By Anna Von Reitz
Let's go on the record here that I like Jim McBride and regard him as one of those people on Earth who has contributed mightily to the Cause. It's also true that he shared his research about the "sole relief and remedy" being offered by the Municipal United States and in general by the Territorial Government (two years ago already???) -- but here's the thing.... and maybe he will read this and respond.
When I look at the history and read the documents, especially those concerning Roosevelt and the "New Deal" and the Conference of Governors and its actions "pledging" the good faith and credit of "their states and the citizenry" thereof --- it's apparent that they were talking about their Territorial States of States and the States of States "citizenry" --- meaning those relatively few people who actually were United States Citizens. Not American State Citizens.
They gave their all-----all 1 in 1550 of us. And it didn't hurt them much, as most of them were ineligible to act as American State Citizens in the first place.
What they did was provide an excuse for a "legal presumption" that all the rest of the people in every State were similarly "pledged" and by a process of constructive fraud, undisclosed contracts, and semantic deceits, those responsible unlawfully converted the estates of millions of Americans into their "Public Charitable Trust" scheme "as if" they were actual United States Citizens or Citizens of the United States when they were never either one and never "volunteered" and never "donated" their children or their earnings, either.
It was a giant constructive fraud and identity theft and impersonation scheme, pure and simple.
Now, if we go back in as the Undeclared Heirs we admit that we are the Progeny of the United States Citizens who were pledged by the Conference of Governors on March 6, 1933, and subjected under the ancient Feudal System of pledging to the Queen--- that is, if we do as Jim suggests without first reclaiming our Lawful Persons as American State Citizens, we have no other recourse: we have "voluntarily" identified ourselves as British Territorial Subjects owed restitution under the quid pro quos of the New Deal. This then means that we cannot receive remedy as Americans.
There is a large amount of money to be shared out of the Public Charitable Trust (PCT) which is meant to provide welfare benefits to the destitute Paupers among us --- and most of that money shouldn't be there, because it was obtained by constructive fraud --- and there again, we are admitting to be "Paupers" if we accept "benefits" or payouts from the liquidation of the Public Charitable Trust. So strike one -- admission of being British Territorial Citizens, and strike two-- admission of being Paupers.
Some people don't care, they just want a lot of credit to spend, regardless of where it came from or how it was obtained or what you have to admit about yourself to get a share of it, but to me--- there are numerous unanswered questions and people taking advantage of this option should at least think through the pros and cons of it as it relates to their own circumstance and they should have full disclosure before making such a decision.
The Public Charitable Trust was set up in the wake of The American Civil War as a welfare fund for displaced plantation workers and their families to help former slaves survive the bumpy transition to freedom. That is still the basic premise of the Public Charitable Trust, in that it is supposed to go to poor people in hard circumstances to pay for things like catastrophic medical bills and emergency shelter and travel money to get them back home when they have wound up in a place and can't get home. Now they are liquidating this trust as part of the General Bankruptcy of the Municipal Corporation of the District of Columbia.
This is what --- according to my understanding of the situation --- you are getting a share of, when you apply (there's that word again) under provisions of the sections of Title 50 that Jim's claims are under. Well, someone should claim it, and that's no lie. I tend to think that the people who should claim it are the actual United States Citizens and especially the Colored United States Citizens. It seems somehow as if we would be coming in and claiming something from the mouths of people who struggled and suffered without recourse for it--- even though, to be sure, many of us and our parents and grandparents, too, were among the sufferers.
I just can't see myself as a Brit nor as a Pauper, and I certainly am not a "Person of Color", so all those factors enter in to the questions I have about Jim's claims under Title 50, subsection (b). I also wonder what happens when the fraud issues are fully entertained --- as they must be, since there is no statute of limitation on fraud claims and as probate of estates is never really closed. At least a significant portion of the money and credit represented by the Public Charitable Trust (PCT) was purloined under conditions of constructive fraud, and shouldn't be in that Trust at all. What then, when the actual Heirs come forward and say---- hey, wait a minute, my Grandfather wasn't black, wasn't a United States Citizen, and wasn't a Pauper, either. What in the Name of Glory are you talking about?
What are the Bankruptcy Trustees going to do then? Run screaming into the bushes? And what happens to all those people who came forward and made these claims who aren't really United States Citizens, aren't Paupers, aren't Colored and......? Well, you see where this line of questioning is going. What if we are asked to pay the credit back, basically because we are making a fraudulent claim on the basis of being defrauded ourselves or fraud committed against our parents and grandparents?
This gets very convoluted and I am not sure what the answers are. I am not a believer in creating another injustice as an answer to an earlier injustice, and I certainly don't want people to get a chunk of credit, spend it, and then out of the blue be forced to pay it back. These are the kinds of issues and questions that I still have, and foolish or not, I still feel that "nagging sense" that perhaps I am being offered a proverbial bowl of porridge, and not even a bowl of porridge ever intended for me.
I would somehow feel bad pretending to be a British Pauper and taking advantage, when I know of many, many people out there who really are struggling to put food on the table and heat in the house and shoes on the feet of their children. I am not suggesting that Jim is immoral or that he means any ill in anything he is doing, these are just unresolved gut-level issues and questions that I have. Someone is owed that credit and it certainly should be claimed. My problem is that I don't know if it should be claimed by me or most of those reading my articles.
What after all, does it really mean? If I admit that I am now or ever truly was a British Territorial Citizen and a Pauper in the Commonwealth that automatically forestalls any claim I can make to the land and soil I am heir to as an American State Citizen.
And the land and soil is there to be claimed, too, as a result of other frauds and schemes that went on before the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration, and which in fact took place during the Administration of his Cousin, Theodore Roosevelt.
It's the reclaiming of the land --- the actual and factual world -- that I care about and value, and upon which all our lives and well-being depend. Money and credit are as nothing compared to the value of the land and the soil, the reality which gives money and credit any meaning.
Rather than endanger or muddy my claim to the land and soil, I would gladly forego any other claim, because as long as I have the land and soil, I have the basis of all wealth and happiness and security. I have the ground solid under my feet, and on that solid foundation, I can build a new world. And while the money and the credit may fail, the land and soil endure.
Thus I may be less than sophisticated, yet in my own way, wise in bringing forward the claim to the land and soil as an American State National --- one of the lowly People of this country who are owed the return of all title, all right, and all interest in the land and soil of this country..
Perhaps Jim would be kind enough to share the affidavit and let me see what is required? It's possible that my fears are groundless and that having once regained our Lawful Personhood no such concerns are valid. Maybe we can have our cake and eat it, too. That would be nice and I would have nothing against it.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1800 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
