Disclaimers

Hello. I am trying to figure this all out. Both myself and my parents have completed the paperwork to come home to land and soil by claiming our birth name and I guess we are now American Nationals. Have we put ourselves in danger? We have not signed any member agreements or contracts of any kind nor will do anything else until I fully understand any and all implications of our actions. I did not come across this site until after completing that process but last night found a page by a previous Assembly Member that showed great concern to me regarding the need to understand "Jural Assemblies".  The person adamently terminates any prior support towards formation of Jural Assembly and urges readers to understand how supporting such can implicate them in a negative way. I am seriously concerned of how claiming our birthright name may have jeopardized myself and my parents. If anybody can set my mind at ease, I would sincerely appreciate it. 

When I was a kid there was a ventriloquist on a variety show, I don’t remember which, and he would use his dummy to ingeniously engage the audience. It had eyebrows that would move, its eyes could blink independently, and it could tilt its head. It took on incredible simulations of human behaviors and even demonstrated human realistic mannerisms, to the point that it SEEMED the dummy was acting on its own. Eventually the audience no longer saw the ventriloquist, but only the dummy, and completely transfers to the audience a belief the dummy is for real.

Anna has mimicked John for so long, actually emulating our Common Law Grand Jury idea, uses our seals, and copies our documents, and in John’s failure to retort as the true ventriloquist, has transferred ALL NLA originality stolen by Anna, the dummy in this case. So my question for you is a good one:

When the show is over, and the audience is clapping, who are they clapping for, the ventriloquist or the dummy?

In this case, the Dummy wants to race ahead, strike out on its own, with its own interpretations, which are actually corruptions of the ventriloquist’s plan. The ventriloquist (John) wants to stay our course which does not give the dummy any original life or independent credibility. John used his response to figuratively raise his hands as the ventriloquist and demonstrate that it is NOT his hands controlling this dummy, and that he does not approve of what Anna, the dummy, is doing and wants to duly warn you.

Gary,

I believe I have been deceived by Anna von Rietz.

And I do apologize and beg forgiveness.

I also have posted many of her writings and now feel foolish.

I must admit that I thought I was starting to understand her positions as valid? And also thought she was working with the NLA?

I filed  a letter 1-30-15 to the IRS referencing 26USC6013 invoking my Common Law Rights preserved by UCC 1-308 And  1-106.6 Stated in 26USC 6013 now serve any further presumption and or relationship with the IRS and or Internal Revenue Service and now revoke election to pa yeas of June 30th 1973

Signed in red {Name Omitted} finger printed in red  under which non-negotiable autograph,under seal and in service,all rights reserved /with family Coat of Arms/ Notarized sent register read receipt mail to {Address omitted}

I believe it was an Anna letter? Am I in any danger of arrest?

NLA Answer to this member:

I am mistaken and have to ammend my recommendation to you:

I just spoke with John and Gerard, with another expert visiting on our call, and I brought up your issue. It came highly recommended that you need to send a letter to the IRS and rescind your letter filed to them. If you have further question please let me know.

There has been mixed reaction to this response from John to Anna. A majority are grateful that after about 2 years John has finally responded and provided retort for each of her claims. Some felt that our silence validated these negative and inflammatory accusations. 

First, thank you for the massive support. Second, this is the FIRST response to any blandishment leveled by Anna’s movement against John personally or the NLA plan as a whole.

I would like to answer to some questions in the responses.

1.       This is NOT only about Anna, but who and what she represents. The concepts of her movement are a significant departure from the NLA Plan, and a dangerous one also. John has clearly and concisely explained these deviations in his response to Anna. For example:

a.       There are no judges in a common law court

b.      It is not necessary to rewrite the constitution to restore the republic. We simply need to follow it.

c.       We will not participate in creating a shadow government, electing Governors, Presidents, Sheriffs, Judges, etc….

No one has been arrested in the performance of NLA duties and we plan on keeping it that way.

John. I hope that you do read this after I email it to you in an attachment for it will be too long for the comment section. I have used my investigative skills to break down each paragraph of Anna's article. I numbered each paragraph for reference. Here is my comments on paragraph #15. "Very misleading for it is NOT the job of the CLGJ's, of 25, to investigate anything. It is the job of the four Administrators to do the boots on the ground investigations and to submit the findings to the CLGJ's for a presentment or indictment of an individual (s) if the four can not make that decision. I should also add that once an indictment is thought, the party in question will then be granted the right to a petit trial jury of 12". I will try to get the full report by Monday.

I can't seem to find where or when congress passed this code. Is there any record of congress being in session when these codes were passed?

Mr. Darash,
I too use a pseudonym and for obvious reasons. In spite of what might seem an attack, it will settle much in the minds of those who feel this organization is the direction for this nation and any questions that might arise concerning these attacks.
Ms. Von Reitz is jealous. And that is my take on her.
She can't get her wings ready to fly and the next best thing is to try and clip someone else's.
Truth will out.
It must, our nation hangs in the balance.

Sincerely,
TheCountess