REBUTTAL: Anna Von Reitz: “Once Again, About Family Guardian Information”

Our biggest complaint with Anna is that she never defines the words she uses or the context, whether statutory or constitution. The creates more confusion than clarity with her readers, and also invites the very person she attacks to reach wrong conclusions because of it. Every use of a word should be preceded by the definition, in order to prevent equivocation and presumption in the use of the word and to ward off "sophists" who want to attack the speaker such as herself. She doesn't appear to appreciate these nuances and thereby needlessly confuses or deceives her readers.

Rebuttal to incorrect statements:

1. "Family Guardian presents everything as if average Americans were bound under Federal Code, and we're not"
   REBUTAL: They do not present information as if the average American is bound by Federal Code. They only provide the code as a tool to prove they are NOT subject to it and to present the evidence of why. Those who are not subject are called "non-residents", and these are the only people who can use "tax information and services" on the site, like this site.
2. "When you write "AMERICAN NATIONAL" the style of the writing (all caps) tells you that you are talking about a Municipal citizen of the United States."
   REBUTTAL: We have never seen any proof of that. AVR should not be making statements like that unless she is willing to present evidence useful in court proving it.
3. ""U.S. National" means that you are a "National" of the British Territorial United States, and that you are "residing" in a Territorial State-of-State under the Residence Act."
   REBUTTAL: "U.S. National" is NEVER defined anywhere in the U.S. code. It used to be used on the Form 1040NR and the I-9 forms, but both removed it. The 1040NR form used that term from 1984 to 2017 but never defined it. Click here for details on tax return history. Now, the I-9 form only uses "non-citizen national of the United States". Click here for details on the I-9. Therefore, there is no court-admissible definition of "U.S. national". We have also never in 20 years of searching seen anything that connects "U.S. National" to Britain. Even to this day, the regulation at 22 C.F.R. §51.2 says passports can only be issued to "U.S. nationals", which implies that Americans in states of the Union who get them must be "U.S. nationals". You could easily get confused about this by going to Cornell, because their versions of the regulations are older.
4. "He most likely went to the Family Guardian website and started reading material that pertains to Government Employees and got confused."
   REBUTTAL: Family Guardian doesn't provide the civil code to fool people into believing they are STATUTORY "persons". They provide it to prove that the average American does not have a civils statutory status, that it is ILLEGAL to have such a status, and that the status is a public office in the government. See: Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private People, Form #05.037.

Here's the crux. Family Guardian presents everything as if average Americans were bound under Federal Code, and we're not.

There are three (3) populations living here in this country.

(1) There are Americans who are part of the General Public.
(2) There are Americans who choose to act as British Territorial U.S. Citizens. (Military)
(3) There are Americans who choose to act as Municipal citizens of the United States. (Federal Civil Service).

Less than 10% of the laws passed by Congress pertain to the General Public, and those only pertain if we happen to be engaged in some federally regulated activity or have entered a Federal facility, like an Air Force Base. This means that less than 10% of the Federal Code is about us -- all the rest of it, over 90%, is addressed to our Federal Employees in the Military or the Federal Civil Service.

When you go to the Family Guardian website, it's easy to get confused and start thinking that all this stuff pertains to you when it doesn't.

Just this morning I got a big blast from some guy telling me that there was "no such thing as an AMERICAN NATIONAL." and loudly proclaiming that "I am a U.S. National and NOT a United States Citizen." and he went on to cite a bunch of information about passport endorsements he picked up at the Family Guardian website.

Passport endorsements work great if you know who you are. Not so much if you get confused and start unwittingly claiming things you don't mean to claim about yourself.

Federal Code is literally a Code. If you don't know the Code, you are up a creek, as this gentleman was after reading Family Guardian.

Let's dissect this diatribe of his. He says there is no such thing as an "AMERICAN NATIONAL".

When you write "AMERICAN NATIONAL" the style of the writing (all caps) tells you that you are talking about a Municipal citizen of the United States.

Such a person might come from anywhere in the world and isn't defining their political status in terms of nationality. They are defining their political status in terms of citizenship.

Citizenship and nationality are apples and oranges. You can define your political status in terms of citizenship or in terms of nationality, but you can't mix and match them like a fruit salad, as this man did, and come out with anything but gibberish.

Then he says, "I am a U.S. National and NOT a United States Citizen." So let's decipher what that means in Federalese.

"U.S. National" means that you are a "National" of the British Territorial United States, and that you are "residing" in a Territorial State-of-State under the Residence Act. That is, you define your location as "the State of Florida", not Florida, or "the State of New York", not New York. There are fifty-seven such inchoate confederate "States" including the Insular States of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico…. but their "States" aren't our States of the Union, are they?

No. They are not. New York is not equivalent to the State of New York.

Americans who are members of the General Public live in physically defined States of the Union: Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Florida…..

"U.S. Nationals" exist as temporary sojourners known as "residents" and they aren't part of the General Population living in the States of the Union; they are said to live in "the State of Maine" or "the State of Vermont", for example, instead.

You can be a "U.S. National" if you want to be, just don't get confused and think that that is the same thing as being an American. It's not. It's a separate and "less beneficial" political status.

How does the rest of his statement translate--- "and NOT a United States Citizen."?

Nobody can claim to be a "United States Citizen" even if they wanted to be, because that label refers to the Americans who once inhabited and populated the American Federal Republic ----which ceased to operate in 1860.

He most likely went to the Family Guardian website and started reading material that pertains to Government Employees and got confused.

Then he thought that I'd "lied" about the correct way to claim American political status because nobody could find "American State National" or "American National" defined under Federal Code.

Ask yourselves ---- why would any such definition be published under Federal Code? Federal Code is about Federal Persons, not American people.

This is why I appreciate the Family Guardian's efforts, and also, at the same time, the reason why I don't recommend Junior Woodchucks going there and trying to make sense of it.