Ombudsman

In my own experience of trespass and damage done upon me, I’ve found the following to be true. Looking at the situation as if in the position of Ombudsman, I see the following as a productive and equitable path of resolving dispute and conflict.

RESOURCES: AVR_#3320: About Oversight Committees, AVR #3816 A Message to All State Assemblies, AVR_#642_Medical Licensing, Yankee Doodle, Inc., AVR_#3026_Public International Notice — Notice to Vacate, AVR_#3737_End the confusion now, (such are the present results when searching “Ombudsman” with the search engine at annavonreitz.com)

If a national, assembly member, or state citizen bearing an office feels to claim “trespass or damage” by any other, the first stop for redress or correction of error should be the office of Ombudsman. Because of the importance and gravity of resolving inner conflicts and disputes, “keeping our own house“, no county nor state assembly should move forward without first electing an Ombudsman. “It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!” (Gospel of Luke, 17:1) Offenses, trespass, and errors are a fact of life; it is wisdom to prepare for them before these are laid at our feet. Something in my experience my state did not do, has not yet done to date, and which does presently result in trespass of my rights and enforced subjection to tyranny and oppression.

The Ombudsman and Oversight

The Ombudsman ought to be the first stop for complaints, disputes, and allegations before any mention by anyone of issues in public forums. Differences of opinion in assembly discussion are just that, differences of opinion. If there are questions of trespass, damage, or “wrong-doing” the Ombudsman should hear side one, present such allegation to the man or woman in question, then dispassionately hear side two. After some deliberation on the nature of the issue, or even a back and forth among those in dispute, make recommendations to the people involved as to their likely path to resolution, as outlined below with the “Procedure to Resolve a Claim” section. There is no greater responsibility of “peace-maker” within a community than the position of Ombudsman with our assembly.

Ombudsman Function More Generally

Ombudsman: [1] a person who investigates, reports on, and helps settle complaints : an individual usually affiliated with an organization or business who serves as an advocate for patients, consumers, employees, etc. (“persons” occupy titled offices, roles, or posts; quite applicable here) [2] a government official… appointed to receive and investigate complaints made by individuals against abuses or capricious acts of public officials. [Merriam-Webster] and… Appointed by governments to investigate complaints from citizens against large organizations (e.g. public bodies, corporations, the media). Typically, ombudsmen have wide-ranging investigative authority, but their punitive powers tend to be limited. [Black’s Law, 2nd Ed.]

The punitive powers with the Ombudsman Office with the Assembly as Civil Body Politic, as far as I can tell, seem to be “none”. Rather, the office seems to guide investigation, facilitates arbitration, and dispute resolution. If and when such effort fails, they refer the matter to a more capable and appropriate adjudicative body. (see below)

AVR_#3737_End the confusion now

“We stand under Public Law, so we don’t have private regulations and private regulators to deal with. The rules are the rules and everyone can read them. We have Bank Stewards to provide Third Party Oversight and a Bank Ombudsman Office to deal with customer complaints. We deliberately keep everything super simple and service oriented. No fine print. No legal jargon. No hidden costs or endangerments.” pg 2, ¶5

Again, the recap that the Ombudsman deals with “complaints” or “disputes”, not matters of “crime”. Crime, or claims of trespass or damage, are likely best passed on to those familiar with litigation to assist preparation of a claim with evidence, and if warranted, to the Jural Assembly where a panel of jurors will hear the presentments from both sides, weight the evidence, determine the facts, and decide how law may be applied, if at all.

Warning: Dangerous Curves Ahead!

Bear in mind, “citings” of most statute, code, and ordinance are for “persons” serving within the de facto and as such do not necessarily apply directly to men and women as the people seeking redress, expression of grievance, and remedy for trespass and damage. Rather, such citings can serve as a reference that similar principles are encoded and recognized with which such “public servants” should be familiar, for which we the people established such guidelines for our “public servants”, and, being instrumental to their establishment, the people are not barred from similar or parallel reference. Much of such “guidance” is subject to de facto legislators editing and altering them for their own purpose and application, so, a bit of consideration for proper application is certainly warranted. Many points, however, simply cannot be removed, or they expose themselves to civil liability.

Procedure to Resolve a Claim

The concepts and idea of this procedure is several millennia old, back to the Gospel of Matthew 18:15-18, and is much more suitably applicable to men, women, and the people:

• NOTICE: “tell him his fault” with an opportunity to correct their actions. “…if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” If they self-correct, problem solved.
• NOTICE OF DEFAULT: “if he will not hear thee”, then establish “witnesses”, a written express record that “every word may be established” (a court of record)
• NOTICE OF FAULT IN DISHONOR with JUDGMENT: then unto thee, “he is a heathen and a publican”, without redemption and guilty for this matter.
• A Claim for Remedy: “tell it unto the church”, the adjudicative body, in review of the procedure to establish verification, the right to assert the claim, “bound on Earth”.
• Luke 17:1 “…It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!” as these matters may also be “bound in Heaven”.

The Ombudsman should embark on “fact finding” by following “due process” steps in order to resolve a matter offering the right to adjudication to the “claimant” and a right to defend to the “accused”. Each of these should be committed to pursue justice in honor by the most effective progression to resolve matters. Such process is to be overseen by the Ombudsman acting in the best interest of the “claimant”, “accused”, and community of “nationals” as a whole in establishing any precedent by such process:

1. Accuser or victim should communicate their experience of trespass or dissatisfaction as “claimant” to the Ombudsman privately and in writing.
   • Matters seeking resolution should never be aired in public where a fair hearing of facts cannot be managed to properly resolve the situation. So, hold your tongue, however frustrating or imposing the error, and follow procedure in honor.
   • It is best to number each error item listed with the testimony (affidavit format) to facilitate due process. Such facilitates response to one item at a time.
   • Claim or testimony: such claiming trespass as “claimant” should bring a brief written review of the details of the matter to which they have applied their authorization (signature).
   • “who, what, why, when, where…”; the “five w’s of journalism“
   • Appropriate citing for preceding principle should accompany the claim for “why the related actions are considered error, trespass, or offense”.
   • “why” can be conjecture if alluding to intent and thought process, but if a “motive” seems obvious, then it is appropriate to relate such as a theory-to-be-proven.
   • A Litigation Committee member or other volunteer clerk might be helpful in producing a claim; which should be completed in confidence, details kept among the claimant and clerk. Such volunteer may assist in research of citings or examples of precedent, but is neither bound nor required to assist with such.
     • If a clerk assists, the clerk should also note their assistance to the process on the claim. Such may be called as witness to their research and contribution with the Grand Jury.
   • It is neither the responsibility of the Litigation volunteer, Ombudsman, nor Ombudsman committee to research citing in support of the claim. Such “prosecution” is up to the claimant.
2. The Ombudsman should review the claim and determine based upon citings and written principle if the claim is a valid concern and any matter for the assembly.
   • Not all disputed matters are within the authority of the assembly, even if among assembly members or other nationals.
   • The Ombudsman or committee should be sensitive to matters of a private nature which involve the dealings of man among men and women, and if so, state such upon related citing, and decline the involvement of assembly and committees.
   • In the event the Ombudsman office determines the matter is not an issue for the assembly on any grounds, it is the right of the “claimant” to refer the matter to the Ombudsman committee for review, and in similar fashion, to refer a matter to a Grand Jury if the Ombudsman Committee finding is not acceptable to the “claimant”. (appeal) A Grand Jury finding and resolution should be final to the matter unless details are later proven contrary to those claimed which affect the result. (How would you justify that “truth” has an expiration date?)
3. The Ombudsman should contact the “accused” privately to present the claim so that they may respond to any claim or charges in their own defense.
   • Such defense in providing contrary testimony, contrary account, and substantive documentation with material evidence should be in response to the “claim” point-by-point.
   • The Ombudsman or committee is tasked with comparing each point of the “claim” with each point of the “defense” to determine where:
     • defense is sufficient to annul the claim of each point’
     • where defense is insufficient and if evidence with the claim is sufficient to come to a determination on each point.
     • or if the opposing views of any point are in need of further clarification, argument, or adjudication by Grand Jury.
     • In no case shall the Ombudsman or such Committee “declare” the adjudication of any such matter, but rather determine at the outset of a “claim” what points of the matter are valid and might be referred to the Grand Jury for appropriate review of the facts and the “LAW” at the pleasure of the “claimant”.
     • In the event of presentation to the Grand Jury, the Ombudsman or assignee should be prepared to review with the Grand Jury their part in the process.
4. In the event of unresolved points, the Ombudsman or committee should refer the matter to the next step in the process:
   • The Ombudsman office refers to the Committee,
   • The committee faced with unresolved points refers the matter back to the “claimant” which might choose to present such matter to the Jural Assembly with the Court Clerk.
   • The Court Clerk would assemble a grand jury to review the item and reach a decision, determining both the facts of the matter and any applicable “LAW”.
     • It would be a “conflict of interest” for any man or woman contributing to the process up to this point to sit on the jury in judgment of the law and facts.
5. The deliberation of the Grand Jury to arrive at a finding shall be final, a determination of both “law and facts”, unless some item in the process can be proven to be in error as with denial of due process or trespass of the rights of “claimant”, “accused”, or any “office” of the assembly during the process.
6. Appeal: Injustice at any level should at any time be subject to correction without limitation.
   • Meaning, new information submitted at the beginning of the process with the Ombudsman which invalidates any previous findings, is appropriate and open to review.
   • The point at which the original “accused” brings forth new information which may exonerate or reverse a previous decision, that man or woman now becomes the “claimant” for the present process.
   • No man or woman involved with the previous process should be admitted to a new Grand Jury in review and adjudication of the current matter.
     • If the population is insufficient to convene a proper Grand Jury, the “claimant” and any “accused” might agree to an odd-numbered panel of no less than three “nationals” for arbitration.
   • New information submitted to and validated by the same Ombudsman and/or such Committee may be unavoidable
   • Whatever the findings on new information by Ombudsman or such Committee, the matter is available for appeal to a new grand jury at the request of the “claimant” or the “accused” as long as the information is not conclusively invalidated by the Ombudsman Committee.

The question of “is this assembly business?” rises when the process fails to resolve a conflict from the “private” realm of arbitration (ombudsman and committee) to a grand jury, a process which might fail according to those pressing the issue. Before such proceeds to an Oversight Committee or beyond to the General Assembly is that key question, “Is this Assembly Business?“. If the process is seen to fail, the assembly might like (and ought to) question and investigate why. If the matter has gone through the process from Ombudsman arbitration through adjudication with a panel of jurors, the Oversight Committee might need to decide if such is still a “private matter” unresolved, or whether it is in fact any business of the assembly, and in what way.

While all involved with such “due process” should be familiar with the steps thereof, it is the responsibility of the Ombudsman to conduct the “process” to adjudication so that the privacy and reputation of each man or woman involved is protected until the matter can be resolved. None of the process or details thereof should be made public at any step in the procedure until the procedure is tried and fails. If the procedure should fail through Ombudsman, Ombudsman Committee, and Grand Jury deliberation, then the matter might be presented in full public view to the General Assembly at the additional request of the “claimant” (further appeal).

At no time should the details of any dispute be subject to public scrutiny and tried in a “court of public opinion” without the bounds of “due process” until presented at the will of the “claimant” to the General Assembly, due process having, in their opinion, “failed”. Such exposure of detail without the process (outside) would be tampering with potential jury members; a trespass and error in and of itself.

The Ombudsman should use their experience, education with matters of a republican form of government, and that which has been written in response or commentary with similar situations or impasse. Referring to the library of commentary of Anna von Reitz would be one source among many to which precedent and previous consideration of similar issues might be referred. Even citing of statute, code, or ordinance isn’t a poor reference being the consideration of minds that went before us, but not that we as free Americans are necessarily subject to that which is encoded for the public servants.

Private communication in initial expression of the matter at hand, especially among our own community of “nationals” is of the utmost importance. The community of nationals on Arizona at the time of this writing is yet very small. On a state of over seven million people, the count of nationals associated with the federation sponsored state assembly is just over seven-hundred, a fraction of a fraction. Broadcasting one’s dissatisfaction or claims for trespass in public forums without due process acts to tamper with the dispassionate and impartial standing of potential jurors. Tampering with the jury in such a small community of people who are likely to serve as jurors is not small infraction.

In resolving such disputes all participants, the accused, the accuser, and the arbitrator should base their contribution to the process on citing. This removes opinion and outside influence such as relationships, favoritism, and nepotism from the equation. Such error is nothing new.

The Jews made this error with the oral tradition of interpreting a LAW given by God, for which Jesus described them as: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” (Matthew 23:27)

Also in similar fashion: “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” (Matthew 23:4)

Also our modern courts, subjecting others to code set for public servants, also equate men and women as fellow-employees by which they are subject to “code” not intended for them, intent to profit from the same.

While it is good to consider one’s experience and opinion, judgments should be made on principle with citing to such principle as it has been written and to which it can be referred. Such is the idea (when properly applied) of reference to case citing as well as to encoded “policy and procedure” for how a society will respond to “trespass and damage” if and when such may arise. Such is the essence of “politics”; the policy of what happens with a society, how society should respond, and the procedure to do so.