International Public Notice: Any Fight is Not About Immigration

 By Anna Von Reitz

People around the world are watching two foreign corporations setting up a phony civil war on our shores in contravention of international law and in violation of their own service contracts. 

Joe Biden working the latest iteration of the US, Inc. is attempting to force compliance with a "Treaty" signed by George W. Bush, agreeing to erase the borders between The United States, Canada, and Mexico to form what is known as the North American Union --- a Regional Government desired by the Globalists. 

The problem is that this new "Union" favored by the Globalists and the Treaty seeming to allow it, isn't actually a land treaty.  It's a sea "treaty" like the Treaty of Manila Bay. 

Why? 

Because a sea treaty is all that G.W. Bush ever had authority to sign.

The North American Union Treaty is a Treaty of Paris, not a Treaty of Versailles, and this distinction is dictated by the offices of the signatories, not the subject matter.  

The only other possibility is that the Liars used their influence to "pretend" that they had authorities never vested in them or their offices, and so usurped upon the land jurisdiction, acted in fraud, and signed agreements out-of-school.

Either way, G.W. had no authority to say one word about our land and soil, and neither does Joe Biden. 

Like everything else these Liars do, George W. Bush was misrepresented as The President of The United States, when in fact, he was occupying the Municipal United States office of President of the United States ---- and so, G.W. was never authorized to create and endorse a land treaty changing our borders, much less erasing them.

The two corrupt and criminal District of Columbia Municipal Corporations are now fomenting a turf war on our soil.  And the man responsible for that, is Jorge Bergolio, because at the end of the day, he owns both corporations. 

We contracted with these corporations to receive certain enumerated services, various Overseers run these corporations, but Bergolio, aka, "Pope Francis" ultimately owns both of them, and he is 100% commercially and personally responsible for any damage we suffer.  

The Prince of the Air either calls it off and gets back in his box and honors both Constitutions to the letter, or yes, he will be liable and the organizations he represents will be liable and all the corporations he owns will be liable.  

Joe Bidens' version of US CORP is trying to force the implementation of the North American Union Treaty and seeking to erase our national borders with Canada and Mexico.  

This is keeping Donald Trump's version of USA, Inc., from honoring its job and securing our border with Mexico.  

So here you have two District of Columbia Municipal Corporations fighting each other over doing or not doing a job that is clearly required of both of them. 

The Constitution of the United States requires Joe Biden to secure and close our Southern Border no matter what his corporation policy says and no matter what G.W. signed without authority to do so.  

The Constitution of the United States of America requires Donald Trump's Corporation to secure and close our Southern Border, too.  

All three Federal Constitutions require the contractors to secure our borders. Period. 

Maybe someone should remind Joe Biden that The Constitution of the United States is a contract and contracts outrank treaties, even if treaties are valid and flawless and in the right jurisdiction --- which the NAU Treaty is not. 

They should also remind Joe that both Treaties and Contracts outrank mere corporation "policy". 

So if Joe doesn't get off his flabby rump and call off DHS and WHO and all the other alphabet soups that have been "opening" rather than securing our Southern Border, it's him and his bosses that are in default, committing treason, and standing in the direct line of fire.   

If the banks don't defund Joe's Administration (because after all, he has defaulted on his contract, so he's got no credit and nothing to sell) the banks will be on the chopping block, too.  

So while you are reading this in your private library in Rome, or schmoozing on the Riviera, or going to work on Fleet Street, remember this moment when the issue of national borders first came to your attention.  

The Mindless Mainstream is trying to make it sound like the tide rising in Texas  is a fight over illegal immigration, but it's not.  

It's a fight over the North American Union Treaty which G.W. Bush signed with no authority to do so, and thereby promised to erase the national borders between Canada, The United States, and Mexico.

Issued by: 

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America

In care of: Box 520994

Big Lake, Alaska 99652

January 28th 2024

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

See this article and over 4600 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

International Public Notice: Why "Britain" is a Territory

 By Anna Von Reitz

In order to maintain national and international standing, each country must retain and maintain its land and soil jurisdiction, and its living population of men and women, who are endowed with Natural and Unalienable Rights.  Each country is physically defined and has published definable borders within which it enjoys general jurisdiction over its land and soil, air, and water resources. 

England is a country. 

Scotland is a country. 

Ireland is a country. 

Wales is a country. 

Each country has a lawful government.  In most cases, they also have Territories and may have Municipalities, too, which maintain separate jurisdictions. 

Britain is, in effect, a union of four separate countries, and is a separate fictional creation standing for the four sovereign countries as if they were one country in international jurisdiction.   

This is similar to the union of our States in America, called The United States, which is a fictional instrumentality created to wield certain mutually shared powers of the sovereign member-states. 

As they are not sovereign entities themselves, these melded-together creations depend upon the sovereignty of the member countries, or in our case, our Federation of States depends on our member States which are individual small countries holding general jurisdiction.

It should be apparent that without the sovereign member countries or sovereign member States, these dependent entities whether described as Unions or Federations or Confederations, have "no standing".  

They are like a doll's dress, without the doll. 

When Queen Anne vacated the land and soil of England in favor of acting as the British Queen, she removed herself from what is known as "Original Jurisdiction".  She did not, as some people assume, act as the Queen of England, the Queen of Scotland, the Queen of Ireland, and the Queen of Wales.  Queen of Britain is an abstract office in a different Territorial jurisdiction. 

Elizabeth II was working for sovereign countries in international jurisdictions but not directly representing England, because as we know, she vacated the English Throne within three days of taking the Coronation Vow. 

This means that she was either operating without standing or she was working for a foreign sovereign government other than England, and as she owed her crown to the Pope no less than her ancestors and was still obligated to work as the Overseer of the Commonwealth lands to maintain her position, it's a good bet that the foreign sovereign that gave her standing was the Vatican City-State. 

According to the rest of the provisions and history we have uncovered, and also in view of the recent coronation of King Charles III who was crowned as his Imperial Majesty -- not the King of England, and not the King of Great Britain, either -- it seems obvious that the late Queen worked for the Pope all of her adult life, as her predecessors have. 

Her Son has followed in her footsteps, albeit, more honorably, (he never took the Christian Coronation Vow, so he didn't have to sneak around voiding it), and continues to work directly for the Roman Hierarchy, though as we have also discovered, not for the Pope, or even "a" Pope, that we can discern, as Pope Francis could not enter the Office of the Roman Pontiff, has not received the sacred ministerial Office from Benedict XVI, which leaves him operating as the Prince of the Air. 

Like Charles, the only office that was left for Francis to operate in was the Former Pope's office in the jurisdiction of the air.  

We deduce and are aware that they committed crimes on the land and sea and fled to the air as a protective measure and to continue their assault on the living people -- people to whom they owe good faith and service. They have instead attempted to denigrate the entire population and secretly forced most of humanity into an undisclosed system of both peonage and slavery.  

Why is the discussion of Britain as a Territorial Power important against this backdrop of fraud, breach of trust, and criminality? 

One issue is that by the contracts and grants and everything else surrounding the construction of the British Union, the British Monarch is required to be Protestant, and as we have discovered, King Henry the Eighth double-crossed the Anglican Church while acting as its Head. So, he and his heirs have all done the same, worked as Overseers for the Popes and collected 40% of the take from all the personage and certificate and denigration schemes. 

Charles III didn't take the Christian Coronation Vow and his Mother skipped on hers, so it follows that at the very least, Elizabeth II can't be counted as a "Protestant" and neither can Charles III. Most likely they can't be counted as Catholics, either; it appears that they belong to the long-suppressed Roman Cult that also ensconced itself in the Inner City of London and the City of Washington, DC. 

Not being a Protestant voids everything that Elizabeth II did as Queen of Great Britain and would void everything that Charles III attempted to do. Both the Throne of England and the Office of Queen/King of Great Britain are thus vacated -- and have been for a long time.  

Only the Imperial Office remains, but it remains totally without substance.  

Everything we have observed about British Territorial powers being used to undermine, subvert, and usurp upon the lawful authorities now applies--- for not only were these crimes in-and-of themselves, but it turns out that they were accomplished under a Pretense of power and authority. 

When Elizabeth II ditched her Coronation Vow and voided the obligation to be and act as a Christian of any kind, much less a Protestant, she also voided her Office as Queen of Great Britain.  Any action she undertook in the Territorial jurisdiction, either in the guise of a land protectorate or at sea, is null and void for fraud, lack of standing, and lack of authority since 1953, and the overall fraud may extend back all the way to Queen Anne. 

No doubt, "Francis" and Charles III imagine that they will be able to wield the powers of the jurisdiction of the air and use the instruments of that jurisdiction to devastating and final effect, as they will pretend to own the names of nearly everyone and every corporation and invention, too, through copyrights, patents, and trademarks administered by the British commercial conglomerate SERCO.   

However, they have been severed from the body of their authority and so, have lost the world of substance. Nobody can assume the existence of any authority to enforce the obligations of the legal fictions that their scheme depends upon, because the Perpetrators lacked the substance, standing, and authority to form the legal fictions in the first place. 

We have all been the victims of an organized commercial crime syndicate.  Our research indicates that the roots of this syndicate go all the way back to the Hanseatic League, an arrangement by which German business interests ran the economies of other countries.  Anyone who is interested in the development of the more recent version of these same evils may read the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713-14. 

Once you realize that the English Throne has been in the possession of German interests since the early 1700's, it all makes sense. Even the Second World War makes sense in terms of two German hegemonies fighting against each other. 

Once you realize that there is no such country as Great Britain and that you are dealing with a separate business entity "representing" four kingdoms, more smoke begins to clear. 

And when you realize that the military worldwide has been reduced to the level of imaginary "humans" and denigrated so that they can never enjoy the freedom they have fought for and the peace they have sought to achieve, that they have been used as cheap mercenaries without their knowledge or consent, still more smoke clears away. 

As we have seen, there has been no King or Queen of England for a long time, nor has there been a competent "King" or "Queen" of Great Britain since at least 1953.  We don't currently have a Pope, either, in any traditional sense of the word, as Jorge Bergolio could not inherit the Office of the Roman Pontiff which was dissolved in 2011 and there is no known process by which he inherited the ministerial office of the Pope which was retained by Benedict XVI. 

Territorial forces have been used throughout to illegally occupy country after country, using their own troops to do it, so that American troops were used to commandeer America, Australian troops were used to commandeer Australia, and so on. Commercial corporations have been given contracts to run entire occupied countries in a reprise of what South Africa suffered under the British South Africa Company and Cecil Rhodes. 

And we know that, at least in England, there was no English Queen with standing to charter corporations and no Queen of Great Britain with standing to register corporations. 

So just as Great Britain has been a Territorial entity used to undermine first England and then other countries ---and is not a country itself, the Queen was not a Queen, and the Pope is not a Pope, and even the corporations are not corporations. 

Issued by: 

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America

In care of: Box 520994

Big Lake, Alaska 99652

January 27th 2024

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

See this article and over 4600 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

International Public Notice: Israel is Not a State

 By Anna Von Reitz

"Israel" is the name of a chunk of land in the Middle East rented as a holdover from the former British Protectorate by Jacob Rothschild using a 99 year lease which is now expired. 

Seeking to promote a similar protectorate status, the United States of America, Incorporated, has apparently granted Israel status as a State-of-State and used the old "Confederate State" confusion to make it appear that Israel is a State of the Union.  

Everyone needs to learn that a State is geographically defined and holds complete general jurisdiction over the land, soil, water, and air within its borders. 

A "Confederate State" sometimes erroneously referred to as a "State" is in fact a "State of State" or instrumentality of a State used to conduct business. 

Such State of State entities are not necessarily run by the State employing them, but may be run by separate subcontractors -- as in the current situation in this country, where we find that British Territorial States of State organizations have been hired under dubious conditions and substituted for our American States of State organizations.  

The habit of loosely calling these organizations "States" has contributed to much mischief and misunderstanding and needs to be fully explicated. 

There may be a "State of Israel" in the same sense that there is a "State of Alabama", but neither of these entities is a State of the Union.  Both are instead "Confederate States" run as business franchises by foreign subcontractors -- and are not actual States like Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, and Wyoming. 

The actual business structure is that a British Territorial Corporation doing business as the United States of America, Incorporated, has established fifty franchise corporations each doing business as "the State of _________".  

These entities came in after The American Civil War and substituted themselves for similar American entities doing business as, for example, The State of Oregon, which was secretly replaced by the British Territorial entity, the State of Oregon. 

Could the British Territorial corporation doing business as the United States of America, Incorporated, add another franchise called "the State of Israel"?  Certainly, it could. 

But that would not make Israel a State of the Union, and in fact, no delegated power ever granted to the British Territorial United States nor to the United States of America, Incorporated, ever allowed these entities to enroll a Territory as a State of the Union.

This is why the Western States (and West Virginia which was formed as a Territory in 1863) had to wait to enter full Statehood until our actual States were brought back into Session to enroll these Territorial States as States of the Union -- action that finally took place as of the first of October 2020. 

See The Northwest Ordinance for details. 

Suffice it to say that the world is alarmed by the idea that Israel has somehow been recognized and enrolled as a State of the Union and become part of this country or even a territory of this country, which it most certainly has not. 

Any "State of Israel" that exists is a business franchise doing business as the State of Israel, Incorporated, and it is a franchise of the British Territorial United States corporation doing business as the United States of America, Incorporated. 

Let us make this explicitly clear: our country defined a specifically and particularly proportioned flag called the Title IV Flag for the use of our British Territorial Subcontractors, to be exercised in the accomplishment of the duties delegated to them by The Constitution of the United States of America. 

They have abused the intended use of that flag and have used it for the conduct of Mercenary Conflicts.  They have also used it in an extra-territorial context without our permission and that "power" was never allowed to the British Territorial Subcontractors.  

This amounts to an abuse of the Title IV Flag and an usurpation against their employers.  

The British Territorial Subcontractors dba the United States of America, Incorporated, are prohibited by omission from using our flag in any variation for any purpose unrelated to the defense of The United States of America, our unincorporated Federation of actual States, and our member States of the Union.  

They have no authority delegated from us to assume any extra-territorial power.  So under what borrowed authority have they acted? 

As our country as a whole is and has remained at peace since the War of 1812, their continued misuse of our wartime Title IV Flag is inexcusable.

When they are conducting operations related to their contract with us, and exercising delegated authority, they should be flying the American Peacetime flag using the Title IV dimensions. 

When and if they should be acting in any other capacity whatsoever, which was never anticipated nor allowed by our Constitutions, they should be flying the British flag, the flag of the Puerto Rican Commonwealth or the flag of some other state or nation employing them;  they should certainly not continue to fly our wartime flag when our country is at peace and has not declared war on any other country for generations.  

Whatever power or interest our British Territorial Subcontractors may have or think they have with respect to any incorporated franchise dba the State of Israel is simply the power that any commercial corporation might have to protect a franchise, which does not extend to the inculcation or prosecution of war against actual countries like Yemen or any  populated extra-territorial location like Gaza. 

Like so much of the bunko which we are currently addressing, neither Israel nor Palestine, strictly speaking, exist. 

"Israel" was a commercial accommodation lease held over from the British Protectorate in the post-World War I Era, and "Palestine" was another British invention that never existed in the modern world at all and did not exist in the same area and context even in the Ancient World. 

What we have is a portrait of British extraterritorial meddling and commercial fraud, misusing American military power to conduct illegal Mercenary Conflicts in other parts of the world -- and attempting to continue on this course even after they have been thoroughly investigated and found out.  

In view of the current misuse of the "State of Israel" verbiage, it is entirely possible that no actual country called "Israel" exists, and that owing to its status as a leased protectorate (at that time), no actual peace treaty related to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War exists. The entire circumstance may be another mercenary conflict glossed over by self-interested parties invoking sea treaties as a substitute for land jurisdiction treaties. 

This is to say that not only does no State of the Union called "Israel" exist, but what we have all accepted as a separate country may not exist, either. Ditto the concept of Palestine. 

While our sympathies remain with all the people of the region who existed in relative peace and harmony prior to the political and economic meddling that they have suffered at the hands of British Territorial interests and their ugly Corporate Feudalism, which views Israelis as humans (indentured servants) and Palestinians as subhumans (slaves).  

All of this elitism and subterfuge is profoundly repugnant and reminiscent of former and ugly times in the history of mankind, and having remembered the evils of feudalism, we decline to experience the evils of Corporate Feudalism. 

Issued by: 

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America

In care of: Box 520994

Big Lake, Alaska 

January 27th 2024

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

See this article and over 4600 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

International Public Notice: Country v. Territory

 By Anna Von Reitz

Territorial land is different in that it is held in a custodial capacity and occupies a different jurisdiction -- for example, Puerto Rico is a Territory of The United States, but politically, it is a British Commonwealth.  

So all this while, the British Raj (Territorial Government) has been acting as a British Protectorate and establishing a Territory to rule over Australia the country, using the corporations Australia, Inc. and AUSTRALIA (INC.) to administer this Protectorate, and it has been established under the idea that the people failed to set up a new government after the end of the Commonwealth. 

So, you have the country, Australia, which appears on old maps as Terra Australis (Latin version), and you have the Territorial Protectorate, also called Australia, and you have Australia, Inc. and AUSTRALIA (INC.) all in the mix. 

Here we have the country known as The United States (National) and also as The United States of America (International) and we have the United States of America (British Territorial United States) and the United States (Papist Municipality) and the United States, Inc., and the United States of America, Inc., and the UNITED STATES and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, etc., etc. 

Between the incorporated and unincorporated versions and all these similar names, it gets very confusing, but the bottom line is: 

Australia, aka, Terra Australis, is a country. 

Australia is also the name of the territory claimed and protected by Australia.

Australia, Inc. is a British Crown Corporation.

AUSTRALIA, INC. is a Roman Municipal Corporation. 

The essential difference between "Australia" the country and "Australia" the territory, is the political status of the people who live in the country versus the political status of the persons inhabiting a separate part of the country, and to understand this, you must understand the British Caste System.  

Men and women live in the country. They have Natural and Unalienable Rights. They are free men and women.

Humans, male and female, inhabit the territory.  They are indentured servants, public or otherwise.  They have timed tours of duty. 

Corporations known as PERSONS inhabit municipal districts, parishes, etc. They are slaves, public or otherwise. 

Thus, a territory is a denigration of a country and humans who inhabit territories are a denigration of man. 

Corporate PERSONS represent a further denigration of political status. Municipal CORPORATIONS named after humans, are slaves, and so MARTIN L. FUZZBOTTLE is a denigration of the human Person named Martin L. Fuzzbottle, and this version of "Martin L. Fuzzbottle" is a denigration of the living man whose Given Name is Martin L. Fuzzbottle. 

Example, Norfolk Island is a Territory of Australia; for the period of time that Norfolk Island is Subject to Australia (in the same sense as a "British Subject") the men and women living and being born on Norfolk Island are considered to be "humans" and "Persons" with the same political status as indentured servants of members of the military during their Tours of Duty.  Like members of the military, these Persons have titles and ranks: Mister, Missus, Sergeant, Attorney, General, Doctor, The Honorable, Captain, Judge, and so on.  They are employees, paid or unpaid, of the Territorial Government. 

So, what happens when an entire country, like Australia, is reduced to the level of being a territory without the knowledge or consent of the people living there?  A form of peonage is established, in which everyone living in Australia is deemed to be a "Person" -- that is, merely a human male or female, equivalent to an indentured servant, known as a Citizen.  Their labor, land, and other assets are seized upon by the King or other Principal, and "income taxes" are imposed as a means to siphon off the value of the people's labor for the King. They excuse this as a "condition of your employment" but of course, don't necessarily bother to give you a paycheck. 

Thus, it is a form of feudal serfdom arbitrarily imposed on the otherwise free people of Australia by a foreign power, in this case, the British Territorial Government.  

Peonage has been outlawed worldwide since 1926 and in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and most of the developed world, it has been outlawed for the better part of 200 years; however, they have skirted around this by pretending that this is "voluntary" and that you contractually agreed to this by filing tax reports --- albeit, without the benefit of disclosure, just as they presume that you agreed to be dubbed a "human" based on unconscionable contracts imposed upon you when you were still a baby in your cradle. 

Let's take a look at this using their dictionary so that they expose what they are up to: 

Legal definition of "country" --- Black's Law, Admiralty:  

The portion of the earth’s surface occupied by an independent nation or people; or the inhabitants of such territory.   (Here we see that "country" refers to the geographical and physical portion of the Earth we live in, whereas "territory" is a political jurisdiction that is inhabited.)

Legal definition of "territory" -- Black's Law, Admiralty

A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction. (Here again, a territory is a political jurisdiction, meaning that it is inchoate -- an incomplete jurisdiction separated from the actual land and soil and general jurisdiction of a country.) 

Legal definition of "inhabitant" -- Black's Law, Admiralty

One who resides actually and permanently In a given place, and has his domicile there.

Legal definition of "resident" and "domicile" -- Black's Law, Admiralty

"Resident: one who has his residence in a place. “Resident” and “inhabitant” are distinguishable in meaning. The word “inhabitant” implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does “resident;” and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant."

Additionally:  "Living or dwelling in a certain place permanently or for a considerable length of time. The place where a man makes his home, or where he dwells permanently or for an extended period of time. The difference between a residence and a domicile may not be capable of easy definition; but every one can see at least this distinction: A person domiciled in one state may, for temporary reasons, such as health, reside for one or more years in some other place deemed more favorable."

Such as a British Merchant Sailor living for a period of years in America to perform as a Customs Agent. 

In fact, in Land Law, a "resident" is equivalent to a "sojourner" --- someone passing through and merely living in a place for an undetermined length of time. This is made clear in the American "Residence Act" which provides for members of foreign governments and their families to "reside" in this country while they are here providing essential services we agreed to receive under the various Federal Constitutions.  

Now let's look at "domicile" which sheds additional light: 

"In international law, “domicile” means a residence at a particular place, accompanied with positive or presumptive proof of intending to continue there for an unlimited time. State v. Collector of Bordentown, 32 N. J. Law, 192.”Domicile” and “residence” are not synonymous. The domicile is the home, the fixed place of habitation; while residence is a transient place of dwelling. Bartlett v. New York. 5 Sandf. (X. Y.) 44.The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place villi an intention of always staying there, while simple residence is much more temporary in its character. New York v. Genet, 4 Ilun (N. Y.) 4S9."

As you can see, these definitions are wobbly at best, and probably purposefully so, to more easily facilitate the imposition of denigrated political statuses on living people--- and the accompanying Legal Presumptions of Feudalism, too. 

These venal practices have been engaged in by the British Government and the British Crown Corporation and the Holy See under a cloak of secrecy, for the simple reason that these denigrations of political status are already recognized as being both illegal and unlawful, and have been recognized as such for a long time. Such manipulation and conversion of a man's native political status is recognized as a capital crime under the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, both -- hence the need to hide their activities in Australia, America, and elsewhere behind a "cloak of secrecy".   

The pretense that acceptance of these denigrations is voluntary, while also being unconscionable, is ludicrous, and amounts to a Highwayman claiming that, "She gave me her purse."  --- at the point of a rapier.  

It is time for this nonsense to end and for the corporations and governments and the Principals responsible for these horrific practices and injustices to be brought to justice, also.  It is apparent that all three institutions-- the British Government, the British Crown Corporation, and the Holy See -- have gone rogue and have attempted to establish a form of Corporate Feudalism by which they hope to rule the entire world, effectively by denigrating the population of this planet in a manner favorable to themselves, via a surreptitious process of unlawfully converting entire countries into territories, leading to entire living populations of men and women being denigrated as "Humans" and "Persons" and then being further denigrated as PERSONS, meaning Municipal Corporations. 

The denigration pattern is as follows: 

Joseph Allen Palmer (Man) is denigrated to Joseph Allen Palmer (Territorial Person) and further denigrated to JOSEPH ALLEN PALMER (Municipal Corporation).  Australia (the Country) is denigrated to Australia (a Territory) and thence to AUSTRALIA (a Municipal Corporation). 

All this venal wordplay is worth what it is written on and needs to be expunged.  Those who have promoted this fraud scheme beneficial to themselves need to be exposed for what they are and dealt with as criminals together with the bankers that have supported them in these activities. None of this could have been done without the complicity of the banks and certain bankers who have certainly known that what they were doing was both criminal and outrageous. Their excuse that living flesh was somehow magically converted into paper and that this gave them permission to securitize flesh is in the realm of lunacy. 

Likewise, the members of the Bar Associations worldwide who have knowingly collaborated with and acted as the enforcers and implementers of this scheme against humanity must be severely dealt with.  They, if anyone, have known the basis upon which millions of false claims in commerce have been made, have known that they were involved in illegal confiscation and enforcing bills of attainder, have been aware of the noxious and logically insupportable British Caste System, and have known that there was no excuse for "conferring" any territorial status on other countries and establishing unnecessary "military protectorates" within their borders to expedite this scheme. 

And as for the military, they may not have known that the foregoing monsters had unlawfully converted them into mercenary forces, but they have cause to know it now, and they are in fact responsible for taking appropriate action to remove these false and vacated authorities, or they shall be complicit themselves and subject to prosecution for treason against these countries and people, and crimes against humanity.   

Issued by: 

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America

In care of: Box 520994

Big Lake, Alaska 99652

January 27th 2024

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

See this article and over 4600 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

About Cash and More

 By Anna Von Reitz

Yes, the banks are running out of cash--in a sense.  The Federal Reserve Banks have been restricting delivery of FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES to the tributary banks for the past three years, causing many smaller banks to fail.  

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES are evidence of their debt, so obviously, if they can get you to return their I.O.U. to them without actually paying for it, they are ahead of the game. 

The more FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES they can withdraw from the market and from circulation, the less their liability. 

So of course they are "failing" to produce new fiat debt note currency and withdrawing as much fiat currency as they can from circulation and cutting back on supplies to banks, too.  

And trying desperately to find a narrative that will make people willing to surrender their cash or, better yet, from their perspective, throw it away. 

Ridiculous, you say?  How about a Disease X that could be passed from hand to hand via the physical exchange of filthy lucre?  

They've already thought of that one. 

They want to get rid of FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES because they are evidence of debt.  They want to get rid of cash, too, because then they could utterly control you and limit and micromanage your lives for their benefit. 

For 160-plus years, the Federal Reserve has been selling a purported ownership interest in the labor of British Territorial U.S. Citizens (and every American in sight that they can impersonate). 

They have been siphoning off the value of our labor which is our asset as collateral backing their debt notes --- which means that they have created a system of peonage. 

Peonage has been illegal since 1926.  It is also illegal to securitize living flesh, but they have done that, too, by pretending that we magically ceased to be living men and women.

According to them, we knowingly and voluntarily adopted the status of  "humans" -- and, much to your surprise, humans are not people. 

Humans are imaginary second-class legal fiction persons. They have no Natural and Unalienable Rights, nor any Constitutional Guarantees, either. 

Instead, they have Human Rights, but as humans don't actually exist, their rights are rather sketchy, too. 

According to the Illusionists responsible for this nonsense, not only have you, average Americans, been transformed into humans, males and females instead of men and women, but you are British Subjects, too.  

According to them.  

Pardon us for thinking that we already had that discussion.  For eight years, 1776 to 1783.

On top of this, we should be grateful for the same political and social standing as indentured servants.  It could be worse.  We might be subhumans--- which don't exist, either, but having slipped one cog, what's another? 

Subhumans are the denigrated form of humans, and they are most often represented as civil servants or franchise corporations or both. They have no Natural and Unalienable Rights and no Human Rights, but are instead granted Civil Rights, which aren't really rights at all.  They are privileges. 

Privileges are granted or taken away at the whim of the Grantor.  Donald Trump suspended Civil Rights in this country with the stroke of a pen.  Poof! 

And La-Dee-Dah. 

Congress could have done the same thing, and has on occasion. 

The fundamental thing we all need to notice is that neither humans nor subhumans exist. 

It's all bunk.  And we've even nailed down precisely where the bunk came from. Two Roman Catholic Popes who died hundreds of years ago. 

Their intricate court systems are designed to coerce, fleece, and punish these phantasms -- that don't actually exist. 

Codes, statutes, regulations, ordinances, rules and mandates are all designed to control and punish these second and third-class persons that don't actually exist.  

So the courts that propose to deal with humans and subhumans are out to lunch in La-La-Land, too. 

All of this is Make Believe. A Kingdom of Lies. 

Who needs a Tin Hat and a straight jacket now?

You, or the entire membership of the American Bar Association?  

Think of the humans and subhumans at the bottom of the pile, who toil endlessly for I.O.U.s disguised as FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES that are not only never repaid, but don't even have a due date printed on them?  

It may not be happy news, but there it is.  The Truth about the modern caste system and the ego-driven insanity that creates and sustains it. 

If you want to live in a world where you are not obliged to shadowbox with someone else's delusions and pay their debts for them, too, come home to your birthright political status and run your own government:

https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org

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

See this article and over 4600 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.