By Anna Von Reitz
I have commented on this before, and will comment again.
It is the stock-and-trade of the perpetrators of these schemes to: (1) destroy and burn books and public records contrary to their story line—observe the War of 1812; (2) rewrite or omit history to mislead others and promote their self-interest — observe your own less-than-complete public school education; (3) evade and deny and lie about any truth that is not complimentary to them and their false claims in commerce.
These Liars make their livings off of Lying. Okay? So that is what we are dealing with.
They constantly change the Codes and the records and the court citations by renumbering, “revising”, annotating, archiving, repealing, renaming, and in extremis, destroying material that contradicts their official version of reality.
And they constantly misrepresent things. For example, they continue to promote the assumption that the “Revised United States Statutes at Large” exist, when in fact, they were never adopted.
That leaves us with what? Oh, the original United States Statutes at Large are the actual Law, but people are left citing the Revised (Non-Existent and Unofficial) version, which automatically torpedoes and invalidates anything they say.
These Agents of Darkness are as devious as you might expect, so you have to put on the “full armor of God” and sharpen your skills of discernment and think about what you are doing and what you are searching for.
Title V was just “revised” again in 2017, and not surprisingly, it has been renumbered and the evidence of the guilty parties sale of “citizens” has been moved — quite possibly entirely removed — from the current version of Federal Code.
Realize that what we are talking about had its genesis in 1868 and its most evident fruition in the 1930’s, so instead of looking at the Federal Code as it exists in 2017, look at the Federal Code as it existed in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s.
When trying to find a citation and it doesn’t immediately pop up, look 10-20 pages on either side of the number of the Code citation given. Look carefully at the notations added to the Code as notes and footnotes. These often tell you where they moved “the cheese”— and be forewarned, you may have to track down several iterations of this same process, because some “cheese” is so good they move it multiple times.
Finding that they have re-numbered a citation is utterly commonplace, and finding that they have moved citations to other sections of the same basic publication, or that they have reshuffled whole sections and renumbered them, is as commonplace as dirt.
So, please don’t call me up and rave that you can’t find a citation, therefore, it doesn’t exist, therefore, I lied to you.
When trying to find a “US Supreme Court” case, remember that there are six (6) versions of “US Supreme Court” and you have to be in the right church to find the right pew.
When trying to find a court case, be aware that they rarely but consistently change the names of “hot” court cases by changing the names of the Parties or breaking up the court record into separate pieces.
For example, a case that starts out as “People of Colorado v. Aims Hardware, Co.” will magically transform into, “State of Colorado v. Aims Hardware, Co.” and a case that starts out as “City of Philadelphia v. Robert Burns and Company” will morph into “PHILADELPHIA v. BURNS” and so on.
Among old cases you will also find “Split Jurisdiction” Cases, where a land jurisdiction court had to rule on the land portion of a case and a sea jurisdiction court had to rule on the sea portion of a case, creating two separate court records in two separate courts. Invariably, they have hidden the land jurisdiction court case in an effort to hide the existence of the land jurisdiction court, and you will have to dig very deeply into the bowels of the Archives to find what you are looking for.
Nobody said this was easy. This is why we have researchers whose entire contribution to the effort is tracking down certified copies of these source documents.
Be aware that the “cheese” moves, and sometimes, it even disappears for a time, but also be aware that when I give you a citation, it does exist, and somewhere in my records, there’s a hard copy of it with a date stamp and office on it.
This what I suggest that everyone do. Go to a Law Library, find your citation, take photocopies of the citation AND the actual book you took it from. Literally, take a copy of the book cover and a copy of the inside pages showing the publisher, date, copyright, etc. This establishes “the Record” at a specific source and point in time.
And that nails the cheese down at last.
Also, some sources are relatively free of this kind of manipulation and you will find that the lawyers themselves lean hardest on these sources. Be aware that the only dictionary ever approved by Congress is Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. The common use of Black’s Law Dictionary is because of its use in Maritime and Admiralty Law—- not land law.
American Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris Secondum, usually abbreviated American Jurisprudence 2nd, or just Am Jur 2nd, is published by Westlaw and is widely regarded as “reliable” by most courts and For-Hire Jurists. Therefore, unless you are obviously mistaking the meaning of the legalese, citations taken from this source are widely accepted and may help you find new leads in your research.
Quite often, Am Jur 2nd will “link” associated cases, so if you find a reference to “Downes v. Bidwell” you will find listings to “Hooven and Allison v. Evatt” and other Insular Tariff Cases.
Remember the video of the Mouse v. the Snake? This is the Mouse v. the Cheese Maze. Don’t be discouraged if at first you don’t succeed in finding a reference.
See this article and over 1700 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com