Link to original article http://www.paulstramer.net/2019/03/march-17-2019-dear-mr-trump.html
Link to original article http://www.paulstramer.net/2019/03/the-reason-why.html
To support Anna’s work look for the PayPal button on http://www.annavonreitz.com
Strange as it may seem to us today, the Reconstruction required as a result of the Civil War has never been finished. In truth, it was never properly started. No adequate Notice and Disclosure of the circumstance was ever given to the general populace of America. And there are obvious, self-interested reasons for that.
Let’s take a step back and look at the close of the Civil War.
We have now properly understood who the parties to the armed conflict were: commercial corporations owned and operated by the States went to war with each other. These entities operated as, for example, The State of Ohio, The State of Florida, The State of Wisconsin and so on, chose sides and fought, but this was a private sector quarrel among corporations — as if General Electric and Westinghouse hired mercenaries and solicited volunteers and got into an armed conflict in the middle of the village green.
As such, it was a patently illegal and lawless event, and by definition, there could be no actual Declaration of War, no Peace Treaty, and no actual Victory.
The idea behind The Articles of Confederation was to create an internal alliance of “capital business interests” devoted to the welfare of all the States and People. This is why The Articles of Confederation which sought to bind together the commercial corporations operating as an “instrumentality” of each State in the global municipal jurisdiction overseen by the Office of the Roman Pontiff, proposed to be a “perpetual” union.
From the very first, it was realized that if commercial interests were in conflict such that The States of States opposed each other, and this schism was allowed to spread far enough, it would endanger the entire country. So the Founders were at pains to impress upon The States of States the necessity of working together for the common good and maintaining the perpetual union of the original Confederation —and a united front in the global municipal jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, agent provocateurs — as we now know, members of the Rothschild banking cartel and other European banking interests — kept watch for an issue that might create such a schism between The State of State commercial corporations, and they found it: slavery.
The last Congress of the Federal States of States adjourned for lack of quorum when the Southern States of States walked out. The Deputies known as “United States Senators” who were essentially the CEO’s and Fiduciaries of these commercial corporations could no longer conduct business.
Continue reading http://www.paulstramer.net/2019/02/for-all-jural-assemblies-34.html
Read the latest Anna Von Reitz articles on https://eddiesbloglist.rocks/category/paul-stramer
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.