Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 6100 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do not attempt to comment using the handle "Unknown" or "Anonymous". Your comment will be summarily deleted. Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinon only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted.


Saturday, May 29, 2021

About Hawaii

 By Anna Von Reitz

The last Queen of Hawaii and her ministers sold the land mass of Hawaii because they knew that if they didn’t do so, they would be over-run by the Chinese or the Japanese. That same reality remains.
We have the records showing the sale of Hawaii and the source of the funds (we were that source) but we have no records related to where the money went after it left the coffers of The United States of America. It is most likely that there is a "managed fund" set up somewhere in the Hawaii State Trust accounting for all that money.
Neither the former Queen nor her Ministers lived super-opulent lifestyles after the sale, and her living relatives have lived modestly, so it is unlikely that they kept the money for themselves.
No Treaty was necessary as this was a sale transaction and the Queen and her cabinet had the authority to do it. From reading the record, they were caught between a Chinese rock and a Japanese hard place. If they wanted United States protection they had to grant the Americans an ownership interest—- otherwise we could not intervene on Hawaii’s behalf, and we could not legally establish Territorial military outposts in Hawaii.
Anyway, the point is that the United States did not coerce the Queen into abdication. The whole situation and the elements of coercion that were part of it, were the result of Chinese and Japanese interests that were eyeing Hawaii like a bone ripe for a tug-of-war.
The Queen and her Ministers (wisely, in my opinion) did not want to see their country embroiled in a war between China and Japan, and they didn't want to see the Hawaiian people subjugated to the victor in either case, so they actively sought protection as an American Territory.
Far from leaning on the Queen and forcing her to abdicate--- which is the Urban Legend--- the US had to be talked into it, because defending Hawaii against the combined Pacific Powers of China and Japan is a tall order on the best of days, and those were not the best of days. Remember that our Navy in the Pacific at the time of the Queen's abdication was barely able to protect commercial shipping from Korean pirates. The deal with Hawaii ultimately required vast outlays of investment in military infrastructure and also civilian infrastructure in Hawaii, plus vast investment to bulk up the Navy in the Pacific.
Yes, there were industrialists and defense contractors and military gurus pushing the agenda, but there were also industrialists and defense contractors and military gurus pushing against buying into Hawaii's defense predicament. The other camp thought the defense of Caribbean and South American interests and the Panama Canal were more important.
In the end, it was the King of England that decided the issue and accepted the abdication and all the investment obligations "for" us, and it was our money and our manpower expended to do it all. The King was concerned about the weakness of the Pacific Fleet and wanted to extend not only his power through his command of our Navy on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways, but also wanted to beef up protection of his interests around the Pacific Rim--- at our expense, of course.
There are also questions raised about the "legality" of Hawaii's inclusion as a State, as our actual Government was not in Session at the time and the Federal Republic was long since dormant. How, people wonder, could the U.S. Congress pull off the requirements to make Hawaii a State of the Union?
The short answer is that the U.S. Congress could not and did not accomplish that. It did the same thing with Hawaii that it had been doing with the Western States ever since the Civil War ---- conferred "Territorial Statehood" on it, installed a British Territorial State-of-State as custodian --- and shut their mouths.
Hawaii, like Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Montana, etc., were never States of the Union, and all for the same reason, until October 1, 2020, when a Roll Call vote of the pre-Civil War State Assemblies completed their retroactive enrollment as States of the Union.
That is, despite the impression that Hawaii and other States had left "Territorial Status" a long time ago, they were not actually States of the Union; they were only being treated as such and managed as State Trusts.
Always remember that our actual Government is not vested in any kind of "legislature". Our foreign territorial subcontractor which functions as a democracy uses a legislature to set public policies, rules, codes, and regulations for their employees and dependents, so acting through a "legislature" is appropriate for them and applies to their custodial duties as assigned by The Northwest Ordinance.
It’s important for Hawaiians to realize that (1) the same fears of Chinese or Japanese invasion that created the situation in the first place are still well-justified and (2) they have been living under the Queen’s foreign thumb as a Territorial State and have never gotten to enjoy the rights and advantages of an actual State of the Union ---- until this past October.
Before people go blaming us and reacting against things that the Territorial Subcontractor has done, or proposing to enslave themselves again to a Monarch—- they should give themselves a chance to take up the responsibility of self-governance in earnest and join their State Assembly with a clear vision and willingness to work.
This is the first time since Captain Cook that they have had the opportunity to steer their own boat and take charge of their destiny. I encourage each and every Hawaiian to do so---- lawfully and peacefully. Their actual State Assembly is now in Session and the power of the actual sovereign State is in their hands for the first time.

Need I add that their help is needed? Our whole country has been abused and misused for generations and its "All hands on deck!" for every American, not only to save their own bacon, or their own State, but the entire country and the world as we know it.

----------------------------

See this article and over 3100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

5 comments:

  1. All law is applicable ONLY where the land or territory is such that legislative law is qualified to be applied to that specific land, building or territory. Ed Rivera has studied the Organic Laws for decades and finds the requirement for Article I for the United States to lawfully qualify as the entity which has authority to pass legislation over any land building or fort, the United States must first be certain AND BE ABLE TO PROVE that the legislation will be applicable ONLY to lands and buildings Per Article I, Section 8. Clause 17 "forts dockyards and buildings", and nothing else, similar to the ten mile square limit of jurisdiction of Congressional legislation over the land of the District of Columbia.

    Covertly hidden in the California code governing aircraft is the phrase "owned by and ceded to the United States of America". This phrase is of great significance as it admits that any law properly applied must be applied to land, buildings or forts, etc, which are in fact "owned by and ceded to" the United States of America. A Congress of the United States has the right to authority to create laws over property owned by the property owner. So when the issue of legislative authority is reduced to what is legitimate law with respect to the United States Congress passing and applying any law, such law must be applied only to lands, buildings or forts and dockyards which are "owned by and ceded to the United States of America".

    As Anna points out in her article about Hawaii's purchase by the United States in order to bring it under legislation to protect it, it apparently has become in the sale transaction "owned by and ceded to the United States of America".

    But what about California? What about Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and all the other western states? Where is the evidence any of these states has been purchased by the United States and such states are consequently "owned by and ceded to the United States of America" ?
    Without such evidence, any claim that Congressional legislation can be applied to these or any other states must be able to evidence those states are lands, buildings forts and dockyards that are "owned by and ceded to the United States of America." Otherwise any claim of jurisdiction over those state lands is a pretense, fraud, and deception.

    Hawaii's purchase by the United States illustrates the necessity for any legislation to be applied to any land must be strictly over lands owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There has always been rich people and corporations which head them and if not them than the BAR who are nothing but opportunistist looking for an easy buck
    If we were to right all the wrongs of the past stating in 1871 ultimately we would all get complacent and eventually we would wind up in exactly the same position as we are right now because many people are convinced that money equals power and therefore become greedy leaving the rest of us to wonder what happened...this has been the way of the world ever since adam and eve....it will only change when CHRIST himself sits on the throne and everything is know by all and hung immediately..!! Everyone that took part in this great scheme,and greated semantic deceit like the BAR and bankers , and to a much lesser degree ...us, i dont care how many TRUST or treaties are signed , it will always revert to slavery because some people think they are smarter than all the rest of us and therefore desreve to be treated like slaves...when has this ever been different...NEVER!!! There is simply no way to make people honest unless JESUS sits on the throne. There simply are too many people who think they are gods..!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You all forget that the Territorial status of the western States was granted to the Territorial Government as a custodial duty acquired under the Northwest Ordinance. As no land jurisdiction Congress was in Session, these western States were never enrolled as true States of the Union either, but remained in the custody of the Territorial Government until last October.

    Please also understand that there are multiple entities called “United States” involved and also a couple different versions of “the” United States of America, and thanks to fraud, several variants of The United States of America as well.

    To interpret anything about the Constitutional provisions requires knowing the time frame, the context, and the exact name and style of name and identity of the entity using the name.

    This requires a comprehensive knowledge of the history that very few people have.

    At various times our Union of States has been called “the” United States, so has the Territorial “United States” and the Municipal United States.
    Keeping straight which entity was referenced Is akin to sorting spaghetti noodles but can be done.

    The United States being referenced in 1787 was the Federal Republic. After the Federal Republic went dark in 1860 it was still referred to as the United States but increasingly the “United States” was applied to the Municipal United States.

    A similar conundrum occurs earlier — prior to 1787, the United States is used to refer to the Union of States formed in 1776. After 1787 it may refer back to the actual States and Country or to the Municipal Government. After 1878 it may also refer to the US Corporation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Without showing the authenticated:

    "We have the records showing the sale of Hawaii and the source of the funds..."

    This article, with all due respect to AVR, is a load of BS. Many, (verified as authentic by various 3rd parties up to & including several well recognized international-Law legal experts) records, (still valid treaties with the Kingdom of Hawai'i, grass-roots petitions, legal findings that the U.S. govt operatives & organs who acted outside designated authority, fraud, etc.) have surfaced over the last several decades that make no mention of any "sale" of the territory of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

    Put your proof up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Additionally, I somewhat agree that joining the efforts & ranks as a Union state, that AVR has largely spearheaded would probably be the best course to move Hawai'i forward.

      Again, why muddy the waters by merely saying something without substantiating it with proof of sale documentation?

      Until then I call BS.

      Delete