My research shows that this is probably true, BUT my research also shows that the often claimed idea of reclaiming this money is farcical at best. I have not found any instance where a person has filed a ucc-1 lien against any other entity, thus resulting in a billion dollar payoff!! and if it has, surely you would have heard about it.
Here is what I believe happened:
America was formed. A constitution was written to protect the "People" from an oppressive government. The "People" at the time the Constitution was written were white, land owning men. It may be debatable that free blacks, and married women were also "People" under the Constitution.
The northern states, being morally ahead of the south for whatever reason, began moving away from slavery. This left the south with a major advantage with regards to textile production and overall prosperity.
The north convinced the Congress to pass the 13th Amendment (a previous 13th Amendment was lawfully passed but ignored and eventually washed away by congress see. http://www.amendment-13.org/ )
The 13th Amendment made "INvoluntary" servitude unlawful, while at the same time declaring "voluntary" servitude to be lawful by proxy.
This was both good and bad for slaves. Before the 13th Amendment, blacks were protected as property, harm against a slave was a harm against the slaveholder. The 13th Amendment removed this 'protection' and made the freed slaves stateless entities. So harm to a freed slave was no crime.
Congress stepped in and made a statutory civil rights law (1866). However, congress has limited power in the states of the union so the law had little or no effect in the states.
The language of the 1866 civil rights act stated:
The phrase "not subject to any foreign power" was a limiting term as the states were foreign powers with regard to congress, therefore there was constant debate as to whether or not Congress had the authority to make a law applicable in the states of the union. This section listed a series of "civil rights" that the new lesser class citizen was entitled to.
To clear up any concern, Congress created the 14th Amendment to make the law Constitutional.
The 14th Amendment states:
First it should be noted that the term "persons" instead of "People" was used. Secondly it should be noted that the word "citizen" used a lower case "c" for the first time in the Constitution. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-112hdoc129/pdf/CDOC-112hdo...
Even in the 11th Amendment, "Citizen" was still capitalized.
The purpose of the lower case "c" was to distinguish between a "citizen" of the Federal Government that being a "person" in the 14th Amendment; and a natural born Citizen, those being Citizens of the states.
If the 14th Amendment made everyone equal, then there would be no need for the 15th and 19th Amendments, allowing blacks and women to vote.
The 14th Amendment MERELY created a Federal class of person, it essentially transferred the ownership of the slave to the Federal Government, the slaves were again protected as property.
Being Government property, the government could consider all "citizens OF the United States" as chattel, a thing of value. This was also true of whites or foreigners that were born in D.C. or the Territories.
Eventually, white, state born Citizens began to declare themselves as "U.S. citizens" or "citizens of the United States" in order to receive benefits of some type. They "elected" to become a member of the new class of citizen, under the "democracy" of the UNITED STATES thereby abandoning their Citizenship in the States, and abandoning their status as one of the "People".
All persons that declare to be "citizens of the United States" "civil rights" and are not protected by the bill of rights or the Constitution. Notice that the 14th Amendment said that representation shall be apportioned, but made no mention of "direct taxes", notice that the 14th has its own due process clause. All of these things exist because the 14th Amendment was merely a new, lesser class of citizen for the newly freed slaves.
"We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell."
[The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)
"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]
SO to answer the question, it is my belief that anyone that tries to reclaim those chattel funds is acknowledging their status as a person, and not their status as one of the People. You cannot be both a 14 Amendment person and one of the "People" of the Constitution. It is either one or the other.
If someone wants their value, then they have to admit to being a 14th Amendment chattel property, or at least the object of it, and to do that ruins your status as a free human on the land.