By Anna Von Reitz
First, the crime of fraud has no statute of limitations. If I discover a fraud that happened in 1860 (and I have) and I report it and take exception to it today, the crime and all the subsequent history tainted by it, is still very much alive, still actionable, and still deserving remedy, cure, and divine service.
As
a result, when something begins in error and fraud, it ends in the same
status. No progress toward any actual and honest solution is made
until the fraud comes to an end.
Second,
the crime of piracy also has no statute of limitations. If my
great-grandfather's gold was stolen by pirates (thieves of any sort
acting in international jurisdiction) he is still the lawful owner and
I, as his heir, am still owed the return of that gold from Interpol or
any other international law enforcement agency that obtains custody of
the stolen property.
Now
those who are responsible for this ongoing Mess have sought to make
things easy on themselves and difficult for the rest of us by trying to
seize all private assets and to dump our private assets into trusts,
which are then combined and commingled into larger trusts----all
controlled by them.
While
they try to justify this as the act of valid Trustees, the actual
owners and purported donors never elected them to the job and this is in
fact just more piracy, more unlawful seizure of our assets in
international jurisdiction, more false claims of rights and interests
that do not exist.
The
fact that the theft is more sophisticated and accomplished by paper
transactions and keyboard strokes instead of cutlasses or broad axes,
does not change the nature of the theft itself. Nor its affects on
actual people.
In
the case of actual private assets (gold, silver, jewels, etc., ) that
were deposited in Good Faith as Special Deposits in the banks, Manna
World Holdings Trust is trying to claim control of those accounts and
those assets with no valid authority at all. It's simply more piracy,
more commandeering of assets, rights, and responsibilities that belong
to others.
Those assets belong to the people and/or organizations that deposited them.
Is that concept somehow suddenly difficult for everyone to understand?
And most especially, is it difficult for the bankers to understand?
Because if our deposits are not secure, what do we need banks for?
As holding tanks serving to make consolidated theft easier on the criminals?
No comments:
Post a Comment