Response from Jim McBride on the Two Deals article.

I received an email from Anna today, The Two Deals – Not Just the New Deal, requesting a response. As usual Anna gets to post her side of the issue to the masses while my responses are generally met with resistance and posting delays resulting in an extremely limited distribution. There seems to be some fear of a real and honest dialogue. A fear that is fiercely protected by Anna’s followers. It seems that so many are willing to take Anna’s rhetoric and name calling filled preaching as gospel while any factual rebuttal is labelled as an attack against her personally.

I make no judgments concerning Anna. Who am I to judge? But, I do take exception to the twisted logic and outright dismissal of valid research while readily admitting ignorance to TWEA. Even worse is a rebuttal based in that ignorance.

Anna’s comments are in black while my responses are in red.

When I look at the history and read the documents, especially those concerning Roosevelt and the "New Deal" and the Conference of Governors and its actions "pledging" the good faith and credit of "their states and the citizenry" thereof --- it's apparent that they were talking about their Territorial States of States and the States of States "citizenry" --- meaning those relatively few people who actually were United States Citizens. Not American State Citizens.

They gave their all-----all 1 in 1550 of us. (Take note that Anna uses the inclusive word ‘us’) And it didn't hurt them much, as most of them were ineligible to act as American State Citizens in the first place.

You may well be correct, but, then there was FDR’s Inaugural Address of 1933 wher he addressed the American people convincing the entire American population to also ‘Pledge’ their property and labor to a sacred purpose …… a Public Trust. FDR had to have the STATES (The administrators) behind him before he could get the people to follow.

If it was simply about "pledging" the good faith and credit of "their states and the citizenry" then FDR’s inaugural Address was addressed to only 1550 people, yet it was broadcast to the entirety of the American people ‘asking’ the people to also pledge their good faith and credit which FDR accepted as a gift at the end of his address. The Territorial States of States and the States of States had no authority to Pledge our good faith & credit. The United States needed all of our property as collateral for the receivership which required the consent of the people.

It was the entire American population who suffered through the great depression NOT just the 1550 territorial employees. It was the entirety of the American population who was ‘offered’ a way out of the depression and that way out was to ‘Pledge’ our good faith & credit to the common/public good as well. You will notice FDR’s offer and then acceptance of the GIFT/Pledge of the people’s good faith & credit to be collateralize for the Public good.

What they did was provide an excuse for a "legal presumption" that all the rest of the people in every State were similarly "pledged" and by a process of constructive fraud, undisclosed contracts, and semantic deceits, those responsible unlawfully converted the estates of millions of Americans into their "Public Charitable Trust" scheme "as if" they were actual United States Citizens or Citizens of the United States when they were never either one and never "volunteered" and never "donated" their children or their earnings, either.

It was a giant constructive fraud and identity theft and impersonation scheme, pure and simple.

It is so easy to point fingers and paint the entire American population since 1933 as VICTIMS as if the people played no part in the creation of our present reality. I for one, am NOT a victim screaming “Oh Whoa is me THEY did this to me!” When one puts away the VICTIM EXCUSE and bores down into the reality we find that we have been complicit and must take responsibility for our part of the reality we have co-created for ourselves. In so doing we see that there is a remedy …. A method for us to correct the actions of our mother’s and ourselves. We can either wine and cry about being victims or we can accept out part in our reality and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

“…. if we do as Jim suggests without first reclaiming our Lawful Persons as American State Citizens, we have no other recourse: we have "voluntarily" identified ourselves as British Territorial Subjects owed restitution under the quid pro quos of the New Deal. This then means that we cannot receive remedy as Americans.

Lawful Persons as American State Citizens is a position/status WITHIN THE WORLD OF COMMERCE. By claiming that lowly status one is disavowing their true status as a beneficiary in original jurisdiction the highest position on the globe. The world operates under a feudal system consisting of layer upon layer of trusts within trusts. One can choose to STAND in any position of any one of the millions of trusts that exist in the world today. OR, one can claim their true status as beneficiary in original jurisdiction, a superior position that encompasses every trust within those layers upon layers of trusts.

One cannot serve two masters! You are either a citizen of God’s kingdom and beneficiary in original jurisdiction or you are a lowly Lawful Person and American State Citizen thereby forsaking your rightful status under your Creator. This is a world of free will and choice!

The Public Charitable Trust was set up in the wake of The American Civil War as a welfare fund for displaced plantation workers and their families to help former slaves survive the bumpy transition to freedom. That is still the basic premise of the Public Charitable Trust, in that it is supposed to go to poor people in hard circumstances to pay for things like catastrophic medical bills and emergency shelter and travel money to get them back home when they have wound up in a place and can't get home. Now they are liquidating this trust as part of the General Bankruptcy of the Municipal Corporation of the District of Columbia.

I now see the confusion. You may be correct in your assessment of the Public Charitable Trust, but incorrect in identifying the proper trust of which I speak and/or the public trust in which the property of the American people has become embroiled.

I just can't see myself as a Brit nor as a Pauper, and I certainly am not a "Person of Color"

You went WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD here with these ASSUMPTIONS. Nowhere, in the TWEA process for redemption of the property does one identify themselves as Brits, paupers or Persons of color.

Equally, neither do I identify myself as a State National or lawful person or American state citizen. I am NOT a citizen, nor property of ANY STATE, Territorial States of States and/or the States of States NOR any status that identifies me as less than a citizen of God’s kingdom, beneficiary in original jurisdiction.

Whether you can accept it or not the reality is that our world is built on the feudal system established in the Bible. In the beginning God granted man dominion over all things ….. yet the Bible is clear that God RETAINED OWNERSHIP granting man ONLY dominion over all things.

And the land and soil is there to be claimed …

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! But, one must understand that the property of the American people is HELD IN TRUST …… the 1933 New Deal Public Trust ….. administrated by a provisional/occupational force by the consent of the people!

TWEA is the Trust Indenture setting forth the Parties, their rights and remedies, duties and liabilities and their relationship one to the other. TWEA is to be used by the beneficiaries to gain a remedy while the coeds and statutes are for use by the Citizen/slaves. The courts understand your status as soon as you file an action by the choice of law that you use. If you use the codes and statutes you are considered a citizen/slave yet when you use TWEA as your jurisdiction the court understand that you MAY be a private beneficiary …… and the tests begin to find out which you are …… beneficiary or citizen/slave.

It's the reclaiming of the land --- the actual and factual world -- that I care about and value.

We are on the same page here! But, we must understand the world of trusts. One cannot TAKE property from a trust! One MUST properly REDEEM the property from the trust. To TAKE is THEFT to REDEEM is HONORABLE!

The process for the REDEMPTION of our property, our good faith & credit, is set in stone within the Trust Indenture, TWEA. We have an absolute right of redemption of our property AND we have an absolute pathway to redemption all established within the Trust Indenture, TWEA.

We regain possession and control over our property and labor through the honorable redemption of our property and NOT by force or theft. Why use force and/or theft when a lawful process exists for the peaceful and honorable release and return of our property?

The TWEA process for the redemption of property has the side effect of correcting your status within the records of the Custodian of the Alien Property from the of Enemy Alien to that of Beneficial owner of the claimed property.

The ABC corporations can only charge those listed as Enemy Aliens! They are required to ensure you are on the Alien Enemy list prior to filing charges against you. Removal of your name from the Enemy Alien list is a bi product of the Redemption Process. The civil administration is CHARGING the property when you go into their courts NOT the living man/woman. When you go to court you are defending your private property rights. The ENEMY ALIEN has NO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGTHS while the beneficial owners hold all of the rights and power. From which position do you choose to handle your private affairs?

OH and BTW, you can have your cake and eat it too, as the United States also owes the American people the net earnings (interest and dividends) accrued and/or accruing in your name for the use of your good faith & credit.

Perhaps Jim would be kind enough to share the affidavit and let me see what is required?

Over a year ago, (not two years) I provided Anna a great deal of my research, complete with side notes, annotations and comments, in an attempt to open a dialogue on the subject. Although Anna readily accepted and shared my research there was never any effort forwarded to open a meaningful dialogue. No questions, comments nor concerns were expressed ……. CRICKETS was all I heard in exchange for my open and honest sharing.

Although this seems a rather back door kinda method for an open and honest dialogue, but at least a dialogue has begun. Let’s see if it gains any traction this time. jt