By Anna Von Reitz
Regarding Limitations of Vetting Committees and Coordinators:
A Coordinator's job is to help people understand what the assembly process requires, for example, help them understand what a lawful election requires, and then help them achieve that goal.
The Coordinator is the go-between the Assembly and the Federation, a "point person" who goes back and forth between the Assembly and the Federation to answer questions and get assistance. Their role is supportive and educational, not political.
If a Coordinator feels so strongly about an issue that they have to get in the middle of it at an Assembly level as a member of the Assembly, then they need to resign from the Coordinator position and go have at it.
In our system....
Any candidate has a right to stand for an office if he or she is eligible and the people of each State have the right to a free and open election in which they and nobody else makes the choice to elect or not elect a candidate.
A Vetting Committee oversteps its bounds if and when it goes beyond evaluating eligibility of The Candidate —- for example, a Vetting Committee decides they don't like a candidate's attitude or personality, and they disqualify him though he meets all the factual eligibility requirements.
What next? We could have a Vetting Committee that doesn’t like black candidates or Hindu candidates or female candidates and everyone thinks it’s okay for them to disqualify otherwise eligible candidates based on their own likes and dislikes?
If we sink to that, what’s the point in having elections?
If a Vetting Committee prevents an eligible candidate from getting on the ballot, simply because they as a group don't like him, the Electorate gets short-changed. You, the Electors, don't get to see all the choices.
That’s not the American Way. That’s the CCP and Politburo and DNC and RNC way of doing things. They select and you elect from among their pre-selected choices.
We present all eligible candidates to the Electorate and the Electors choose.
Put another way—-
There is a big difference between the factual determination of eligibility for office and the subjective choice of who is or is not desirable or suitable for an office.
A Vetting Committee can determine the facts that establish eligibility.
It takes an Electorate to determine suitability.
Moving on.... about American State Nationals (ASN's) who are federally licensed or employed....
People who are licensed (doctors, nurses, dentists, real estate agents, etc.) and people who work directly for incorporated County, State, or Federal departments and agencies, as well as non-retired military personnel, are considered to be Dual Citizens by the Federales, and "Nationals" by us.
In the original State system they are only allowed to vote on in-State issues.
As you are establishing your Courts it is important to elect State Citizens as Justices, Clerks, and Sheriffs, so that they can address both in-State and international subject matter.
Then, from your Statewide Jury Pool, you select juries to consider in-State issues from among all eligible jurors, and juries to consider International issues (between your State and other States of the Union or foreign countries) from among all eligible State Citizens.
You should be aware of those who carry Dual Citizenship and have open talks with them about the possibility that there will be a conflict of interest between their Federal Licensor/Employer and the good of the State.
The role of the Assembly in such a situation is to uphold the State's rights and prerogatives, so as to check and balance Federal overreach.
Each National in Dual Citizenship status needs to think about that and agree that in the event of such a conflict of interest their part as a member of the State Assembly is to uphold State's rights.
If such a conflict of interest becomes acute and a Dual Citizen is forced to choose between their job or their licensed status and loyalty to the State, then each faces a hard decision, but it is one that must be honestly addressed and it involves quitting either the job and/or the license, or quitting involvement in the State Assembly regarding that issue.
It is a matter of personal honor as well as Constitutional principle to uphold Checks and Balances whenever possible, and if it is not possible, to withdraw and do no harm to the State.
Remember that the States are the only truly sovereign government entities present and all else derives from the States of the Union, including the Federal Government. Preserving the States and their rights means preserving the security and rights guaranteed to Americans from every walk of life and political persuasion.
So, whether you are free to act as a State Citizen, or you act as a British Territorial U.S. Citizen or as a Municipal citizen of the United States, all are first and best served by protecting the interests of the State at all costs.
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
In the old colonial system "leaders" were "selected" for missions/leading/etc.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why those chosen for the mission were called "selectman."
But which "position" in today's world are cleverly redefined by "statutory" as "Chief Executive Officer of the "Town." (Oh! and the perks!) (Oh! and the "prayers/votive candles") Voting seems awfully H.R.E. to me.
And the colonists need for a "mission" could at times be considered a "suicide" mission. Meaning "against that unfortunate "selected" mans own interests. E.G. - Has happened in one town in Old New England, men were called out of their comfort to go and fight to defend the towns border - And they did!
We are also beset with "secret societies" their infiltration, their ilk, and their filth.
I say, no more "running" for "office", no more perks, no more pay, no more payola.
What say you?
Does it hold therefore that when one acts to "run" for a mission/leading/etc. that that person ought to be immediately "de-selected?"
... and as another example of an unfortunate (or against their immediate self interest - e.g. suicide mission) mission, for which they became "selected" (or "self-selected?) is their being those who are "recorded" on our "unanimous Declaration of Independence?
DeleteThank you to them.
I have read that their fates were not worldly blessed? I don't know?
The Tenth Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I may be blind but it appears there are three sovereigns involved with the American government. Anna's own Jural Assembly Handbook does a wonderful job spelling this out. "We the people" of the soil jurisdiction are the dog and it appears that the State and Federal government are the tails. How have things gotten so out of control? American Common Law appears to be the key to county government and jury nullification an important element of our Law.
ReplyDeleteTotally resonated with me. There is so much more here than meets the eye.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering how the state national system would play out over the years with the ASN movement gaining participants so that it is enentually competing with, and intending to replace the current system run by the present mafia/banking gang. Even if it does succeed, then what?
ReplyDeleteThe original "founding fathers" apparently sensed that something like the present would happen. And it happened anyway. Bad players will eventually find some way to infiltrate a well designed system and corrupt it with deceit and money. What's to stop this from happening over and over?
Wow! Didn't realize until now that this is the 2nd anniversary.
ReplyDeleteNo matter to whom it is attributed "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - Eternal vigilance is the price of survival, life and also any freedom therein too!
Delete