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.