(Thanks, C. :)
(FYI: Anna has consistently said that 'the' United States of America and 'The' United States of America are distinct entities. Thus she began in her previous message, "Ah, yes, but it pays to know WHICH "United States of America" is being discussed".)
Reader Charles Miller replies:
***************************************************************************
Re: Anna Von Reitz: 'The Definitive Treaty of ....
RESPONSE TO Anna.
Thank you.
You surprised a lot of us who know of you, or knew you at some point, with your quick response. Me in particular.
The Treaty of Peace 1783 identified the United States of America as created by the states beginning 1776. Being that that entity as recognized the document was the first and at the time the only existing country of that name, and the former owner, King George, recognized the ‘new nation’ under its proper name and title, is pretty definitive of what entity is addressed in both the Treaty and my comments. Thus, your attempts to confuse the unsuspecting fail.
More to the point simple common sense dictates that these other entities you refer to would need some form of verification that they were or are actually real. That means construction documents on par with the same open public construction standards as the Declaration, Original State Constitutions, Articles of Confederation and of course Constitution for the United States of America. Once again your attempts to confuse fail the simple test of production of documents and standards.
Perhaps you might consider the transparent method of communication by producing bona fide documents constructing these other United States and explain how and where the signers of the 1783 Treaty got notice of these other entities you reference came from and why they are not referenced in the Treaty.
Most of us common folk know that magic documents or disappearing documents are not very reliable.
The copy of the Treaty posted is from the U.S. Government Printing Office. The language of the Treaty defines perfectly what King George’s capacities and from which he spoke. More to the point, the loyalties owed to the Pope et al are a matter of record with massive amounts of documentation as is the Holy See’s controls and property rights in the Holy Roman Empire.
Once again your attempt to confuse the unsuspecting into believing King George some how was representing the the People or the United States of America fails under the language of the Treaty any one can read.
WOW! What boldness. I am impressed with your brass. Trying to tell any one that can read that the 1783 Treaty has no affect on any American or our country when the public document is there to be read seems self destructive at the very least and an admission of ignorance or proof of intent to mislead.
As any one who has done their own research or ever dealt with official records know, public records under custodians seal of office TRUMP, all the secret squirrel single country private diplomatic documents. Thank you for clearing up your reference points.
Perhaps you can explain to this poor soul how the other treaties you reference control or affect the Definitive Treaty of 1783. This will be particularly interesting when you produce the dates of those treaties and identify the parties to them.
Definitive is a very powerful word most recognize as closure and settlement.
Anna, how could so many of be so wrong in the understanding of the word definitive?
Then some very interesting and telling questions will need answering.
Like how does an 1756 treaty, first Versailles, between Australia and France affect a country that didn’t exist at that point. Perhaps you confused the Dutch, British treaty identified as Westminster, 1654, with some other secret treaty binding or affecting the then non existing United States of America. Now I am rally confused. The Treaty of Ghent, a public document available to any one, was executed in 1812, settling a conflict between Britain and We Americans. For the life of me I can not figure out how the 1812 treaty affected the 1783 treaty as in your comments.
Perhaps competency in my world and Anna’s are different. I will bet most any body that can read and use a dictionary will agree that the written documents say what they say and all Anna’s hoopla saying different are not quite as learned as she claims.
Me, I’ll trust the common man every time over a self proclaimed X-Pert.
I accept your ‘blast’ for what is worth. In my world going back to the late 60s we measured our value and service by the competence of our adversaries.
Your blast is not given any credence from any one I know and I know lots of people. More than a few know or knew you at some point.
So if you want to go down that road help your self and enjoy your loneliness.
The only way to destroy a fraud charge is production of the public records proving the charge is wrongful or a mistake. Good luck!
Anna, you have been called out many times to back up your pontification with documents. Also to define your legal relationship to the Governments We the People created. Also to disclose who you actually represent in the Peoples Republic.
The world waits on you and your cohorts.
We promise not to hold our Breath.
Your last sentence ratifies the fraud charge. The only way anyone could misconstruct the clear language in the treaty about who King George spoke as in his capacities is working very hard to deceive.
***************************************************************************
