Enhancing Engagement and Excellence in PKTF Assembly Liaison Training

A Structured Approach to Ensuring Familiarity with Training Materials and Continuous Improvement

Proposed Training Review Process for PKTF Assembly Liaison Program

The Peacekeeping Task Force (PKTF) administrative section recognizes the need to better account for training material familiarity among individuals interested in becoming Assembly Liaisons. To address this, the following initiative has been developed to ensure thorough engagement with training materials without requiring a formal training examination during 2025.

This effort is essential to shaping, maintaining, and updating all Liaison Handbook material annually, while working within the constraints of limited training funds.

Key Requirements for Liaison-in-Training

• Replay Review Accountability

1. People interested to become PKTF Assembly Liaisons must review all past video replays prior to onboarding. Each Liaison-in-Training will be expected to provide a written reflection via email for each replay to the Affiliate Director and Executive Secretary. 

2. A very brief essay (1 or two paragraphs - 200/500 words) explaining what it is from the replay they gained as a "take away" from having listened to and viewed it.
3. At least one question or a suggestion on how to improve the presentation of the contents of each of the previous replays.

This reflection should include:

• Feedback Mechanism During Live Training Days

As a recommendation to everyone who does attend the Training Days live, invite them on the next future training how they think the training can be enhanced. If there is no response, or very few provide any feedback, then this entire process of how individuals are interviewed as part of their final interview will be addressed during subsequent training sessions.

Benefits of This Approach

• Ensures Engagement

By highly encouraging written reflections, trainees demonstrate their commitment to comprehending and applying the material provided in previous replays.

Improves Training Quality
Constructive criticism collected through this initiative helps refine and improve training content and delivery methods. This feedback also contributes directly to shaping and updating the Liaison Handbook material for each year, ensuring it remains relevant and effective.

Fosters Collaboration

Participants actively contribute to the success of their State Assembly Militia by engaging in improvement efforts that benefit the entire organization.

Works Within Limited Resources
This initiative is designed to optimize training processes while respecting current budget constraints. The Peacekeeping Task Force has already emphasized a manageable time commitment of at most 5 to 8 hours weekly for all required tasks, including reviewing past replays. Additionally, Training Day sessions have been committed by staff to remain capped at approximately 90 minutes to ensure accessibility and efficiency.

Implementation Recommendations

Set Clear Expectations During Interviews
All candidates should be informed during their final interview that watching all prior replays and submitting reflections is a mandatory part of onboarding. This ensures accountability and sets a standard for engagement with training materials.

Communicate Expectations to Current and Future Liaisons-in-Training
Current Liaisons-in-Training should notify individuals from their State Assembly who may wish to join in the future that this training review process will be expected as part of onboarding. This expectation serves as an achievable method for obtaining feedback, constructive criticism, and contributions toward improving the overall service and training process.

Incorporate Feedback Collection into Training Days
Regularly solicit feedback during live sessions and follow-ups to maintain a culture of continuous improvement. If feedback is minimal, emphasize the importance of replay reviews as a tool for constructive engagement during subsequent sessions.

Reinforce Accountability

Highlight this process during all training sessions as a viable method for improving service quality while ensuring trainees are fully engaged with past materials.

Why This Process Is Absolutely Necessary

This initiative addresses several critical needs within the PKTF Assembly Liaison program:

It ensures that all Liaisons-in-Training are familiar with key training materials without requiring formal examinations, which aligns with current resource limitations in 2025.

Feedback collected through this process directly contributes to shaping, maintaining, and updating Liaison Handbook material annually, ensuring it reflects evolving needs and challenges.

By fostering collaboration and accountability, this initiative strengthens the overall effectiveness of PKTF Assembly operations while promoting active participation from trainees.

With limited funding available for training programs, this approach optimizes resources by leveraging trainee engagement and constructive criticism as tools for continuous improvement.

This process not only enhances onboarding but also ensures that all participants are equipped with the knowledge necessary to support their State Assembly Militia effectively.

Simply another way of building confidence in our work that reflects the Peacekeeping Task Force's commitment to excellence despite financial constraints and lays a safe, yet stronger foundation upon its level for future growth and success within the organization.

A Sovereign Shield: What the Swiss Canton Model Can Teach American State Assemblies

 

Empowering Communities to Safeguard Borders, Infrastructure, and Resources in Times of Crisis

 The Swiss Canton model is highly admired for its decentralization and community-driven approach to protecting cantons from natural and manmade catastrophes. This model offers valuable lessons for American State Assemblies, particularly on how to organize and maintain State Defense Forces (SDFs) to safeguard borders, infrastructure, and vital resources. While nearly half of U.S. states no longer maintain sovereign defense forces, Switzerland’s commitment to local control and participatory citizen defense offers a realistic blueprint for eliminating this deficit. Moreover, the Swiss approach provides insights for other foreign State Assemblies operating upon Land and Soil Jurisdiction who are just beginning to establish their own defense systems.

 

The Swiss Way of Border and Community Defense

Switzerland’s Canton method rests on empowering local communities to take responsibility for their own defense, with the Federation providing coordination and support. Each canton has autonomy to prepare for its specific hazards—ranging from avalanches in mountainous regions to floods in river basins. This decentralized governance ensures disaster preparation and response are tailored to local circumstances while remaining organized at the national level.

 Key elements of Switzerland's strategy include:

1. Mandatory Citizen Participation:
   Switzerland requires all able-bodied citizens to serve the nation through compulsory service in its militia system. This ensures that every individual is prepared for disaster relief, infrastructure repair, and border defense.
2. Civil Protection System:
   The Swiss Civil Protection system integrates five major services—police, fire brigades, medical services, technical services, and civil defense—into a functional emergency response framework that operates at both cantonal and federal levels.
3. Infrastructure Resilience:
   Cantons invest heavily in protective measures such as avalanche barriers, flood defense systems, and resilient transport networks designed to withstand disasters.
4. Border Defense as a Community Responsibility:
   Switzerland’s decentralized militia system allows cantons to actively engage in defending their borders while ensuring regional independence. This arrangement underscores the belief that local communities are best equipped to understand and resolve their unique security challenges.
5. Water Resource Management:
   Water excavation, collection, and distribution are critical tasks during crises. Switzerland prioritizes sustainable water management by ensuring clean water is accessible even during emergencies. Cantons oversee systems that collect water safely, store it effectively, and distribute it efficiently to communities—a vital component of disaster resilience.

 

The Case for State Defense Forces in America

Unlike Switzerland—where every canton possesses resources for self-protection and disaster relief—nearly half of American states no longer maintain independent State Defense Forces (SDFs). These forces—distinct from the Army National Guard—are essential sovereign assets that allow states to protect their borders, infrastructure, and citizens without relying on federal resources.

Historically, SDFs served as a cornerstone of state sovereignty by providing locally controlled mechanisms for responding to emergencies, defending borders, and preserving public order. However, many states have disbanded these forces due to budget constraints or shifting political priorities. This leaves significant gaps in local preparedness during crises.

Restoring SDFs would empower American State Assemblies to regain control over border defense operations while addressing critical needs such as disaster relief and infrastructure protection.

 

Swiss Solutions for American Challenges

The Swiss Canton model offers practical solutions that American State Assemblies—and other foreign assemblies operating on Land and Soil Jurisdiction—can adopt when establishing or revitalizing their own SDFs:

1. Decentralized Governance:
   Just as Swiss cantons manage disaster preparedness strategies tailored to local risks, American states could empower their assemblies to oversee SDFs with a focus on regional challenges such as border security or natural disaster mitigation.
2. Mandatory or Incentivized Service:
   Switzerland’s mandatory militia service ensures all citizens contribute to community protection. While mandatory service may not be feasible in the American States, states could incentivize voluntary participation through tax benefits or educational opportunities tied to SDF membership.
3. Integrated Civilian Protection Systems:
   The Swiss model integrates multiple services—police, fire brigades, health facilities—into one cohesive civilian protection framework. States could replicate this system by coordinating SDFs with local emergency responders for streamlined disaster management.
4. Border Defense as a Priority:
   Swiss cantons actively contribute to border security through their militia system. Similarly, American states could use SDFs to bolster border defense efforts without relying solely on federal agencies like Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
5. Infrastructure Investment:
   Switzerland’s emphasis on building resilient infrastructure—such as avalanche barriers and flood control systems—ensures long-term safety against natural disasters. States could prioritize similar investments using SDFs as part of their implementation strategy.
6. Water Resource Management:
   During crises or disasters, access to clean water becomes a lifeline for communities. States should prioritize water excavation systems that safely collect water from natural sources (e.g., aquifers or rivers), ensure proper filtration and storage, and distribute it efficiently during emergencies—a practice central to Switzerland’s resilience model.

Civilian Protection Systems

Swiss Emergency Plan

Tasks Undertaken by Switzerland That Inspire Action

The Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP) outlines several key tasks undertaken by Switzerland that could serve as inspiration for American State Assemblies:

• Disaster Preparedness: Regular training exercises simulate responses to floods, avalanches, earthquakes, industrial accidents, and other emergencies.
• Defense of Strategic Infrastructure: Cantons protect energy supplies, communication networks, transportation systems, and other critical installations.
• Civil Defense Shelters: Switzerland maintains shelters capable of accommodating its entire population during crises—a system other states might emulate.
• Community Involvement: Public awareness campaigns educate citizens about risks and preparedness measures.
• Water Management Systems: Ensuring access to clean water during emergencies is a cornerstone of Swiss disaster resilience.
• Federal-Level Resource Coordination: Efficient allocation of resources ensures cantons receive timely support during mass emergencies.

For more information about these tasks, refer to the FOCP Tasks Page.

 

Conclusion: A Call for Revival

The Swiss Canton method highlights the importance of decentralized governance and citizen involvement in safeguarding communities from disasters and attacks. For American State Assemblies seeking greater sovereignty and resilience—or foreign assemblies operating upon Land and Soil Jurisdiction—establishing or restoring State Defense Forces is not just an option but a necessity.

By adopting lessons from Switzerland’s proactive approach—including community engagement in border defense operations; investment in resilient infrastructure; emphasis on water resource management; and integration of civil protection systems—states can strengthen their preparedness while empowering citizens to actively participate in defense missions.

Switzerland’s success proves that when communities are given the tools, they need to protect themselves during times of crisis or disaster, resilience becomes a shared responsibility—and sovereignty is preserved.

It’s time for American states—and others around the world—to restore this vital element of self-governance before it is too late. There is no better time like the present to begin assisting with the collective effort of offering to protect and defend ourselves at a community level against natural and manmade disasters.

The Sovereign Identity: Unveiling the Corporate Origin of Surnames

Striding ever closer to the demise of the "Sovereign Citizen" corporate illusion

 Down through the centuries, sovereign men and women lived freely, addressed by their given names and family line, without the need of the artificial tool we now call the "surname." In earlier times, prior to the advent and proliferation of corporate feudalism, the practices of sovereign families were founded on a natural and lawful system of identification: a man's given name, followed by "son of" his father's given name, and carried further to his grandfather's given name. For example, the actual given name of the researcher and writer of this article is Joseph, son of James, son of Curtis.

This simple but effective custom was sufficient in ancient times to distinguish men and their offspring from one another within families or between other families within neighboring communities. But with the advent of corporate and centralized government institutions, surname arrived—a manufactured concept for foreign interests and not of independent individuals.

The Origins of Surnames: A Corporate Creation

Surnames did not evolve from any organic or customary way of addressing family members. Instead, they were forced upon living men and women by external agencies—governments, feudal regimes, and other corporate bureaucracies—for purposes of administration and politics. The surname was not chosen by parents as part of their natural family traditions but forced as a way of creating an accepted standard identity for the purposes of cooperative purposes, legal control, and organizational convenience in society.

This corporate "family name" was employed as a tool to track individuals in growing populations. It allowed for the compilation of lists by rulers and institutions for taxation, land-holding, census, and legal purposes. While surnames may appear innocuous on the surface, their true origin was in the interest of government and control of individuals or families and not in respect for the sovereignty of individuals or families.

The Unlawful Practice of Imposing Surnames

The use of surnames on independent persons is an unlawful practice if one looks at natural rights. Independent families previously identified themselves according to their lineage—a given name, then the father's name and the grandfather's name as a direct part of the essence that embodies their true identity. This pattern recognized the natural independence and autonomy of people in their family structure. It required no external interference or man-made labels.

Conversely, surnames are a foreign corporate identity that entrap living men and women in obligations that further political or economic agendas. These obligations are often tied to land owner excise systems, by-law constraints, and other means of monarchal control that are not conducive to the principles of sovereignty. The appeal to adopt surnames for oneself or one's posterity can be seen as an exploitation—an entrapment into systems that further corporate agendas at the loss of individual freedom.

Awareness: Deconstructing Corporate Entanglements

It is a significant step in deconstructing the shroud of corporate constructs that have been thrown over breathing men and women to become aware of the history and purpose behind surnames. Knowing that surnames are an artificial addition to familial nature but rather employed as an agency of control, individuals can reclaim their sovereignty. By discounting the fictional corporate identity attributed to surnames, individuals can begin to untangle themselves from obligations that do not contribute to their natural liberties or rights.

This acknowledgment also leads to further debates about sovereignty in modern society. It forces individuals to question other corporate affiliations—such as legal systems, tax systems, and contractual arrangements—that might supplant their inalienable freedom regarding self-governance. It ultimately leads to the restoration of traditions grounded in natural law and the removal of systems that seek to exploit living persons.

Sovereign Citizen Pejorative: Narrowing In On Its Inevitable Dismantling

The term "sovereign citizen" has been widely used as a pejorative label by media outlets, government entities, and critics who wish to discredit those seeking lawful recognition as sovereign individuals. This label often conflates legitimate efforts for sovereignty with fringe ideologies or pseudolegal tactics. However, it is essential to distinguish between peaceful movements advocating for lawful status correction—such as those led by American State Assemblies—and isolated incidents involving misuse or misinterpretation of sovereign principles.

The inevitable dismantling of this pejorative lies in education and awareness. As more people understand that sovereignty is rooted in lawful traditions rather than contrived theories or pseudolegal practices, they will reject misleading narratives designed to undermine legitimate efforts toward reclaiming personal autonomy. Sovereignty is not about rejecting law but about restoring alignment with natural law principles free from corporate entanglements.

A Path Toward Harmony

The surname is not a natural appellation for free men and women; it is a corporate institution that was created for political purposes.

By understanding its etymology and renouncing its illegitimate application, individuals can meaningfully act toward reclaiming their organic identity and unraveling corporate entanglements. A return to traditions commemorating family lineage—whereby the name of a man is augmented by "son of" that of his father—replaces acknowledgment of sovereignty without removing that which is extraneous that was inserted there to gain benefit at alien expense.

Awareness is the answer to this task.

As increasingly large numbers of people realize that surnames and other corporate identity labels are artificial, they can altogether remove these cover-ups once and for all. Independent men and women have ever possessed the capacity to define themselves naturally; it is time to reassert that capacity in its fullness and move toward a peaceful future grounded in harmony with natural law.

Moving Forward with Sovereign Recognition

As part of this movement toward reclaiming sovereignty, initiatives like those led by the American State Assemblies are paving the way for lawful recognition of status-corrected sovereign men and women. These assemblies emphasize identifying individuals according to their true family origins without reliance on corporate feudalism practices such as surnames tethered throughout daily life.

This effort has gained traction through training programs offered by the Peacekeeping Task Force as part of its 2025 Public Service Outreach and Education initiatives. Municipal and Federal Law Enforcement entities are being prepared to train in these standardized approaches for recognizing lawful sovereign identities. As these training aids develop further, follow-up programs will be implemented across all County and State-of-State Law Enforcement agencies nationwide.

The Peacekeeping Task Force has been actively working on these, and other similarly constructed international outreach projects since resuming service operations in 2023. By fostering awareness through education and training, this initiative seeks not only to dismantle harmful corporate entanglements but also to establish a foundation for peaceful coexistence rooted in sovereignty and natural law principles from coast to coast.

Share Awareness with Others

We encourage readers of our blog to share this article—and others like it—with friends and family. By spreading awareness about these important topics, you help amplify our free work aimed at restoring sovereignty and dismantling harmful systems rooted in corporate control.

Together, we can build a brighter future founded on peace, harmony, natural, and American Common law principles as part of Public Law!

Thank you to everyone who have contributed to, and who have expressed encouragement of our free work and dedication to peaceful service since 2023. Your genuine kindness has not gone unnoticed.