We Are All Forgotten Royals --- That's the Point
By Anna Von Reitz
FYI --- there are a couple completely wrong-headed memes out there that I hope you will help me correct and pass on to the appropriate people among the White Hats so that everyone is properly advised, but please don't publish at this point --- this is a private discussion, an example of the many different points of view that are brought forward that I have to deal with every day and that deserve to be better known, but for the moment need to be addressed in-house.
One is the idea that FDR made a "fair offer" and created a valid public trust applying to all Americans with his 1933 Inaugural Address, thereby allowing the "occupation" of our country without firing a shot and also allowing the Office of the Custodian of Alien Property to seize upon our property assets "by consent".
Take a look at FDR's first Inaugural Address and you will see what this is about, and below, see my response:
(A) He was consistently speaking of "a Nation" and "this Nation" throughout, but each State is a nation, and at that time, only the Territorial Government had "States of States" so the only entity operating that could speak of itself as "a Nation" was the Vatican's Municipal Government, right? His Nation, not our nations.
(B) He makes reference to "pledging" which is a feudal act, again, totally foreign to us or anything to do with us.
(C) He refers to "trust reposed" --- but by who? Let's step back a moment and look at what he was doing in the Inaugural Address: he was accepting the Office of President of the United States, so it only makes logical sense that he was talking to the Citizens of the United States, and I don't see how anyone at that time would have thought otherwise. Do you?
(D) We could not possibly be part of FDR's "consecrated Nation" and "Enemy Aliens" at the same time.
(E) We, Americans, our States of the Union, were provably, demonstrably, definitely, not operating in Commerce at that time; our commercial "Vessels" were all moth-balled and had been moth-balled since 1868. Therefore, any supposition that we, Americans, were even possibly under the Law Merchant--- which is the only venue of the law that allows implied unilateral contracts--- can't be supported.
All these things indicate that what FDR was "consecrating" was the Municipal United States Government and the Citizens of the United States and he was doing it as the President of the United States. That's the only way it makes sense and that is the only way that it is consistent with the Treaty of Paris and the Constitutions.
It all hangs together and is perfectly legal --- but "if and only if" he is talking to his people about their property assets and acting in his capacity as their President. He couldn't lawfully or legally be talking to Americans in general---- and they could not logically respond to him and his proposal by accepting or objecting, because his comments could not possibly apply to them. So the idea that we are somehow "responsible" for not rejecting his "offer" is absurd, is it not?
That would be like Pierre Trudeau reorganizing the Canadian Government, and holding the American People responsible for the consequences."
The second idea is that The Magna Carta was not a valid and binding charter, but in fact, it was. The Crown calls it "void" because it does not apply to the jurisdiction in which the Crown operates, however, what the Crown won't admit (unless you hold their little webbed feet to the flames) is that their jurisdiction depends on our jurisdiction, and they work for us, not the other way around.
Regarding the Holy Alliance of 1213---that Alliance didn't apply to anything but the Church's property and the Commonwealth land managed by the Church in England at that time. King John had no other land in England. He was nicknamed "John Lackland" for that reason. So the whole idea that he gave the Pope his kingdom may be perfectly true --- but his "kingdom" consisted of waste land managed by the Church as a resource to support itself and the Paupers in the Church's care--- the Commonwealth. Any idea that the breadth of England was surrendered to Papal Administration by any act of John's is mistaken. This is underlined by the fact that The Magna Carta nonetheless took effect as the Law of the Land. If John had actually been "King of England" in the sense people think of it, he would have had the lawful and legal ability to dismiss the demands of the Norman Barons, but as they exercised "sovereignty in their own right" as a result of William's Settlement of the Norman Conquest, nothing John did with the Church's property or the Commonwealth property made any difference. The "Holy Alliance" was simply a business transaction in which he gave up his claim to the Commonwealth land and accepted the job of caretaker of it, instead of the Church being caretaker of it--- that is, John became the Church's employee, instead of the Church being John's employee.
Anyone who tells you that The Magna Carta isn't absolutely valid Land Law is flying in the face of a thousand years of demonstrable history and needs to be rebuffed, sternly, for telling any such outrageous lies.
Thanks to: http://www.paulstramer.net