By Judge Anna von Reitz | Big Lake, Alaska

A great deal of attention has been focused on the Act of 1871 (which was actually repealed in 1874) and a great many people have been running around willy-nilly making all sorts of claims about this action, which all boils down to the creation of a Municipal Corporation calling itself the Municipal Corporation of the District of Columbia.

The bad thing about there being such an unauthorized corporation is that it could then spin-off endless franchises for itself and cause no end of trouble, which is precisely what it has done.

But strictly speaking, if you assume that the parties undertaking this activity had the right to do it, we have no cause to complain; and if it affected only their own business operations, we would have even less cause to complain.

Yet, here we come to the crux of the matter, and it lies in the Corporations Act of 1870, not the famous Act of 1871 which promptly fell on its nose.

Did the Municipal Government or the Territorial Government, either one, have any granted authority to create Municipal or Territorial Corporations “for” us or to operate them “in our names”?

And the answer is no, they did not.

That right was delegated to our own American Federal Republic. It was never vouchsafed to the Municipal United States Government nor to the Territorial United States Government.

As a result, all these corporations have been constructed on fraud and Breach of Trust, and are being operated without valid charters in our names by foreign principals.

These entities must be returned to our ownership, re-chartered, and made subject to our Public Law. Or liquidated without recourse.

This is required by every form of law including the Roman Civil Law: once the fraud is discovered and objected to, it must be corrected. The fraud has been discovered — and it is not in the Act of 1871 per se. It’s in the Corporations Law of 1870, which has allowed all these other entities to exist.

This is our Public Notice that this fraud has occurred and that it involves misrepresentation of powers and delegated authorities, similar names deceit, and usurpation in Breach of Trust. There is no doubt that this has happened and there is no question what the remedy must be.

We heartily object to all that has been done “in our names” since 1860, when Abraham Lincoln, a Bar Attorney prohibited from holding public office in our actual government was put forward as a candidate for offices pertaining to our foreign Territorial Subcontractor and passed off as our American Federal Republic President.

Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals; Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents.

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America