Video – Answers to Common Questions and Misconceptions for the Jural Assemblies By Anna Von Reitz

To support Anna’s work look for the PayPal button on www.annavonreitz.com

Answers to Common Questions and Misconceptions for the Jural Assemblies By Anna Von Reitz

1. Misconception Number One: that colored people and women are not welcome to join State Jural Assemblies.

This idea derives from the fact that to be on safe ground legally and lawfully, the State Jural Assemblies need to go back and pick up where at least some of them left off — in 1860. They need to re-establish a Quorum of Jurors qualified by 1860 standards, and that Quorum then needs to update the membership rules to officially include people of color and women.

Please note that in the days of slavery there were both white and colored slaves in this country, and “indentured servants” too — none of whom could act as State Electors.

The real qualifier was land ownership and neither slaves nor indentured servants could own land, hence, could not act as Electors.

However, both black men and Native men who were Free and who owned land in a State, could act as State Jural Assembly Members and still can.

The important idea behind all this was that nobody not tied to the State by commitment to the Land of that State should have a voice in the affairs of that State.

If you think about this, it is a reasonable requirement: otherwise, people passing through the State could cast votes with no skin in the game. They could, with a large enough population of transients (known as “residents”), dictate to and obligate those people who are actually committed to living in and building their businesses in that State.

We see some attempt at this with the current Border Crisis, where people foreign to the State and with no actual material commitment to say, California, are influencing public policy and helping themselves to public assistance and dictating elections — all with no substantial actual and material commitment to California.

This is why our States all require Electors to hold only one citizenship — State Citizenship. They also require State Citizens to be landowners. Color requirements as such, don’t actually exist in the American States and never did, except in limited portions of the Deep South.

The more potent issue in 1860 and today is the capacity in which we are acting.

The affect of having the Territorial Congress arbitrarily “confer” citizenships on people and then claiming that they are acting as “persons” via a process of undisclosed enfranchisement, has established a situation in which average Americans are now almost uniformly “presumed” to be in the condition of either indentured servitude to the Queen, or slaves owned by the Municipal United States Government, or both.

Continue reading http://www.paulstramer.net/2019/02/answers-to-common-questions-and.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *