2159-2160: The Montana Question from Lincoln County Watch
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.
----------------------------
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.
American Catholics
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment