International Public Notice: Dear Derek Johnson, Again
By Anna Von Reitz


The Armed Forces of this country have always depended upon volunteers, who largely bear the expense of their commission and equipment individually or by self-enactment of a tax at the level of the state as members of a state militia.

We don't do "National Guards" and send them to places like Afghanistan.

Ours is a different form of Armed Force than the paid-for military of the District Government, of which you are so fond. It is the difference between a militia of the people and hired guns fielded by the foreign British-affiliated Territorial District Government.

The Districts created by George Washington answered directly to the commander-in-chief not Congress and were part of the organizational structure of the Territorial Government as is the Office of the Commander-in-Chief itself. All that is private, not public, incorporated not unincorporated.


In order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give the President - power outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself – these were not "emergency powers" per se; they were private non-delegated powers such as a corporation can exercise within its own operation or to fulfill its own functions.


The so-called "Executive Jurisdiction" exercised by the same Office of Commander-in-Chief and recognized by the U.S. (Territorial) Congressional Act of 1845 is exactly the same kind of private prerogative of an incorporated entity granting a scope of action to its President that the office did not originally explicitly enjoy.


It's all private "law" internal to the corporation, not the public.


Martial law can be used as soon as the military is called upon to put down an insurrection or fight a war or engage in physical occupation; in this case, the for-hire British-affiliated and incorporated District Territorial Forces, e.g., U.S. Army have been occupying our country illegally since the 1860's.


The reason that this is illegal is that the "Civil War" was not actually a war. It was a Mercenary Conflict. And it was not an insurrection, either, as the parties engaged in this conflict did not have the standing to promote a political action.


Put in another way, General Washington created District States, not state districts; and the military occupied, for example, the Pennsylvania District (Territorial District) until the insurgents went home, and disbanded when the rebellion ended.


"The courts residing in these Territorial "District States", then are not Constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government [of the Federal Republic] can be vested.


They are incapable of receiving it [thanks to the strictly limited nature of their venues].


"They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exist in the government, or in virtue of that clause, which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States."


"The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the

territories of the United States."


This is known as "territorial law" and is consistent with the exercise of powers delegated under the Northwest Ordinance, which permits the foreign British-affiliated District Forces, e.g. U.S. Army, to enter new territories and establish a temporary territorial government within the new state's presumptive borders.


This form of law has been unnaturally prolonged in use throughout the Western States and those States formed during the so-called Civil War for want of the actual State Assemblies being in Session: there was nobody "home" to finish the process mandated by the Northwest Ordinance, so these States remained Territorial District States only until October 1st 2020, when the Assemblies of the pre-Civil War States unanimously enrolled and welcomed all the Territorial District States as fully empowered States of the Union.


So let us consider this situation in terms of public Martial Law which is the Military Law of the Lawful Government of the States in time of war or insurrection or occupation, versus "Law Martial" which is Territorial law -- private law of District States and District Corporations engaged in Mercenary Conflicts.


First, a statement of Martial Law which does not apply to forces deployed under Law Martial; that is, the following would apply if the battlefield were occupied by the lawful forces of the States, but as we've seen the forces deployed as, for example, the U.S. Army, were instead forces of the District States --- the Territorial States, operating under our delegated powers.


Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity – Retaliation:


"Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation,
under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial
Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not."


The forces occupying our country have no recourse to Martial Law, only Law Martial, so have no "Martial Law of the invading or occupying army".


"Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law."


Again, the only "law" possessed by the Territorial U.S. Army was Law Martial, not Martial Law, and the only means they had to invoke a court was as a Territorial Court --- a District State Court, not a State Court.


"Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation,
ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war,
when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the
conditions of the same."


By what right does an Army employed under contract by a peaceful civilian government and being paid by that government, become "hostile" to it?


So here we have the two conditions under Martial Law, not Law Martial, describing how occupations end -- (1) special proclamation by the Commander-in-Chief; (2) peace treaty.


Neither a Congressional Declaration of War nor any formal peace treaty ever ended the so-called American Civil War.



So there was no actual "War" by parties competent to engage in war via any Congressional Declaration of War, nor any peace process ending it; there were, however, three Peace Proclamations issued in Public by President Andrew Johnson, that did not have the effect of ending the illegal occupation of our country by the Territorial U.S. Army.


We are left with one of three possibilities: (1) Johnson did not have the proper Office and was not acting as Commander-in-Chief when he made the peace proclamations--- a situation similar to Joe Biden being "President", but not being the Commander-in-Chief; (2) Johnson's peace proclamations were a deliberate ruse by mercenary interests to confuse and defraud and disarm the public; (3) Martial Law (of the States) was being aped, but Law Martial (of the Territories) was being applied.


Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority,
of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of
general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.


This is the source of the repeated claim that, quote, unquote, "The Constitutions have been suspended." Once again, we are seeing the "appeal" to Martial Law, when Martial Law was never available to Territorial Forces. Lincoln knew this. Grant knew this. No doubt you know this, too, Derek, if you stop and think about it.


Everyone also knows that any "military necessity" occasioned by the hostilities that ended in April of 1865 did not extend much beyond that, and could not be reasonably justified by any such tongue-in-cheek misrepresentations of "war" such as a "War on Poverty" or a "War on Drugs" for 164 years afterward.


Yet this is precisely what we see -- a succession of British-Territorial affiliated corporation Presidents acting as "Commander in Chief" making such declarations of "war" every two years and operating under "Executive Orders" that have nothing whatsoever to do with any authorities or delegations of power conferred by the people of this country.


In other words, our employees have all been operating under Territorial Law--- Law Martial, not Martial Law; they've been running a Territorial "Congress" in place of the actual Continental Congress of the States or The United States Congress of the Federal Republic, and they've been occupying this country illegally under Law Martial and under color of law for over 160 years, simply by this ridiculous sleight of hand --- the Lieber Code, making constant reference to "Martial Law" when there was no "Martial Law" available to U.S. Territorial Forces.


It's like talking about marital obligations in a whore house. If you don't know where you are and who you are talking to, it can appear to apply and make sense, but the moment you come to your senses you realize that none of it applies to the situation in front of you.


"The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue
either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority."


Self-evidently, the "President" of the "USA, Inc." has no authority to write his own contract; also self-evidently, the Territorial USA, Inc. forces have no authority to conduct undeclared war "for" us and the "military authority" referenced in the paragraph above can only have been the British Monarch, except that the British Monarch wasn't actually ever operating as the King or Queen of England, and therefore had no "sovereign right" to conduct a lawful war of conquest nor any lawful right to occupy our country.


It's a British Territorial fraud against America, wrapped inside a British National fraud against the Brits. None of it has been true or correct since 1707.


What other possible option is left? The Pope declaring a Holy War? There is no evidence of that.


The Roman Pontiff declaring a Municipal War?


There is the agreement affiliating the Vatican forces represented as the Federal (Municipal) Civil Service with the Confederate States of America --- but as above, so below. The Office of the Roman Pontiff attached to the Holy See was also a Territorial Office, which it had to be, in order to take part in an undeclared Mercenary Conflict.


What all this adds up to, Derek, is a thoroughly illegal, immoral, and secretive occupation of our country by foreign mercenary interests that were supposed to be exercising our delegated powers in our defense, not acting as lackies for the British Monarch and the "Roman Pontiff" and being engaged in wars for profit, instead.


This is gross criminal abuse of our flag, our resources, and our people at the hands of criminals acting in violation of their service contracts --- conducting wars for profit to the tune of Yankee Doodle.


Both the facts and our direct experience indicate that the USA, Inc. secretly usurped against our lawful American Government and that the Territorial U.S. Army has illegally occupied our country ever since the so-called Civil War.


What is further indicated is that the USA, Inc., has thoroughly dishonored our Title IV Flag entrusted to its use when exercising our delegated powers, and that both the HRE and the British Monarch acting as Principals have acted in Gross Breach of Trust and violation of their Service Contracts, that is, The Constitution of the United States (1790) and The Constitution of the United States of America (1789).


So, Donald Trump, appearing to be an American "Commander in Chief" when he is instead the District Territorial "Commander in Chief" is at the very least disingenuous and his actions and his inactions must be judged accurately for what they are.


The only quasi-public notice of this circumstance otherwise given to the people of this country and the world, is the constant prating of the Tories, that is, British Territorials, about their "democracy" -- the mere mention of which should jerk Americans on their feet, realizing that our country has never been a democracy and therefore wanting to know WTH is going on here?


This circumstance may be difficult to wrap your head around, considering the great duration of the fraud, but there is no statute of limitation for the crime of fraud and no excuse for continuing it.


The Lieber Code, and that means the Hague Conventions also, are predicated on the fraudulent misrepresentation of a commercial Mercenary Conflict as a War, and the knowing substitution of Territorial Law Martial for Martial Law.


Those who have done this have done this to profit themselves unjustly and have scourged and beaten, harassed, enslaved, and robbed their employers, in violation of the Laws of Earth and Sea and Heaven above; let them be so judged by history that their fraud is remembered along with the exact mechanisms and misunderstandings they used to procure these end results, so that this kind of travesty can never again succeed and these injustices never again have the ability to breed.


This country belongs to the people who live here, not those who "reside" here. Remember that, Derek. Remember that the Title IV Flag was loaned to the British Territorial Government for use when exercising our delegated powers -- not for when it was raping and pillaging and engaging in war for profit. Remember that we, Americans, are not part of any democracy.

Issued by:

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America

In care of: Box 520994

Big Lake, Alaska 99652