By Anna Von Reitz
One of the people in Montana who has worked hard to help build the State Assembly there was forced to leave Montana seven months ago. She has continued to try to help organizing efforts there, but, because she no longer lives in the State (despite still owning land and property there) and has no set plan for returning, there is no basis for her to act as Coordinator for Montana nor to retain State Citizenship there beyond the limits of the State residency requirements.
When we move from one State to another, we have to establish "residency" in the new State. "Residency" is a temporary status and does not imply that you are settling down forever and ever in that State. Ironically, most of us have unknowingly been living as "residents" in our own home States because we didn't know we had to record our being born there, or because we failed to actually adopt a new State when we moved.
Most States have published standards for how long you can be out of State before you are no longer considered to be living in that State, and for how long you can be a visitor in a new State before declaring residency there. The key words to look for in the General Session Laws are "living" and "homestead" and "residency".
I don't off-hand know the Montana laws for this, but I know that in Alaska, if you are gone more than 180 days out of the year, you no longer qualify to be considered an Alaskan.
The States of the Union have never allowed Dual Citizenship, and that includes Citizenship in any two States as well as State-Federal combinations.
The Founders considered Dual Citizenship to be a potential conflict of interest and against the Biblical injunction that "No man can serve two Masters" so none of the soil and land jurisdiction States allow it.
If you think about it briefly, you will see that State Citizens by definition need to be living in the State where they claim State Citizenship.
Otherwise, you could have people who were actually living in California, for example, but claiming to be Nevada Citizens, and then deciding the fate of people and assets in Nevada.
Nobody on the receiving end of such an arrangement would consider that fair or equitable, so it is not allowed, nor should it be.
For some reason, our friend in Montana is struggling over these facts and claiming that people outside of Montana are deciding things "for" Montana and "meddling" in Montana's affairs and so on and so forth in her struggle to remain active in Montana and not establish new State Citizenship where she is living now-- but it has always been this way and it has nothing to do with anyone meddling with anything.
We can't be two places at once, though sometimes we all wish we could.
State Coordinators are volunteer State Citizens who have taken on the job of helping others get their political status declarations done and recorded, and who are spearheading the effort to organize their State Assembly. This isn't any official "office" of the State Assembly. It's just another job that needs to get done.
It wouldn't be fair to have people who are living in other States acting as your State Coordinator(s), just like it wouldn't be right to have people from other States voting in your State elections.
So, no, you can't be living in California for most of the year and claiming to be a State Citizen of Montana. It just doesn't work that way.
Please note: you have to live and make your permanent home in the State where you claim your State Citizenship, but your State National status travels with you.
In other words, I will always be a State National of Wisconsin because I was born in Wisconsin, but unless I actually live in Wisconsin, I can't be a State Citizen of Wisconsin.
By Anna Von Reitz
In Southcentral Alaska we have a Catholic radio station. It re-broadcasts Catholic news and views programming from around the world. It often pops up loud and clear on my radio dial as I am driving around and if there is an interesting discussion going on, I listen in.
This week I caught a discussion about the sanctity of life and how the answer to the one question, "Is life sacred?" then leads to extremely disparate results.
If life is sacred, the speaker, a senior cleric explained, then we must respect the dignity and rights of living beings.
But if life is not sacred, then nothing connected to life is sacred, either. It is then possible to justify murder and rape and theft and all sorts of immoral things based on the assumption that life is not sacred. It all becomes "relative", if life itself is not sacred.
I could have joined in and said, well, then, if you understand that, why has your Church tolerated The Collective Entity Doctrine, which claims that living people are equivalent to and interchangeable with dead legal fiction entities?
Why has the Church stood by and allowed members of the Bar Associations, including Catholic Attorneys, to use grossly misleading "terms of art" like "human" (colored people) and "natural person" (corpse, dead body) and let them create "infant decedent estates" to defraud and manipulate living people?
Why has your Church carried on a de facto persecution of innocent living people of all faiths, knowing that most Americans don't actually owe "Peter's Pence" at all?
If life is sacred, why stand by and allow living people to be demeaned as "dead" legal fiction entities or literal corpses, either?
I was steaming away like The Little Teapot.
Oh, I applaud the Roman Catholic Church for holding the line against abortion. But what good does it do, when the same Roman Catholic Church oversees the "killing" of these same babies on paper, denies them their sacred nature, and reduces them to the level of legal fictions a few days or weeks after they are born?
If life is sacred, then it must be sacred in all times and places, including courtrooms, and the ownership interests owed to living people must be respected in all jurisdictions of the law.
Nobody blessed to live can be reduced to the level of a fictional character or an inanimate thing-- a corporation of any kind; life, if it is sacred, can never be diminished by the color of anyone's skin, and nobody can be described as a "corpse" while still drawing breath.
I'm sorry, but you can't preach to me about the sanctity of life with one breath, but then, with a few lies and the stroke of a pen, reduce those same living babies to the level of corporate fictions--- a dead man's estate, a public transmitting utility, a public charitable trust, a foundation, an LLC.....
I pulled into my driveway just as the next topic came up: original sin.
Again, the speaker explained the standard Catholic doctrine -- that Original Sin resulted in man trying to play God, and make moral judgments that mankind is incapable of.
But, just that morning, I had read in the news that Pope Francis is considering making environmental damage a sin. A sin. And an excuse for more blame and taxation, of course.
Looks like Francis is ready to eat the apple, core and all.
In the early 1960's at the time of Vatican II, just about the same time that President Kennedy was killed, the Roman Catholic Church went off track.
It eschewed Latin as part of the Mass, but vastly stepped up the use of DOG LATIN to tax and defraud and mischaracterize living people as THINGS---- in direct contradiction to its avowed stance on the sanctity of life. It has been merrily committing paper genocide, indulging in the Justinian Deceit, denying the living status of living people ever since.
The Roman Catholic Church has been preaching one thing and practicing another for decades, until now we have the spectacle of pedophiles as priests and Jesuits as Popes and Pope Francis defining new sins.
Apparently, God forgot one?
How about this? It's wrong to lie about and defraud little babies in their cradles. It's wrong to steal from, enslave, harass, disrespect, cheat, lie to or lie about anyone.
I sat there in my car and watched the snow falling in the twilight. The priest on the radio seemed so calm and reasonable. His voice was reassuring. He seemed to be saying, everything's all right, the snail is on his thorn and God is in his heaven....
I could see why a presentation like this would be very comforting to Catholics hungering for positive, simple, solid, spiritual guidance.
If you weren't also aware of the double-dealing going on at the Bureau of Vital Statistics---and the Catholic Church's role in it, you would certainly never suspect that anything was amiss and never imagine that the Church was in on the Dead Baby Scam and still promoting it.
Just as Americans in general have to wake up and smell the garbage, American Catholics have the extra duty to smell the rot in their own Church and they bear the ethical and practical responsibility to clean it up.
This is not a task I envy anyone, and given the strict hierarchy of the Church, I am not sure how such a clean up and clear out can be done. I only know that it desperately needs to be done and I hope that the many sincere Catholics I have known will be guided, inspired, and enabled to shut down the "Dead Baby" identity theft scam, racketeering "gifts", and all the other criminal and quasi-criminal activities their Church has been involved in.
The ends do not justify the means, no matter what you say or how you say it, or whatever excuses are made for the violent racketeering and other crimes that have been committed here and all over the world by the Roman Catholic Church. Nobody here attacked the Church. The Church attacked us in Gross Breach of Trust and profited from it. That's the ugly truth that is owed sincere amends to the actual victims.
See this article and over 2100 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.