Here is an example in a post of how I refer to the Federal government

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

On the grassroots level, I gave this answer to another member in another forum:

You don't understand that I am not guilty. This means, although the lawyers working for the Washington government have stripped me of almost every administration skill (I have been reduced to a child), I AM NOT GUILTY. This means no enforcement is necessary to make sure that I am insured as a driver.
You see, this forces our government to close our borders which is the real problem.
I am not a client (idiot). I am no longer a mere subject to an officially deemed object. As a king has immunity from offenses and impunity to commit them at will, so, as an American citizen, I am not guilty! When someone shuns me towards the business of a lawyer, I dust off my boots and walk away.

In responding to this member, I referred to the Federal government as the "Washington government." As there exists no Republic, there exists no Federal or state governments.

[Dianne]

What brought this on? Your post seems really good, but I'm missing the context of it?

What were you responding too?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What brought this on? Your post seems really good, but I'm missing the context of it?

What were you responding too?

I didn't reference the Federal government in this post. I referred to it as the "Wasthington government." As the Republic does not exist, so, the Federal and State governments do not exist. So, we should refer to them as "the government in Washington" or "the government in Texas" when addressing their corrupt natures.
I was referring to how the state sets policy to regulate citizens in regards to insuring their vehicles while it won't close the border to better remedy this situation.