the
British Subject "inhabitants" referred to in the Definitive Treaty of Peace
1783?
This use of "deceptively similar names" has been carried on throughout the
long effort to
mischaracterize and defraud the people of the United States by operatives of
the British
Crown and the British government.
How better to undermine our lawful government, if not to do it under a veil
of "friendship"
and treaties promising "perpetual amity" and while acting in the guise of
being our
"Trustees" in the realm of international commerce and as our "allies" in
war? Who could ever suspect our "Mother Country" of seeking our demise?
Foxes in the hen house doesn't begin to express the gravity of the
international criminality
and breach of trust that we have suffered at the hands of the Federal United
States and the
British Crown and the parade of "Royal Majesties" since Edward VIII stepped
down---- and
what is true for us is also true for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan,
Germany, India,
most of Europe, Ireland, Scotland, Wales......
The Enfranchisement Act of 1867 championed by Benjamin D'Israeli toppled the
English
government from within, engaged Queen Victoria in unlawful acts against the
people of
Britain and betrayed their established government all the way back to the
Magna Carta.
D'Israeli enslaved the people of Great Britain to finance the enslavement of
the Indian
Subcontinent under the Raj. As long as Queen was going rogue at home and
secretively
enslaving the people of Britain, what did she care about pillaging and
betraying her allies in Europe, the Americans, the Australians and a few
Canooks?
This is the thanks we all get from the British Royals for our sacrifices and
loyalty through
two World Wars and countless police actions ever since: press ganging,
enslavement, inland piracy, unlawful conversion, personage, barratry, and
fraud, fraud, fraud. We are dealing with exactly the same criminality and
the same evil that Gandhi faced in India, but unlike Gandhi, we are not
facing it alone.
In evaluating this deceptive and perfidious Enemy of all free people
everywhere, consider
the lack of conscience and morality involved when a government taxes poor
people for salt
that they need to live and which they have harmlessly harvested from the sea
for millennia? That's what the Raj did in India. That's what the British
Crown is capable of.
That is what Prince William's throne is built upon. It's not his fault. He
is inheriting the
situation his Great-great-great Grandmother left him and he will be hard
pressed to make
sense of it or find a way forward out of this system of betrayal and
criminality without a
velvet boot up his backside pointing him the right direction. It's our job
to be that boot and make sure that this system of things is brought to a
peaceful and sane conclusion in which still more innocent people do not
suffer. Gandhi and Jesus have both showed us the way to defeat this Evil in
high places---- millions of people must join hands and expose the cruelty
and criminality and oppressive nature of the British government so that it
becomes so embarrassing, so obvious, so insurmountably distasteful that both
from within and without the denizens of Westminster are forced to relinquish
their vile claims of ownership and control over the rest of us.
Now that we have identified at least a large part of The Problem, let us
quietly and
determinedly proceed to hold the Lord Mayor of London, the Lords of the
Admiralty, and the Queen fully accountable for these outrages against the
British people and against all the rest of us, too. We were all promised and
guaranteed certain things and we all know what we have received instead.
As it was in the days of King John, it is again, when the leaders of the
people must rise up
and demand their rights or lose them, must expose the criminality we have
lived with too
long or condemn our children. It is time for the Natural Rights of Mankind
to be asserted
and for idolatry to end. They may kill our bodies, but they cannot kill our
spirits; and they
shall not win.
Kind regards,
Chris
