On 7/25/2014 8:01 AM, Arnie wrote:
On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Steve Langford <email@example.com> wrote:
Thanks, Arnie. Have yet to hear back from F. ANN RODRIGUEZ or fully to appreciate what this means to my future. But why do you call me a “Client”? I thought I was working in colleagueship with Anna Von Reitz. :-)
Earlier today I wrote this…
Just wondering (important or not?) whether I am actually your “client”. Searched (not far) and found which seems to apply until I wonder whether you have ever been paid directly for such professional services as you have offered to me. And I thought of us as colleagues, despite your far greater knowledge of corporate law and related issues.
to Anna. Now, I am prompted to pursue the matter in my physical copy of Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1990), which I am very pleased to find online at
It takes some getting used to, in order to discover how neatly to flip pages, and the page I finally land on is shown as a right-hand page, whereas it is a left-hand page in my physical book. But I eventually land on what I wanted to share:
which clearly sets out that a client employs a professional. I have not employed Anna and I am not sure whether she considers herself to be a professional, within the context of Black’s Law, but I readily find:
which definition avoids the common definition I have had, that a professional must be paid! So I guess it is appropriate that you call me Anna’s “client”, after all! :-)
Thanks for the English lesson, Arnie.
Now, how did you link my unregistering (yet to hear back from RODRIGUEZ) to Gov. Brewer’s pounding sand? And to what vindictive retaliations have I opened myself up? How do I defend myself? We’ll see, I guess…
Thank you Steve for this opportunity to expand on my use of the word “client.” Please consider the use of “client,” in this context that We the People, are “clients,” of the corporation enjoined to provide certain specific and lawfully definable and restrictive services. That is Clients…as opposed to “citizens,” of a government, who by the nature of such a relationship, where both parties might be compelled to comply with some sort of implied allegiance. Whereas, the services due the “Clients,” are based upon more direct terms of the contract called the Constitution of the untied States of America.
Out of my ignorance, as I have made it clear I am not of the law, and as just a reasonable uneducated man, I choose to use the word “Client,” as opposed to the word, “citizen,” to designate “clarity,” because:
- As it is already apparent, you have already become an unknowing and beguiled victim of the clever deception executed with not even a modicum of apologies, of the intended fraud for which its very creation exposes. And
- You are already providing more legitimization to this fraud by making a citation out of one of the many versions of Black’s Law Dictionary, which in my view is no more a valid law dictionary than the story of Harry Potter. And
- In fact by its very existence, it, “Black’s Law Dictionary,” belies the nefarious purpose for which it is used as a “pretend,” authority to promote fraud itself on those who unsuspectingly, consider it to be any type of lawful authority on its own.
Permit me to don my tinfoil hat and challenge the existence of Black’s Law dictionary as a bona fide authority using my reasonable man’s approach.
An ode to the authenticity and legal veracity of Black’s Law Dictionary.
So you send this guy to Washington where he is expected to assume a role as a respected and trusted member of society, replete with unimpeachable credentials to act ethically and morally, and with the best of intentions.
But instead adopts a corporate role, for the purposes of employing a protective of immunity which permits him to dismiss any responsibility or accountability and places him in a position of unbridled power by which to exploit the authority and the positions of trust and fiduciary privilege for his own personal gain.
So… You’re telling me…that a person, you elected in good faith to represent you, is now in office and operating in a corporate capacity and misrepresenting to you, who and what he is when operating in that corporate capacity, is creating an fashioning what is supposed to be a lawful legislation, when in fact his allegiance and loyalty, at the time of his performance, is to a foreign power, and in the performance of his pretended fiduciary responsibilities to you, he is actually, in the service of this foreign power, crafting subversive, and misleading legislation designed to entrap and deceive you, all under the guise of his sworn performance to act as your fiduciary, to protect the public trust and to serve to always protect and defend and support the Constitution of the United States of America.
And to cover his fraud and deceit, he called incidentally drafts content to be cleverly embedded in an accompanying lexicon to support his deception, using the name, Blacks Law Dictionary. and this is the same black’s Law dictionary from which you cite with legal authority?
No offense intended, Steve, but did I get this right?
Oh yes…this explains the importance of it all. Please click here.
Keeping American Patriots informed of the “truth” has become a full-time job!
Available 24/7 -