Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 4780 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do not attempt to comment using the handle "Unknown" or "Anonymous". Your comment will be summarily deleted. Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinon only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted.

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

The Montana Question


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.

16 comments:

  1. Interesting video - some HIStory?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qwAQYu4iCI

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bill Thornton said it should be "domiciled" not residing? I guess you could reside somewhere temporarily, but ultimately be domiciled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. google for american jurisprudence, domicile and residency, there is a pdf extract.

      from the top of my head:

      "domicile" is just a fancy word for "home." primary residence.

      federal citizens are domiciled in federal united states and/or dc. that is their home -- a so-called "federal zone" and fake "federal states" (state of x and all the variants, none of which are american common law of the land). to further confuse things, they call their bogus constitution "the law of the land" when that is not what that phrase means ; law of the land/realm is american common law, predates "the king" which in america means it predates "we the people", and we adopted portions of english common law as a starting point, with major differences being: 1) all men are created equal, get rid of feudalism/nobility/etc. 2) "we the people" have joint kinghood (consent of the governed, decl. of inde.) and the equivalent of "joint popehood" (freedom of religion)

      "residency" just means "happen to be someplace". alone means nothing -- dogs, cats, illegal aliens, cactii, a rock, are all "resident" within some area.

      after X amount of residency, this may give hints of domicile, or hints of citizenship, but normally does not prove anything, although in absence of any other evidence it can be the determining factor i.e. something you should declare to rebut any false presumptions that may silently be made about you.

      everyone has exactly one home/domicile, aka primary residence, at all times. even homeless people, even refugees that their homeland was destroyed or no longer exists. they either have some "home" they are from, or have made a new "home" somewhere, or hang around some place.

      everyone can have multiple secondary/tertiary/etc. residences. a vacation home in another country, a friend's house you stay at sometimes, a hotel room, even a second house.

      i believe domicile normally should match citizenship or nationality. likewise, foreigners normally might get permanent residence status, or "denizen" (doesn't exist in america) or some secondary status at best.

      "resident" alone means nothing, domicile i believe also strictly speaking doesn't prove anything as far as citizenship, but you want to be domiciled wherever you are claiming citizenship; it makes little sense for foreigners to vote/govern somewhere they don't live (at least, with the "consent of the governed" system)

      thus, IIRC domicile doesn't prove citizenship either, but lack of proper domicile and claiming you are a citizen of that area doesn't make sense; except for foreign travel and purposes of international law, like saying you are an "american", it normally does not make sense that you are from country/state A and claim to be a citizen and/or national, but have your home in B

      Delete
    2. although i said residency alone doesnt prove anything, and this is true, it just means someone happens to be somewhere at some time, rightly or wrongly

      nevertheless, residency also many times can be a first step to establishing domicile; thus, there may be rules both federal and "fake states" and actual states re: how much residency is necessary to establish domicile (where your home is)

      or, in case of 14th amend, how much residency is needed to get dual fed+state citizenship.

      i believe that american jurisprudence extract says it comes down to "intent" too. i suppose you would want to research and follow whatever guidelines (although may be difficult to find and noone has a clue with all the fraud going on)

      nevertheless, declaring your intent is best; even if you dont, your actions, places you hang out, etc. all can have bearing on "intent" even in absence of a formal declaration; courts/judges can look at your actions and guess your "intent" and may not match what you wanted, so best to declare so there are no "presumptions"

      even if you get something wrong, better to make an accidental genuine mistake and not leave any wiggle room

      even if you cant be somewhere, better to declare your intent, e.g. you intend to move somewhere and make it your home, dont have finances right now, clearing up a divorce, waiting for kids to graduate, have to follow work schedule, medical reasons, whatever.

      even if you dont own land/home, you can still declare your domicile/home is some area. and e.g. declare you intend to buy a home/land/whatever.

      technically everyone can always choose their intended domicile, but you want to research official guidelines/etc. to ensure no problems and that it is recognized.

      i dont encourage people to do things "unofficially", but there really is so much fraud, so many outright lies, so many half-truths, finding anything "official" is only for people with lots of time and money on their hands, and lots of patience and ability to face heckling from clueless people, "gov." and otherwise, at all levels

      any legitimate "judge" should either honour your intent, or deny it but hopefully point you in right direction of proper procedure; they may say your claim makes no sense, but i dont see how they can "override" your decision , although they may say it is "incomplete" or otherwise lacking

      basically, noone can decide your "intent" but you, so that seems paramount to me right now, since there will likely not be anything official or 100% proven for a long time.

      neither law enforcement, nor "patriots", nor schools, nor churches, nor family, nor friends, nor courts, nor lawyers, are likely to be of any help at the moment.

      Delete
  3. tonyNovember 24, 2019 at 3:53 AM

    Anna down load this book from 1819 it has the term cestui que trust,all over it it looks important all legal terms you would understand /but it looks good for us.It talks of the possible abuse of the trust.Its searchable so you can find easy.
    https://archive.org/details/lettertocharlesb00sugdiala

    They talk about a 1000 year trust

    ReplyDelete
  4. Found this video of some interest
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_onllDtV46E

    ReplyDelete
  5. We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This
    gift is life—physical, intellectual, and moral life.
    But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of
    life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving,
    developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish
    this, He has provided us with a collection of
    marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of
    a variety of natural resources. By the application of our
    faculties to these natural resources we convert them into
    products, and use them. This process is necessary in order
    that life may run its appointed course.
    Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality,
    liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the
    cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from
    God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
    Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men
    have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
    liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men
    to make laws in the first place.

    The law perverted! And the police powers of the state
    perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned
    from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely
    contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every
    kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself
    guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
    If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires
    me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

    FROM A BOOK I FOUND ON ARCHIVE .ORG FREDERIC BASTIAT The Law

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that is a good book, although illuminist-infested, and in retrospect, far too late.

      re: annas comment:

      "No man can serve two Masters"
      ----
      re: "the creator" looks like it is mason-infested.

      not a surprise, really: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

      looks like illuminism was bound to show its true colours eventually (really just a ploy for "socialism" and "communism")

      it looks to me the choices are: either "the lord" and his 10 commandments (whittled down from 615 or so jewish laws) ("God" with no further explanation, or "the creator", is basically one and the same with this entity, and noone has seen his face, etc.)

      or jesus and his new commandment. (who claims he is the only begotten, noone goes to the father except through him, etc.)
      ----
      at the moment, doesn't really matter, but looks like christ will be wiped out/extinguished/pincer attack from both "sides" (2nd coming wipes out first coming, and pre-christ "the lord" takes care of any stragglers who still want to follow christ)

      IMO anything that says "god" or "the creator" is masonic/illuminist-infested and should not be trusted as a "religious" source, only as a "secular" reference; should not be given any special status or "holy" reverence, deliberately meant to deceive.

      luckily, the solution out of this pre-arranged hegelian-managed "apocalypse" is easy: claim freedom of religion from this "creator", use it to reject this phony "father" and "creator" entity, and use this freedom of religion and conscience to e.g. follow christ or whichever "god" one decides

      a good book, but like decl. of indep., the "religion" is all just masonry/illuminism.

      "to the mason, god is our father in heaven, and we are all brethren" -- morals and dogma

      "noone goes to the father except through me" -- christ

      the 2 are incompatible, night and day.

      Delete
    2. the nice thing about "bible injunctions" is there's so many to choose from.

      "noone goes to the father except through me" -- christ

      this statement alone destroys 'The father" "the lord" "the creator" and reveals illuminism/masonry for what it really is -- a "religion" designed to destroy catholicism and eventually all of "christianity"

      Delete
  6. Anna please explain this mystery: State Legislatures, as you teach, can create either "General Session laws" or "corporate statute law", if I have the terms named correctly. And you say it is the General Session laws which State Nationals should study to learn about laws that may apply to themselves, (such as State Nationals applying for "resident" status of a State), whereas the corporate statute laws created by the same State Legislature become "codes" properly only applicable to government employee persons.

    My question to you is how can General Session laws be properly applied to State Nationals who are living outside any obligatory relationship to any political body, such as a State Legislature, which is an organ of a "representative government" , the legislators having been voted into their Legislators offices by U.S. citizens who have declared themselves to be such when they registered to vote for their favorite "representative" of such Legislators? In other words why should State Nationals look to an elected Legislative body for any guidance about their personal conduct when they have noting to do with electing these so called "representatives"?

    BYW, perhaps the fastest way of placing yourself under the jurisdiction of any court is to admit that you are present in that court to re=present yourself, which is an admission that the CAPITAL NAME before the court IS yourself, in "pro-per".

    ReplyDelete
  7. easiest way to find if any church or religion is legit, is to find which jurisdiction it is in. Law of the land or LAW OF THE SEA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zill, by the measure you describe of how to determine if any religion is "legit", is to find which jurisdiction it is in. So if there are 100 religions thinking to act in the law of the land, then any of them is equally legit by that single consideration, and following any one of the 100 religions acting in the law of the land will bring its adherents back into the presence of God? Or might that be leading the expectation of the adherents to more confusion, since God is a God of order, even perfect order, and not of confusion. Jesus taught that He is the only way, by following His teachings, examples and ordinances which HE ordained, is the way back to God. One way does not seem to agree with the other by the measure you suggest.

      Delete
  8. Thanks Anna for clarifying this. I hope it helps those who are struggling with the concept.
    BTW...I forgive you because it is the right thing.
    Happy Thanksgiving.
    Kevin

    ReplyDelete
  9. video of kurt kallenback with crrow 777 on the birth certificate
    fraud.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ubMqN5daU&t=1945s

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do not wish to be considered a "res-i-dent" anywhere!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is discouraging to me. This woman has been a tremendous help to us and we owe her a debt of gratitude, not showing her the door. Without her help we would have little or no state organization. She has been very honest with her situation and let us know she CANNOT be the state coordinator but is willing to help until someone can take over. No one has yet, though myself and Ed have volunteered to share in the interim.
    Over the past 20 years I have seen too many petty fights ruin good organizations, it needs to stop. Keeping our people together sometimes seems like herding cats. We have a common goal! We need each other! Quit fighting and make it work! Kevin McCauley Big Timber

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.
DO NOT COMMENT USING THE HANDLE "Anonymous".or "unknown" YOUR COMMENT WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY.