By Anna Von Reitz
My appeal is addressed to the people of England, the Union, and the former Commonwealth, though I am inclined to accept help from any quarter and anyone interested in the topic.
It has come to our weary and heartsore attention that the fabric of traditional government in the western world has been eaten away by commercial interests until we find that "the" President of the United States is not The President of The United States, that both King Charles III and King Charles of Scotland are not acting as Kings, and even the Office of the Pope has been converted, such that there is no obvious ministerial capacity vested in it.
The urgent question needing our attention this morning is -- exactly how long ago did this canker of deceit and commercialism take root in England?
We very much suspect that it began during the later reign of Queen Victoria and the Administration of Benjamin DIsraeli as Prime Minister, which resulted in the so-called "enfranchisement" of the British working class as a means to fund the Territorial Raj in India.
This undisclosed use of the British working people and their small holdings as collateral and their impersonation as things -- franchises of the British Crown Corp -- certainly upended the traditional Social Contract and breached the Public Trust on a vast scale, and all without the British people themselves being aware of it.
The insidious workings of commercial interests are certainly present at that juncture and have been present ever since, but the question arises -- is this the earliest example we have of this misrepresentation and thwarting of the traditional Government and evasion of its Social Contracts?
Or did it actually begin much earlier, with the reparations collected by Queen Anne following The War of the Spanish Succession, which was finally resolved in 1707?
For many reasons it is advisable that we track the Beast back to its origins and understand those origins thoroughly, but as an American, I feel that both in terms of having access to the source documents and the time to peruse them, it would be best if someone else picks up the trail and does this research.
The telltale signs we are looking for are: (1) undisclosed changes in the Social Contract, such that the people are promised one kind of leadership and government, but get another kind of leadership and government, instead; and/or, (2) the exact mechanism by which this change -- this "Bait and Switch" -- was accomplished?
We know that Queen Victoria absented the English Throne in order to become "Empress of India" so that mechanism is clear. We know that the late Queen Elizabeth II reneged on her Coronation Vows within three days of taking them and spent the rest of her long career occupying The Chair of the Estates, not the Throne of England --- so that mechanism is clear.
We also know that Elizabeth II's Son, Charles, has not even bothered to enter on the Throne of England and was directly crowned as "His Imperial Majesty" instead, so the Windsors are no longer even bothering to hide their dereliction and the nature of their administration as a commercial enterprise operating without the obligations of the Throne of England, and therefore without its authorities and Social Contracts as well.
We therefore have proof of this same double-dealing wherein the people of England expect one kind of leadership and receive another, offer one kind of Social Contract and receive a commercial contract instead --- during Queen Victoria's reign and during Queen Elizabeth II's reign and during the present Administration as well.
Our research asks not only: did this kind of "Bait and Switch" go on earlier, as a practice of the immediate forbearers of Queen Victoria?
We also ask if it has been practiced on a continual basis ever since Queen Victoria, such that Elizabeth II and Charles III have simply followed a pattern of malfeasance set down by their predecessors?
The essence of the Bait and Switch under consideration is to promise the people of England a Christian English King, and a Social Contract expressed as a Constitutional Monarchy --- but then delivering a pagan Roman-style "King" in name only, operating without respect for any Social Contract, not actually sitting on the English Throne nor accepting its obligations, and all of this being administered as a Territorial Raj even in the homeland of England.
There are many great historians both professional and amateur in England, who, once they are properly alerted to the existence of these issues, should be able to track them down and discern exactly where and when the commercial beast came ashore and began undermining the traditional Kingdom of England and its Social Contracts with the people of England.
Faced with the enormity of this fraud and its implications for everyone living in the English-speaking world, we ask for the English people themselves to rouse up and notice that the actual Throne of England has been --- to our certain knowledge -- vacant for at least seventy years and perhaps much longer.
We ask them to seriously and earnestly consider the implications of this dire situation.
The only thing stopping the Creditors of England, the Union, and the Commonwealth from falling upon the land and soil of these countries like so many vultures, are those claims entered in favor of the Kingdom of England's interests by the Hereditary Lord High Steward, Ivan Talbot.
As the American Fiduciary, and the Preferential Creditor of England, the Union, and the former Commonwealth, I have been obliged to foreclose against the legless "Kings" and investigate these matters for my purposes.
It is well-past time that the people of England research them for their purposes.
It is one thing to trust and assume that there is a King of England sitting on the Throne of England, and another to continue to assume this when you have been told point-blank that this is not the case and has not been the case for at least seventy years.
Anyone looking for proof need look no further than the already admitted High Court case of Regina v JAH (John Anthony Hill) and the recent Coronation of Charles III, wherein it is self-evident that he has taken no vows as a Christian Monarch and therefore does not sit on the land and soil of England.
Anyone taking me up on the offer to research these matters is asked to kindly advise me regarding the results of your investigations.
I am left with the British Territorial and Municipal Corporations in receivership until this mess is sorted out.
By: Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary
The United States of America
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
December 27th 2023
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
