Regarding the Treaty of Paris 1947
By Anna Von Reitz
What you are looking at is another
attempted unlawful conversion of national authorities by the globalists,
however, no government anywhere has any right to give away anything
that we are owed. Ever. They can falsely claim that we "volunteered" to
give up our birthrights, but cannot stand in the face of our denial of
their actions. This is particularly true of The United States of
America, as we never conformed, confirmed, not accepted any fall-out
occasioned by or created by the British Territorial United States nor
the Municipal United States (Roman Catholic/Municipal/Pontifical
"Government") purportedly "in our behalf", including any such Peace
Treaty, and we don't do so now.
Here are the kind of "citizens" that
these vermin are offering to claim and subject to the tender mercies of
the "UN Corporation" ---- not the United Nations organization. See the
succinct definition of "U.S. citizens" given below:
"The U.S. citizens [citizens of the
District of Columbia] residing in one of the state of the union are
classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an
“individual entity”. Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80
L. Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773."
So are you a "U.S. citizen" and does any of this verbiage apply to you?
Note the key words of deceit ---
"residing" and "individual" -- more words that have been twisted and
corrupted into "words of art" by the legal chicanery professionals.
British Territorial and Municipal "citizens" merely "reside" here in the
actual geographically defined States temporarily. And we, the actual
People, are said to "reside" --- also temporarily in their "States of
State" and "STATES OF STATE" jurisdictions.
To illustrate: A living
Californian walks into a STATE OF CALIFORNIA court. He is entering a
foreign municipal "STATE" and for the time being, is considered to
"reside" there. The same thing can be said if he enters a State of
California court --- he is temporarily "residing" in the foreign domain
of the British Territorial "State of California".
But flip that around, and any
Municipal or Territorial "citizen" entering upon California's land
jurisdiction is "residing" in California --- just there temporarily to
provide "essential government services".
British Territorial United States
and Municipal United States citizens cannot own land in our States and
we choose not to own anything in their "states of states", so it is
important that you deny "residing" in the State of Ohio or the STATE OF
IOWA or wherever you happen to be, and draw the distinction that you
live in California, or Ohio, or Iowa.
The word "individual" has also been
much abused. They use the word "individual" as shown above to denote
single franchises and single franchisees of their corporations, while we
use it to describe single unique living people. These two usages of
the same word which are almost diametrically opposed then give rise to
endless opportunities to confuse identities and capacities of both
people and things.
To illustrate: "On the night of
July 7th, 1951, JOHN MAYNARD DOE, was involved in a car accident that
netted the largest single auto insurance claim in Arkansas history."
translates in Federal-ese to "On the night of July 7th, 1951, JOHN
MAYNARD DOE [Foreign Grantor Trust from Puerto Rico] was involved in a
car accident....." Everyone automatically and reasonably enough
assumes that "JOHN MAYNARD DOE" is a living man, when in fact, for the
purposes of the MUNICIPAL COURT, we are talking about a constructive
ESTATE trust "residing" in Puerto Rico.
In the same way, look at this: "The
"individuals" involved, JOHN MAYNARD DOE and ELIZABETH "LIBBY" MAE
HUNT, were severely injured." Again, we assume that only living people
can be injured and interpret the verbiage accordingly, but in
Federal-speak, two foreign ESTATE trusts have been "injured".
All this language is deliberately
used to deceive and confuse and alienate people from their identity and
their nationality and most importantly, their rights and their property
assets. This can only be interpreted as deliberate and self-interested
criminal activity on the part of politicians, courts, government
agencies, international governments, banks, and military personnel
involved in these schemes, which are capital crimes under the terms of
the Geneva Conventions.
The attitude and practice of the
Vermin has been ---- "Oh, it's against the law to shoot grouse? Well,
we will just call them "Spruce Hens" instead and blast away...."
Still a grouse by any other name is still a grouse and it is still against the Public Law to shoot them.
And nobody can make you a "citizen"
of the UNITED NATIONS or any other criminal organization absent your
knowing and willing participation and agreement. I would strongly
suggest that anyone raising this issue should be pinned to the wall and
educated on the fine points. And just to be absolutely and doubly sure,
you might all add a "Declaration" to your recorded documents making it
perfectly clear that you do not subscribe to any element of the Treaty
of Paris 1947.
----------------------------
----------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment