What's your point?
Do you have the capacity to do your own research ?
Here you can read everything you want from Paul's site. http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/08/the-expatriation-ad-project-for-anna.html
Then you can start reading Anna's work to your question about constitutions. http://annavonreitz.com/
Once you start that research at the bottom of those post you will have your answer about permissions.
I have been at this for 8yrs, and helped in both the advertising campaigns to get Anna's work out to all Brothers and Sisters, That is what this is ALL ABOUT!!!
AND who are you?
Well, for one, any article that makes a claim that is as obviously provocative as this should also provide proof of the allegations it presents. Assertions are, after all, not arguments. "Do your own research" is not an informative response when being asked for evidence or proof of one's claim.
Second, I asked about who you were because Steemit is ultimately a blogging platform that pays you for your work. Presenting the work of others, even if you properly attribute that work, may be cause for conflict. I'm not accusing you of plagiarizing the work, since you clearly attributed the author, but as with any other piece of published material, it is prudent, and oftentimes necessary, to request permission from the original author to republish their work.
From the beginning i have made no claims to ownership to anything.
I have given you the web sites. You are more then welcome to research out your questions, since that is what i have done for 8yrs.
By the way these are not claims, but Now undisputed facts recorded and filed across the world,as the Site will show. http://annavonreitz.com/
again who are you?
Of course they're claims. And linking me to a website that asks me to buy a book is not proof or evidence. Based on what free information I found on the page, the claims stated here are utter nonsense and demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of jurisdiction and statutory authority.
Who am I? Some guy commenting here. Unless you have some sort of credentials about studying law and legal theory, that's basically what you are, too. I can spend eight years working on making ridiculous claims without evidence, too. Doesn't mean I'm somehow an authority.
Ok, now that is your opinion, you did not search the site as you should. You narrow it down to a purchase with all that free information, over 700 articles.
You could easily have gone to this.
http://annavonreitz.com/toptenarticles.pdf
or
http://annavonreitz.com/courtfordummies.pdf
or
http://annavonreitz.com/unlawfulconversion.pdf
or
http://annavonreitz.com/twojurisdictions.pdf
And There are 3 jurisdictions, 2 have nothing to do with LIVING men and women. Statues are for the employees of the STATE and NOT the living man.
What happens when there is a un-rebutted claim in law?
It is all there for you to search out.
Unless she's filed a claim with a court of authority, her claim is irrelevant. Who'd she file her claim with?
Moreover, having read the last three articles, this is patently ridiculous. She cites a case (exceptionally improperly, by the way; for being a legal expert she apparently dispenses with the need to cite things properly) that, according to her, states that the US uses "martial common law" (whatever the hell that even is). The Supreme Court voided the last federal declaration of martial law anywhere that federal courts continued to operate following the end of the Civil War. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 12 (1866).
The only thing the cited case establishes is that there is no federal common law. Instead, it states that the federal government has no authority to suspend the jurisprudence of individual States and apply their own jurisprudence, except in cases where the Constitution specifically delegates authority to the federal government. In other words, neither Congress nor the federal courts have any "power to declare substantive rules of common law." Eerie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80 (1938)
While I am a firm supporter of common law, so long as statutes comport with the common law and don't attempt to supersede it (insofar as a statute is not simply a codification of existing common law), there is no issue. Statues are for people, by the jurisdiction of whatever court they fall under. You could make the case that the Constitution is non-binding and that the decision to forbid secession is null and void, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the laws of the several States.
Then there's the whole bit about comparing the US government to Satan and drawing some comparison about Satan's place being in the ocean, therefore the US is operating under admiralty law. Unless you or her can point to some actual documentation stating this to be the case, you're outta luck.
Calling yourself a judge does not make you one. If this was a stateless society and I was choosing arbitration firms, hers would be the equivalent of the quack doctor down the street hocking healing crystals.
Buy the book....lol
That's what I thought.
What happens when there is a un-rebutted claim in law?
waiting
you say....." I can spend eight years working on making ridiculous claims without evidence, too."
Ah, but the evidence is all there for everyone, you just want an easy answer.
Do you understand what a affidavit is?
That is what her book is, every word recorded and filed....
UN-REBUTTED.
That goes from the local county court all the way to the Vatican Court. UN-REBUTTED
I and many others have done this. Not ONE rebuttal of OUR Claims.
All her documents copied and enter into her book as the last chapter.
"You Know Something Is Wrong When... An American Affidavit of Probable Cause"
yes , i am just a man WHO wants this FRAUD against We the People to END.
An affidavit is just a sworn statement. Who's going to rebut it? Who's it directed at?
Actually, I'll make it easy on you. Just point me to the case she's commenced in whatever court and I'll look it up myself. All I need is the jurisdiction she filed it in and the case name.