(Thanks, A. :)

I don't yet have sufficient grasp of the matter to answer your question. However, I think some of the issues are in your question itself. Note first that this was happening immediately following the so-called Civil War, with day-to-day living in the Southern States of States totally disrupted and, according to Anna, with the Northern States of States bankrupted by Lincoln.

From your question I think you may have a mistaken concept, a mistaken mental image, that you're calling "the existing US government".

Read here, it may help:

Anna Von Reitz: "The Status and Operations of the United States in 30 Points"
hobie -- Saturday, 29-Jun-2019 02:02:24

Anyone wanting to take a shot at answering this Reader's question, feel free. :)

Reader AC writes:

***************************************************************************

Re: (repost) Anna Von Reitz: 'The Act of 1871 ....

In this posting from Anna she says;

Among other things prior to the Act of 1871, a Scottish Commercial Corporation merely calling itself “The United States of America, Incorporated” foisted off it’s corporate Articles of Incorporation as “the” Constitution in 1868.

So they formed a substitute entity, a foreign commercial corporation, named it after us, and started doing business “in our names”—- impersonating us and illegally accessing our assets and credit— starting in 1868.

And so the question I have is how was all of this pulled off and so successfully that it was all so seamlessly moved from one Constitution and the government created by it to the other that was replacing it? Surely this, if it actually happened, could not have happened without the almost complete cooperation of the existing US government at that time. And if it did happen as Anna says then surely there must be a lot of evidence that was left behind that would serve as proof of this. Someone around in government at that time would have surely contested this action and would have initiated some opposition to this being carried out… and this should have surely left a trail of evidence.

And it's not that I don't believe. But for example, in the case of the missing 13th Amendment, there is ample evidence that has been found, including even multiple state constitutions that were printed with this "titles of nobility" amendment... I even have a fairly clear copy of the relevant pages to the Virginia Constitution of March 12, 1819 showing the inclusion of this amendment. And so even years ago when I first obtained this copy it was not hard for me to accept this version of history as truth after seeing that states had in fact printed their state constitutions with this new 13th amendment and so this was to me clear evidence that the original 13th Amendment had in deed been properly ratified.

But in the case of these other US Constitutions and the various US bankruptcies that are mentioned from time to time, I have yet to actually see any real evidence to prove this stated version of history.

***************************************************************************