Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
Anna von Reitz
8 hrs ·
Facts of Ownership
The word "ownership" in Legalese does not denote the same thing as the popular meaning of the word. An owner in legal terms is a custodian, a care-taker of someone else's property.
The Federal Government is an "owner" in the legal sense of all the public land in the Western States, as an example. The actual Possessors in Being are the living people. It all actually belongs to us -- but we have all these middlemen organizations acting as "owners" and the custodians have not been competent --- and in many cases, they have not been honest.
Let me give you all an example that is important in the current situation. The Territorial United States of America purchased the land mass of the Philippine Islands "for" us. They used our assets to buy the land, and the Philippines became our literal property in the same sense that Alaska was purchased and became property of The United States of America.
It's still our property. Literally. Just like buying a bicycle. We have the receipts and the sales agreements and that's that. So why does nobody know this?
In 1934, the US Congress operating in Breach of Trust, created an "independent government" for the Philippine Islands "for us", so that they could foist off their Trustee responsibility for our gold (which had been stashed there prior to all this) on this new government they created.
So they created the Government of the Philippines, and then pretended that they had no further relationship with that Government by calling it "independent". Is a franchise "independent" of a parent corporation?
No.
So once again we are looking at a shadow show of players acting "for" us on the world stage, often in their own self-interest, and often dishonestly. You will also note that they play "both ends against the middle" ---- we are the actual owners and they are misrepresenting us, which results in confusion and false claims and all sorts of mis-administration at home and abroad.
The people of the Philippines think that they have an independent government because the US Congress said so, but in fact, what they have is a Territorial Government. They also think that the land of the Philippines is theirs free and clear --- and it's not.
People also think that aside from the Japanese attack on Attu Island in the Second World War, American holdings were untouched. That's also not true. Everything that happened in that theater of the war affected our property assets in the region. And still does.
When such major historical facts are unknown or ignored, everyone concerned is left playing with half a deck.
Whose gold was cashiered in the Philippines? Ours.
Whose assets were used to purchase the land mass of the Philippines? Ours. Not "the" United States. Not "the" United States of America.
The United States of America. Unincorporated.
So all this is bunko of the con artist kind, the by-product of people and organizations acting "for" us in Breach of Trust and criminal collusion.
We still own the Philippines and we own the franchises and the gold, and God knows, we have paid more than enough for it, too, both in terms of lives and assets.
It would be a Big Mistake for the US Navy to think that we have been asleep and that we don't know these facts and don't know who transported our gold to the Philippines and who orchestrated the creation of the "independent" franchise Government of the Philippines. We know. We have the receipts, the treaties, all the various agreements made "for" us and in our names.
A similar go-round has been launched with the Russians making claims to own Alaska. That's bogus, too. They think that because "the" United States goes bankrupt or because "the" United States of America goes bankrupt, that they are in position to claim our land. Sorry.
The Territorial Government used our assets to buy the land mass underlying Alaska. They bought it "in our names" and they paid for it with our money in gold. We have the receipts. We know what went on. We have honored the property of the Russian Orthodox Church which was grandfathered-into these agreements and that's as far as it goes.
Alaska, like the Philippines, belongs to The United States of America. Unincorporated.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Creator is the actual Being in Possession to whom all the assets belong; I am prepared to go that far and agree.
I didn't create the Earth, so it isn't mine. It isn't theirs, either. And thus far I see no reason to trust the Bishop of Rome to be the Chief Custodian.
No matter what else you see or believe in this melee of cross-purposes, greed, religious beliefs, cover-ups, and so on, it is clear that the Pope and the Boys have made a tremendous hash of things in their rush to take over the world "for Jesus" by any means fair or foul.
Killing for Christ doesn't make sense and any sane man who ever read any teaching attributed to Jesus would know that, just as oppressing and murdering and debauching people "for" America isn't credible, either.
Like Gandhi said --- and I paraphrase broadly --- I love Jesus, but the Christians, not so much. These purported Christians don't act like Jesus, they don't practice what they preach, and they show precious little respect or compassion for anyone else, so, what's to say about that? It reeks of hypocrisy. And Bad Faith.
And so it does.
Just as "Christ" has been used to cover up and paper over Jesus and his actual teachings, "the US" has been used to cover up and paper over America and Americans. Those operating "for" us as middlemen have had a very different set of values and agendas, which makes us look like what?
Hypocrites. Liars. Thieves. Untrustworthy bunko artists. Or worse.
The Church itself has practiced Christian Communism as its form of government, with terrible results and corruption, just as the openly secular forms of Communism have failed. It all sounds good, but it doesn't work. To work such a system requires the free will acceptance of sacrificing everything to the Church, and also requires that the Church be trustworthy --- which it self-evidently is not. No human institution is. Such absolute power corrupts absolutely. The ego and the base instincts take over and that's that.
Failure to recognize the failure is what it is, is what dooms us. It's not the mistakes we make. It's our failure to face up to our mistakes and make correction that causes the actual problems --- nothing else. It's also what prevents us from finding answers.
The Queen and her system of things is just as bad. They have claimed that the whole world belongs to the British Monarch by right of conquest, but their conquests are based upon criminal fraud. Since when do the rest of us have an obligation to bow down to thugs?
So both the priests and the monarchists are claiming to be the owners --- custodians --- of God's Property and cutting the rest of us out of the picture, when in fact, according to the Bible --- which they claim to regard as holy scripture, we are collectively the owners and custodians of God's gift to us.
And we are doing a wretched job as custodians of ourselves or anything else.
Why? Because certain Parties have not lived up to their obligations and have not taught people to be good caretakers, have not encouraged self-government for selfish reasons, and have instead sought to create a populace of ignorant and helpless dependents in order to facilitate their own manipulation of our lives and our assets to suit themselves.
The Queen doesn't own Australia, Canada, or much of anything else. She certainly does not own this country, though she has usurped upon us and manipulated things so as to achieve a de facto kind of coup via Breach of Trust and improper exercise of delegated power.
With these facts about ownership in mind, let us strive to own ourselves first, and our States second, and our country third. This is more than enough for all of us to "own" and be responsible for.
I have a home where I live and I have a cabin where I like to live in the summer though I haven't had that opportunity for several years.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that we can't be in two places at once. So we can't actually own the Philippines and we can't actually own Alaska if we are in Louisiana. There are limits to physicality and actuality that we all have to respect.
As a result, all this talk and bargaining and claims and counter-claims is nonsense, and what we really need to do is learn to take care of ourselves, our families, our land, and what's right in front of our faces. We need to accept what is naturally ours and give back to others what is naturally theirs.
The United States of America -- the unincorporated Federation that actually owns everything --- does not propose to steal anything from anyone, anywhere. In the same token, we aren't going to stand here and be raped by a bunch of pirates and disloyal employees and foreign corporations acting as middlemen. Our interests are ours, bought and paid for, and we are presenting ourselves accordingly.
Any claim that we are "dead" or defunct or incapable of operating our own business affairs is bunk. And it has been adequately rebutted right here.
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
The people of the Philippines think that they have an independent government because the US Congress said so, but in fact, what they have is a Territorial Government. They also think that the land of the Philippines is theirs free and clear --- and it's not.
Say you own a parcel of "land" said to reside in the great State of Minnesota. Or at least that is where your deed places what you own. But then that same great State only transacts business in script (paper) dollars based upon the full faith and credit of the United States. So instead of owning "land" what you own instead is your portion of the debt owed by the United States. That isn't quite what I have in mind when "land" becomes the topic.
Gold is portable soil. Gold itself is simply a symbol of portable "land".
The people of the Philippines should be aware of the origin of the name of the land they claim
Quote:
Philippines
from Spanish Islas Filipinas, literally "the islands of Philip," named for Philip II, king of Spain. Related: Philippine.
If they want to change the system they should consider a name change such as ObamaLand or Marcos Island. Their present name ties them to the debts of Spain and is war booty.
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
The land I own is in Minnesota. A state with metes and bounds.
The State of Minnesota is a Federal entity, created by the congress.
But do carry on talking about fiction.
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
The land I own is in Minnesota. A state with meets and bounds.
Perhaps metes is a better word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
The State of Minnesota is a Federal entity, created by the congress.
Of course. There are no People in Minnesota. Perhaps you should review your history. Prior to the formation of the State of Minnesota there was the Territory of Minnesota. This is also a federal enclave that was created on March 3, 1849.
Prior to the Territory of Minnesota this was the Territory of Iowa, then before that the Territory of Wisconsin and prior to that the Territory of Michigan. Oh, and while it was in the Territory of Michigan there was created a County of Du Buque with an overlaying Township of Julian. Said county extended from the lower limb of Rock Island to the Canadian border. These are all Federal enclaves. But then that is because there are no People in a Federal territory.
But prior to 1803 the French had this land. Prior to them the Spanish had it. Prior to the Spanish acquisition this land was declared the territory of the French as they were defeated in the French-Indian wars.
If you have to refer even further back I suppose you get into Indian occupation but then they only occupied and never settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
But do carry on talking about fiction.
We can only discuss the past, the present and the future. Fiction is better left to comic books (and Anna).
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
So, did Iowa ever have people? Or Michigan?
Where is the source for your info?
Very interesting stuff.
Mange takk.
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
Anna von Reitz
8 hrs ·
The Big Billy Goat Gruff
Remember the story? It was one of my favorites.
There is a troll who lives under the bridge. (The Roman Pontiff. Literally.) This troll eats unwary goats and sheep passing over the bridge.
So, first the Little Billy Goat Gruff gets caught by the troll and pleads for his life, saying, hey, my brother is coming soon. He's much bigger and tastier than me. The troll sits back and decides to wait for the Middle Billy Goat Gruff, and the same thing happens--- hey, wait a minute, my brother will be here in a few minutes and he is much bigger and tastier than me.....
Again, the troll waits, slavering in anticipation. Finally, the Big Billy Goat Gruff arrives and bounces the troll right off of the bridge, passes freely over to the other side, and joins his brothers. The end.
Okay, folks, your actual given family name is the Big Billy Goat Gruff. It is the "Person in Being" --- Joseph Blow. Just your first name and your last name, printed just the way you did it in Grade School, Upper and Lower Case.
The Middle Billy Goat is your Lawful Person: Joseph Alphonse Blow, when he is standing on the land, or could be your Legal Person--- also called Joseph Alphonse Blow, when out on the High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways.
The Little Billy Goat(s) are all the Municipal PERSONS named after you -- JOSEPH A. BLOW, JOSEPH BLOW, JOS. BLOW, etc.., which are easiest for the monsters from under the bridge to snack on.
So naturally, these "trolls" who live "under the bridge" attack the easiest prey first --- all the Municipal Corporations that they have concocted and named after you. Ah, but you are exempt under Title 50, Section 7, Subsections c and e, of the 2012 version --- which you are grandfathered-into, if you were alive in 2012.
Oh, Mr. Troll, there has been a mistake.....
So trot on over the bridge and start grazing.....
Ah, but here comes your Middle Billy Goat, your Lawful/Legal Person, and the trolls come out and try to attack him, too, but you say ----
Oh, Mr. Troll.... the Doctor at the hospital made a mistake.... Joseph Alphonse Blow is the name of my Lawful Person, and as you can see, the Earth is solid under my feet....
And now we come to the best part of the story, when the Big Billy Goat arrives.
"Oh, Mr. Troll, I am Joe Blow, a man from Minnesota, and heir to everything in sight, including the land under my feet. I am a Third Party, a civilian native to this country, and not the Subject Matter of any corporation or US military protectorate."
Ka-thunk! Splash!
That's the sound of your actual family name, knowledgeably applied, hitting the Bar Attorneys squarely in the gut, followed by the sound of them landing where they belong --- in the water and headed out to sea.
Now, you are dealing with trolls and trolls will be what trolls are. Bear that in mind and avoid bridges whenever possible. Prepare yourself mentally and emotionally. Know whether you are a Little Billy Goat Gruff in Municipal Court or a Middle Billy Goat Gruff in Territorial Court or..... the Big Billy Goat Gruff holding your own sovereign court proceeding.
Strange as it seems, plain old Martin Hansen, hand-printed like a kid in Grade School, Upper and Lower Case, is the Big Kahuna. For most people in any kind of court situation, this is the name to use. All other names associated with you derive from it. This is the name of the Being in Possession.
It is neither wise nor necessary to belabor all the various names and jurisdictions. When the Recorder calls out, "Is Martin H. Hanson here?"
"No, but Martin Hanson is."
Smile. If you listen closely, you will hear sphincters closing all over the court building.
Some of us have our reasons for dilly-dallying with the other names and jurisdictions, but 90% of the people reading this and being forced to cross such a bridge would be better served by cutting to the chase.
Martin Hanson -- Being in Possession
Martin Alan Hanson -- can stand for a Lawful Person on the land, or a Legal Person on the Sea; they always try to interpret it as a Legal Person, but you can rebut that and they are self-evidently in dry-dock.
MARTIN ALAN HANSON, MARTIN A. HANSON, MARTIN HANSON - Municipal corporations of one kind or another.
Martin Hanson is the rightful owner of all these entities, but he has to claim them and declare their domicile on the land and soil of one of the actual physically-defined States of the Union, before his "presumed" names are ever called to court.
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
So, did Iowa ever have people? Or Michigan?
Nope. The assignment of People to a state or territory is beyond the purview of the legislature. There is a perception only .. but perceptions are the result of sound, sight, taste, smell and feel. Anything not perceived is a creation of the mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
Where is the source for your info?
You might do some research in AmJur 2d concerning the topic of 'county'. There you will find a Michigan case cite that informs you that the body politic of a county are 1) cities 2) villages and 3) townships. So therefore when Michigan territory created Du Buque county they had to make it out of something and they created Julian township. Except the creation of the county appears to have predated the creation of the township marginally so the county actually was composed of Nothing (an empty container?) and they decided to fill it up with township-stuff right away.
States are subdivided into counties. If there are no People in any county likely you will find none in any State. If you want to know where to find People you need a Hundred. That is how England dealt with People. You couldn't be in England for more than a month without being assigned a Hundred ... but then you wouldn't really be in England to begin with if your mind didn't place you there.
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
I'm having a little trouble squaring this equation with the requirement that a State must have a minimum population before the congress grants statehood to any territory.
2 and 2 does not seem to be equal to 4 in your world instead it is 0.
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bigjon
I'm having a little trouble squaring this equation with the requirement that a State must have a minimum population before the congress grants statehood to any territory.
How can a State have ANY population if it hasn't qualified as a State?
How many Boy Scouts do you need before you have a Troop?
Which came first? The Troop or the Boy Scouts?
If Nothing existed then can Anybody be President?
Re: Anna von Reitz: Answers to Questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ziero0
How can a State have ANY population if it hasn't qualified as a State?
It is not a State, it is a territory, until it has the required population to be made a State.
And in 0 land that is 0, while in Minnesota it is...?
