Notice of Conflict of Law

By Anna von Reitz

Attention: H.E. Cardinal Dominique Mamberti, H.E. Chief Justice Joan E. Donoughue, H.E. Kiril Gevgorian, Lord High Steward Ivan Talbot, and Other Interested Parties:
Notice of Conflict at Law
We have served Notice that our General Public in both the national and international jurisdictions is not subject to any legal system.
Here is the portion of British Law which completely varies from American Common Law and which has been misapplied to Americans under the False Legal Presumption that these Americans are or ever were British Persons / Foreign Situs Trusts.
We are born as Free Men and Free Women that are owed every jot of the Treaties and Constitutional Guarantees; our Lawful Persons are then deliberately mischaracterized as British Territorial Legal Persons and impersonated. Here’s how and why this must be corrected.
The British convention holds that citizenship obligations attach to all Subjects of the Queen at birth. The American way is to hold all living people harmless from citizenship obligations to the governments. Later, upon reaching the age of majority, our people may or may not elect to serve the government as Citizens.
We do not incorporate or enfranchise our people as citizens at birth.
The British Territorial U.S. Citizens that Lincoln purportedly left in charge naturally presumed that the same citizenship obligations attached to Americans — but they don’t.
The only valid contract that the States have with the British Governments are implemented by The Constitution of the United States of America and the terms and conditions of that contract are self-evident in not including any reference to land and soil jurisdiction assets or powers.
Our Government was never actually absent or in interregnum; it was never designed to be in continuous Session.
Our people have never knowingly, willingly, or voluntarily adopted British Territorial Citizenship absent full disclosure and reasonable motivation — and no such citizenship obligations can be conferred on them or motivation implied by any advantage such Citizenship could provide —–absent a very generous paycheck.
The British Admiralty definition 1909 and discussion follow:
Page 77. Section 4. Every corporation should have a name (2) by which it is to sue and be sued, and do all legal acts. The name of incorporation, says Sir Edward Coke, is a proper name, or name of baptism; and therefore, when a private founder gives his college or hospital a name, he does it only as a godfather; and by that same name the king baptizes the corporation. (3) But though the name of a corporate body is compared to the Christian
name of a natural person, yet the comparison is not in all respects perfectly correct. A Christian name consists, in general, but of a single word, as Oliver, or Robert, in which the alteration or omission of a single letter may make a material alteration in the name. In all grants by or to a corporation, though expressed to show that there is such an artificial being, and to distinguish it from all others, the body is well named, though there is a variation in words and
syllables. (4) The name of a corporation frequently consists of several words, and the transposition, interpolation, omission, or alteration of some of them may make no essential difference of their sense, (5) The Supreme Court of New Hampshire say, that there is this difference between the alteration of a letter, or the transposition of a word between naming a natural person and naming a corporate body. It makes entirely another name of the person in
the one case, while the name of a corporation frequently consists of several descriptive words, and the transposition of them, or an interpolation, or omission of some of them, may make no essential difference in their sense. (1) In some devise to a corporation, if the words (though the name be entirely mistaken) show that the testator could only mean a particular corporation, it
is sufficient, as for instance, a devise to John Biship of Norwich, when his name is George. (2) So, it was held in Massachusetts, that a devise to “The Inhabitants of the South Parish,” may be enjoyed by “The Inhabitants of the First Parish.” (3) For a corporation to attempt to set aside its own grant, by reason of its misnomer, was severely censured, and in a great measure repressed, as early as the time of Lord Coke. (4)Where the name of a corporate grantor is
mistaken, as where John Abbott of N. Granted common of pasture to J. S. By the name of William Abbot of N. The grant is still good. (5) The name of a corporation, it seems, may be implied; as if the inhabitants of Dale should be incorporated with power to choose a mayor annually; though no name be expressed, yet it is a good corporation by the name of “Mayor and Commonalty.” (1) And a corporation may have one name, by which it may take and grant, and another, by which it may plead and be impleaded. Thus it may purchase and grant by the name of “Master, Wardens, and Brothers,” and be empowered to plead and be impleaded by the name of “Wardens” alone. (2) But in this respect a distinction has been made between the case of a corporation by prescription, and that of a corporation by charter; the former may have several names to the same purpose; and a scire facias will lie in one of the names on a judgment obtained in the other. (3) But a corporation by charter, it is said, though it may , either by charter, or by act of Parliament, be empowered to grant and purchase by one name, and sue and be sued by another, yet cannot have two names to the same purpose. (4) Mr. Kyd says, “This may be true with respect to a grant by charter,” but adds “There seems to be no reason why an act of Parliament might not empower a corporation by charter to use two names of the same purpose.” (5) It has been held in Massachusetts, that a parish may be known by several corporate names; and the court say, “We know not why a corporation may not be known in its public proceedings by several names, as well as individuals.” (6) A corporation which has been dissolved, (or more correctly, suspended,) by the loss of the governing members, may be revived either by the old, or by a name different from that by which it was formerly known, still preserving its identity and ancient rights. (7) For the purpose of preserving regularity in legal proceedings, a slighter variation of name may be sufficient to sustain a plea in abatement, than that which would be held necessary for the purpose of allowing a grant or other act to be avoided by the party, who In order to Sue or be sued there must be some agreement which is a contract to which a person can be sued over.”
No living American has ever had any citizenship obligation under the Constitutional form of government our Forefathers designed; but, they do have Constitutional Guarantees which the British Government and the Governments of Westminster and Ghent owe to each one of them.
Whereupon we are summoning the High Courts to enforce our customs and traditions and our treaty rights and contractual exemptions in this matter, and to hold all American people and members of the General Public and Government of our country harmless, bearing no responsibility for the crimes of personage which have been promoted against them under the False Presumptions of Admiralty Law practiced in secrecy against them by foreign Governments owing them Good Faith and Service.
Our Lawful Persons are not Legal Persons though they may appear to be identical in Name. It is therefore necessary to include the consideration of voluntary political association with regard to all people born on American soil; neither British Territorial nor Municipal citizenship can be conferred on those who object and publish otherwise, neither can acceptance of British Personhood be inferred from any non-disclosed act, Third Party representation, or adhesion contract — unilateral, implied, or otherwise.
Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals; Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents.
Notice served by: Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary
The United States of America
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652