Public International Notice -- The Substance of the Law

 By Anna Von Reitz

Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals; Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents: 

I received, as I often receive, a snippet of legal research and interpretation as follows--- and I quote: 

"I am going over a case now that clearly states that the federal statutes, which are not the same as the federal law that arises under the common law, Do Not Apply to those people that are only citizens of their state.  That is stating they do not apply to white people.

I have personal(ly) verified that the fed statutes say the same thing about the personal income tax mandate - with one exception - if they are working for the fed gov.

Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1940)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 109 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1940) January 17, 1940

This is an open admission that the state statutes do not either.  Both sets of statutes are enforced in legislative branch courts - which have no constitutional authority over whites.

Whites are persecuted by them because they and their attorneys are programmed into incompetence and they don't know (enough) to object or how." 

Fascinating, isn't it? And nearly impossible for Joe Average American coming in off the street to make sense of it.  

I don't usually spend a lick of time thinking about forms of law that don't apply to me and don't recommend mucking about in Federal Codes -- that is, Federal Statutes, either,  because that really is off the beaten path, but this is such a good example of the Letter of the Law versus the Substance of the Law, that I can't resist commenting. 

Any such reference to race in the application of law in this country can only arise under the auspices of the Confederation of States-of-States or the Federal Republic administered by the Confederation between 1787 and 1861, both of which have lain dormant and awaiting Reconstruction for over 150 years. 

The Federation of States (1776 to present) has never recognized race as any component of actual state citizenship, but rather relies on the issue of an individual's status as a free man or woman to determine their eligibility for jobs, offices --- and equal consideration under the Public Law. 

Racial requirements and exemptions were established instead by the Confederation of States-of-States (1781 to 1861) and carried over to the Federal Republic (1787 to 1861) operated by the Confederation. After the Civil War, a Scottish Commercial Corporation doing business as "The United States of America, Incorporated" adopted these racial requirements and exemptions when it unilaterally created and conferred "Fourteenth Amendment citizenship" obligations on freed Negroes --- who were actually Foreign Sovereigns with respect to this same British Crown Corporation. 

It should be obvious that any court misapplying  exemptions related to the functionally non-existent Confederation in the present day, or the dormant Federal Republic, either, is as far off course as it is possible to be in the realm of logic. Unless, of course, one applies the By-Law Amendments of a Scottish Commercial Corporation that has been defunct since 1907 to living Americans in the present day. 

The only authority still standing is the Federation of States, not the Confederation of States; when the Confederation ceased functioning, its delegated powers reverted by Operation of Law to the delegator of those powers --- the Federation of States.  The same is true for the Federal Republic. 

The delegated powers extended to the Federal Republic by the Confederation of States-of-States also automatically reverted back first to the Confederation and from the Confederation to the Federation from which the delegated powers were apportioned to begin with. 

The inoperable status of both the Confederation and the Federal Republic are firmly established in the public record, and so is the default of their contract(s) to perform. Period. 

The only way that they or their Law can be operated today, is as Law adopted in conformance with the customs and Law of the Federation of States.  

As the Federation never addressed race as any element of Law, it cannot be presumed that exemptions related to race should be applied based on Public Law promulgated by the defunct Confederation or the Federal Republic, either one. 

We are operating solely under Federation auspices now, just as we did from 1776 to 1781.

Similar to prosecutions based on "the Fourteenth Amendment" adopted by The United States of America, Incorporated, a Scottish Commercial Corporation that published it's "Constitution" in 1868 and went permanently bankrupt in 1907, the idea that the courts in this country are still applying the exemptions for "whites" provided by the long-vacant Confederation and its Federal Republic, may be true, but if so, is outstandingly illogical and unsupported by any current authority. 

Until such time as the States of the Union act to Reconstruct their States-of-States and reconvene the Confederation, and until the Confederation restores and Reconstructs its Federal Republic, both these entities-- the Confederation and the Federal Republic --- are functionally defunct and can exercise no more authority or provide any exemptions than the wind blowing over the Arlington Cemetery. 

The requirement that "only citizens of their state" be white males (to be exact) refers to the "Confederate state" --- meaning the State-of-State business organizations that were members of the Confederation. 

Not our States of the Union. 

This vernacular shortening of "Confederate state" to "state" has led to no end of confusion -- including confusions-at-law, a confusion that continues to the present day. 

Once we dispense with that red herring we are left with the rest of the content, and it boils down to this -- no Federal Code (or "Federal Statute" referenced as Statute-at-Large)  ever published in the Federal Register is meant to apply to members of the American Public, whether or not you are white. 

It would be convenient and desirable for the remnant of the Federal Government represented by the two remaining Federal Subcontractors resident in the District of Columbia to work with the Federation of States to publish a small book containing the Federal Statutes-at-Large and sections of Code that have been published in the Federal Record which may still pertain to members of the American Public under the Federation's Administration, but that would be too simple and employ too much common sense. 

It would also make it less convenient to entrap Americans and fleece them under False Legal Presumptions. So, thus far, the Federation is saddled with this onerous research project among many others. 

Finally, let's address this odd idea of "constitutional authority over whites" or lack thereof.  

This goes back to the days immediately after the Civil War and the "Constitution" published by the Scottish Commercial Corporation operating as "The United States of America, Incorporated" and the creation by that entity of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship, which originally applied only to Negroes "and other stateless persons of color". 

The problem arose because in some States there was resistance against allowing freed plantation slaves to become state nationals or state citizens, either one. 

The British Crown Corporation operating "as" The United States of America, Incorporated, opened up its doors and latched onto these poor confused people and unilaterally "conferred" their brand of "citizenship" on them.  

That is, they shanghaied them into British Territorial jurisdiction and subjected them to British Territorial law, and enslaved them as debtors to the Crown; in this way, the Perpetrators contrived to abolish (private) slavery with one hand (Thirteenth Amendment) and created public enslavement with the other (Fourteenth Amendment) for the purposes of administering their new "USA, Inc." corporation by wringing "war reparations" out of the victims of slavery by enslaving them again to foreign corporations acting as "Masters". 

All these institutions and organizations are now dead and gone and are owed good riddance. 

The Scottish Commercial Corporation doing business as "The United States of America, Incorporated" never had any standing or authority to create law for anything but itself, and its publication of a "Constitution" for itself in no way changed that. This organization and its Fourteenth Amendment have been defunct since 1907, and as a practical matter, their unilateral "conferring" of undisclosed foreign citizenship obligations on anyone born in this country regardless of race was outrageous and unlawful and illegal from the start. 

Anyone born on the land and soil of one of our States of the Union is born a free man or free woman and inherits sovereignty in their own right, vouchsafed to them directly from the Settlement of the Norman Conquest --- without regard to their race or creed. 

As a result the British Crown's presumption of powers never bequeathed to them in these matters of substance is an even more egregious and ignorant abuse of Law that should have never occurred; they were arresting, impersonating, kidnapping, and imposing foreign citizenship obligations on Foreign Sovereigns from the very start of this long criminal rampage. 

Both the Confederation and the American Federal Republic have been inoperable since 1861.  The Federation of States to which their delegated powers revert has continued to operate and to adopt those Unrevised United States Statutes-at-Large which are compatible with its own Laws, that is, the Four Organic Laws governing this country and its foreign relations. 

As we have seen, there is no basis to presume that the Federation ever considered race a component of state citizenship in the actual States of the Union, and therefore no basis to presume the existence of exemptions based on race within the jurisdiction of the Federation. 

Rather, so-called "Federal citizenship" conferred on former black plantation slaves was initially applied only to Negroes and that is what created the so-called "white exemption" from the obligations attached to this then-new Fourteenth Amendment citizenship created by a British Crown Corporation deceptively operating "as" The United States of America, Incorporated.

My point is this-- in order for Law to have Substance it must have standing, and the only standing is available on the land and soil of this country, which is occupied by the Federation of States and the Several States individually, and respectively. 

Substantive Law outranks and pre-dates all and any statute, code, regulation, ordinance, or legislative product whatsoever, always. Any such statute, code, regulation, etc., that does not comply with our Organic Law is void on our shores and with respect to our people, that also means our people of color.

As you can now hopefully see, any misapplication of legislative law to the American Public, whether as an obligation or as an exemption, is ludicrous. 

And this is made doubly ludicrous in clear view of the fact that the Confederation and the Federal Republic have been inoperable and vacated since 1861, and the Scottish Interloper doing business as "The United States of America, Incorporated" together with its Fourteenth Amendment, have been defunct since 1907. 

We read with incredulity that former USA, Inc. President Donald Trump was being prosecuted as a Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States; why not be prosecuted as a unicorn or fairy, instead?

There are no "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" today, and there never were any legitimate Fourteenth Amendment citizens in the past, either. 

There were merely sweet and innocent people seized upon by British pirates and enslaved by these brutal imbeciles to pay their debts for them, with no shred of legitimate authority for any of it.  

No doubt there are hoary members of the Privy Council having a good laugh at Donald Trump's expense, but the laugh has returned to them in the form of their legless indebtedness -- due wages for their greed, ignorance, and disrespect for actual Law. 

The only enforcement available for the Unrevised Statutes-at-Large is from the Federation adopting those in conformity with its own Laws and Customs-- that is, the Four Organic Laws of this country. 

There is no basis for prosecuting --or exempting-- anyone under the "Fourteenth Amendment" unless we are to presume that the administrative "by-laws" adopted by a long-defunct Scottish Commercial Corporation have some arcane Night-of-the-Living-Dead authority and enforcement power hitherto unheard of in this part of the galaxy. 

This Notice and discussion needs to be handed to every Hired Jurist sitting as Judge in this country, every attorney, every paralegal, every court clerk, so that they can examine the history and facts for themselves and determine in a logical and reasoned way which laws apply to the American Public, which laws are defunct, which laws are substantive, which laws are merely administrative, which laws are legislation applying to public employees, and which laws are owed enforcement, together with the authority for that enforcement, in each jurisdiction. 

The courts are corrupt, of that there can be no doubt; but the courts are also unlearned and confused, which contributes mightily to the overall corruption and confusion -- a confusion that is inevitably suffered by the American Public, too, and which leads to many unjust and capricious court decisions lacking any authority beyond a judge's personal opinions and "discretion". 

Our American Government is still here, still operational, still upholding the Organic Law of this country, and still owed every jot of every treaty and contract ever penned with its knowing and consensual agreement. 

We expect our Federal Subcontractors to provide knowledgeable and compliant Judges operating their courts of strictly limited jurisdiction according to the Organic Law of this country, and also require that their Judges observe this commentary and act accordingly -- recognizing the differences of forms of law, the jurisdictions, and the authorities thereof, and properly applying them to the correct populations -- while forswearing application of any obviously unsupported or repugnant "law", like the so-called Fourteenth Amendment.  

Issued by: Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

                  The United States of America

                  In care of: Box 520994

                  Big Lake, Alaska 99652

December 27th 2023

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

See this article and over 4500 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.

An International Appeal for Research Assistance

 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

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

See this article and over 4500 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.

Let's See....About the RV

 By Anna Von Reitz

When I first heard about the Reno Operation and the line they were trolling,  I played so dumb I felt stupid. I really did. 

I batted my baby-blues and listened and listened and listened and I read more "It's next week, no, it's...." posts by "Judy Byington" --- or was that "Judy Buying-time"?  ----than I care to think about.  

Here's what it comes down to, folks: 

1. You take the risk and bear the cost of making these foreign currency investments with no guarantees. 

 

2. If and when a currency revaluation occurs and if the currencies you invested in post huge gains, then you are told that you have to go to some undisclosed location on an abandoned military base or similar federal installation.

3. Once there, you have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement promising your left leg if you ever breathe a word to anyone.

4. And you have to disclose your intentions about what you are going to do with your profits.... present a project plan for philanthropic programs you wish to fund --- as if they were the investors instead of you.  

5. And if you don't have any philanthropic projects, you might get a whole 2% of your profit; if you do have a project they approve of, they might give you another 10% to fund that.

6. And if you are lucky, you get to go home in one piece, unlike at least six people I know of who went to these "appointments" and didn't return.

This is gangster stuff and these people are "scalpers".  

They don't scrape your skull with Bowie knives, but they take 88-98% of your money for their profit, and they bully you and protect themselves. 

They are criminals engaged in criminal activities in international jurisdiction. 

That's why they drag you out to God-knows-where federal installations -- so you are on federal turf and operating in international jurisdiction, where you become subject to foreign law and their "discretion". 

That's for their protection, not yours. 

Then they make you sign these Non-Disclosure Agreements so you can't tell anyone about any of this or bring any complaints against them for the fraud they are committing against you. 

That's also for their protection, not yours. 

Then they "generously" keep 98% of your profits....

And they trick you into concentrating on your dream projects that you could do so much good with if only you had the money. 

That's to distract you and keep you from noticing that, hot damn, they are keeping 88% of your investment profits.  

So if they approve of your project, you walk out feeling so grateful that you got a whole 12% of your profit. 

Are you all nuts? 

You take all the risks, submit yourself to their judgment, sign all these contracts giving up your rights and options, and give them 88-98% of the profits ---for what? 

Taking your Dinar to a bank and swapping it for Federal Reserve Notes? 

This may be big news, Americans, but in most of the world, this is a completely routine bank transaction. 

It's only in your endlessly victimized country that people don't have access to normal banks and normal bank services, like currency exchanges. 

There is really only one reason that you can't just go into a bank and plunk your Dinar on the counter and walk out with the published international exchange rate worth of Federal Reserve Notes or Euros or British Pounds or anything else. 

Can you guess what that reason is?  It's because you have virtually no civilian banks left in your country.  

I listened to this "narrative" long enough and ran the numbers. If these goons are allowed to pull it off, it really would be the biggest "wealth transfer" in history, straight from your hands into theirs.  

And who the hell are they?  

It's rumored that they are "our" military, but our military has been operated as a foreign British Territorial Mercenary Service since 1863.... 

So, you are going to give away 88% of your profits to foreign mercenaries and hope for the best? 

Ever think of interviewing them and asking what they are going to spend their lavish cut of your money on?  

The more I thought about it, the madder I got. 

So the Federation of States chartered new civilian banks to operate on the land jurisdiction of this country and has given you, Americans, the opportunity to live like normal people again. 

Yes, if you are an American, you can have an account in a civilian bank, and you can exchange your Dinar for whatever other currency you want and do it for 100% of the posted international exchange rate. 

You don't have to go to any isolated, scary Federal installation.  You don't have to keep anything secret, sign any NDAs, none of that. 

 

And you don't have to "voluntarily" give foreign Mercs 88-98% of your profit, either. 

Or wind up in a ditch if you decide not to. 

If there is an RV or if there isn't, show some good common sense and don't endanger yourself. 

You now have banks where you can exchange currencies for the full published international exchange rate, no scary "appointments", no questions asked, no NDAs required. 

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

See this article and over 4500 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.

The Rule of Law or the rule of law....

 By Anna Von Reitz

The children of Satan are Masters of Deceit, and so they endeavor to fool everyone, every day, every way. 

Thus we have "Presidents" who aren't our Presidents  and Popes who aren't ministers and Kings without countries.  

Once you see it, it can't be unseen again. 

The past few years you have heard all sorts of speeches and whispers about "the rule of law" -- by which the rats mean all the little rules of law that they promulgate to benefit themselves and their secret agenda, which is illegal confiscation of American assets, credit, and labor. 

The way they invoke "the rule of law" and the context in which it is often stated leaves you thinking that they are talking about the "Rule of Law" --- as in a civilian society guided by lawful Sovereigns who rule according to the Law.

One is petty, foreign, didactic, and though potent as a tool for unjust enrichment, fraud, and other mischief, is merely an administrative tool. We have the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as an example of that kind of "rule of law". 

The Rule of Law is a whole different kind of thing and at a whole different level --and it's what we automatically think of and assume when we hear the words "Rule of Law".  We all want to live in a lawful culture, where there is justice and peace.  

Sounds good, doesn't it?  

This is yet another example where the same words mean vastly different things.  And another example where their promotion of their "rule of law" is deceptive.  

People would vote for the "rule of law" by mistake, thinking that they were voting for the "Rule of Law" instead. 

 

And that is just part of the point and reason I am drawing this to your attention.  It's the same words, with vastly different meanings. 

Just as they have defined "American State National" to mean someone born in American Samoa, we have defined "American State National" as anyone born in and being native to one of the Several States of the Union. 

You see this whole practice of deceptive wordplay throughout their practices and organizations and institutions.  The truth is not in them, and often it is easy to see what they gain by lies and omissions and confusion spawned by this kind of duplicity. 

Innocent people would use their Federal Code citations and claim to be "American State Nationals" in their system instead of making the same claim in our system, and they would then be accused of perjury if they made the claim in court.  

The judges would ask, reasonably enough, "Were you born in American Samoa?" 

And you, confused would say, "Of course, not. I was born in New Jersey." 

And the judges would say, "Then why are you claiming under oath that you are an American State National defined under Title 18?  That very clearly pertains to people born in American Samoa. You have perjured yourself in this court!" 

If you protested that no, no, that wasn't your intention, etc., the same judges would charge you with contempt of court on top of it. 

It's a deliberate trap using deceptively similar words, even the same words, to mean radically different things. 

It is the same thing with "the rule of law".  They know that people would vote for the "Rule of Law" and mistake the topic under discussion.  A different kind of trap, but a trap nonetheless. 

In dealing with this sort of deception and those practicing and promoting this behavior, we must be severe and not excuse it. They think it is cute and smart and profitable; we know it is dishonest, deceptive, and potentially criminal. 

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

See this article and over 4500 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: Receivership Claim Announcement

 By Anna Von Reitz

To All to Whom These Presents Come: 

Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals; Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents 

As detailed in our correspondence with H.E. Cardinal Dominique Mamberti of the Vatican Chancery Court and the respective Justices of the International Court of Justice and the various church, corporation, and administrative officials and officers, we have discovered that: 

1. The "President" of the United States is not occupying the intended and rightful Presidential Office, nor is he representing our "United States" but is instead operating as the CEO of a foreign incorporated Municipal Corporation located in the District of Columbia; 

2. The purported Kings of both England and Scotland have never actually taken the required Coronation vows to occupy the Sovereign Office on the land and soil of either country, and are instead attempting to operate in the air jurisdiction without standing in the case of Charles III and in the sea jurisdiction without standing in the case of King Charles of Scotland; 

3. The Office of the Pope has also been recently and radically changed and redefined in a way that appears to permanently vacate the ministerial office owed to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole, and which leaves Pope Francis operating in an uncontrolled and unstated secular capacity. 

Each of these manipulative deceitful and ultimately fraudulent misrepresentations of these High Offices of Public and Private Trust appear to be engaged to promote unjust enrichment, power-mongering, and evasion of contractual obligations. 

All three circumstances must be addressed and corrected by the respective communities and institutions.

Last week, we placed all British Territorial and Municipal Corporations in immediate foreclosure. Without a Sovereign holding the General Jurisdiction on the land and soil there is no standing in Law for the charters and registrations of these corporations, and no protective State Immunity. 

These corporations owe our American Government and the people of this country a great deal of money, assets, and interest due.  We have thus acted to protect our Fiduciary Interest as well as to protect everyone from lawless corporate interests. 

We allow that there are some British Corporations created in the earlier history of the British Union and Commonwealth that were properly chartered or registered; however, the lack of a qualified Sovereign standing on the land and soil of England for at least the last seventy and perhaps more years, (See Regina v. JAH) together with the failure of King Charles III to take the appropriate Coronation Vows, leaves no standing for any British Corporation and renders them all, effectively, stateless. 

Whereupon we have exercised our position as Preferential Creditors and secured the personnel and assets of all British Territorial and Municipal corporations in general receivership.  

We recognize the claims of the Hereditary Lord High Steward, Ivan Talbot, retaining the land and soil of England for the Kingdom of England, and will allow for the restoration of its lawful government, and the reinstatement of its corporate functions under the Christian and Constitutional Monarchy. 

Pending that outcome we claim full right of disposition and right to discipline all British Territorial and Municipal corporate citizenry on our shores and we require them to abide by the Law of the Land as established by our treaties and contracts on our soil, and to abide by all customary and historical agreements of our lawful governments on the sea and in the air, guaranteeing our peaceful co-existence. 

All other nations impacted by these claims are advised to proceed peaceably to restructure their present government into a lawful form of government and to reclaim their own land and soil jurisdiction without further delay. 

As a first step, individual nationals need to declare and record (not register) their lawful claims to their own Good Names, DNA, and other property interests, including their inherited birthright political status on the land and soil of their native country.

 

This can be done via publication in local newspapers, via our State Assemblies in The United States, or via the Global Family International Land Recording Service. 

Having re-established and declared their own national origin and identity, individuals are then empowered to restore their lawful governments on the land and soil jurisdiction.  

Research into each country's history and customs will be necessary. 

Issued by: Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

                 The United States of America

                 In care of: Box 520994

                 Big Lake, Alaska 99652

December 26th 2023

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

See this article and over 4500 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.