1
I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
George Mercier
THE CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT
[Pages 386-434]
[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE
CONTRACTS to an electronic medium. For an explanation of the
conventions used, please download the file INCONHLP.ZIP for
further illumination. Other background information as well is
contained in INCONHLP.ZIP. It is advisable to EXIT this file
right now and read the contents of INCONHLP.ZIP before proceeding
with your study of this file.]
====================P R E V I E W===============
So getting rid of your National Citizenship, while very
important, is only a first step, and there are numerous other
invisible contracts that you need to concern yourselves with, if
you are to leave the Bolshevik Income Tax grab without leaving
any lingering illicit Equity trail behind you. [576]
====================P R E V I E W===============
Next, we turn now and discuss a layer of invisible contract that
is rarely addressed, thought of, or treated as the pure contract
that it is really is: National Citizenship. [506]
[506]============================================================
"The United States chose to base its tax jurisdiction on
Citizenship from the inception of the Income Tax in 1913."
Citizenship as a Jurisdictional Basis for Taxation: Section
911 and the Foreign Source Income Experience by John
Christie, 8 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 109, at
109 (1982).
Such a seemingly easy STATEMENT for someone to make, yet pulling
together all of the relevant factors on Citizenship is difficult
because they are not all located in one single place; and there
exists no simple, explicit, and blunt statement or Supreme Court
ruling stating so. Yet when everything is assembled there is a
large collection of Federal dribblings originating from
disorganized DICTA located in Court Opinions, Congressional
enactments, and in Administrative LEX, which when analyzed
collectively as a whole, form a revealing picture of the
surprises that Citizens are really in for.
============================================================[506]
2
As a point of beginning, it is perhaps most easy to think of
Citizenship in terms of joining a Country Club: You sign up, pay
dues, enjoy the benefits offered by the House, you elect
management, and you are exposed to liability to be fined for no
more than technical infractions to House Rules [without any
damages]. [507]
[507]============================================================
The United States Supreme Court once drew a parallel between
CITIZENSHIP and membership in an association so well, that it
triggered my analogy to that of joining a Country Club:
"... Each of the persons associated becomes a member of the
nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is
entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in
this connection reciprocal obligations. The one is a
compensation or the other; allegiance for protection and
protection for allegiance.
"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name
to this membership. The object is to designate by title the
person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose
the words "subject," "inhabitant" and "citizen" have been used,
and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the
form of the Government. Citizen is now more commonly employed,
however, and as it has been considered better suited to the
description of one living under a Republican Government, it was
adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from
Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION and in the Constitution of the United States. When
used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of
membership of a nation, and nothing more."
- MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 161, at 166 (1874).
Here in MINOR, the Supreme Court relates Citizenship to an
association; while I have chosen COUNTRY CLUB due to the easier
relational image created by voluntarily joining an institution
that offers special and unique benefits available to members
only. Some of those special benefits offered are very important
to some members (I have many stories to tell of business deals
and business introductions made on golf courses), while to
others, the Country Club is just a nice place to be for lunch.
============================================================[507]
The procedure for entering into a Country Club Membership
contract differs quite a bit from the Citizenship Contract, in
the sense that while trying to join a Country Club, you first
have to go to the Management, present credentials, and then
request Membership; whereas with the King, everyone is presumed
3
automatically to be Members, and so now you have to argue your
Case that you are not a Member. [508]
[508]============================================================
This shift of burden originates with a slice of LEX the King's
Scribes once enacted:
"The following shall be nationals and Citizens of the United
States at birth:
1) A person born in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO ITS
JURISDICTION thereof;"
- Title 8, Section 1401 ["Nationality and
Naturalization"]
Section 1401 then continues on with similar hooks planted into
American Indians, Eskimos, persons born outside the United
States, persons of unknown parentage, etc. Notice the phrase AND
SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION; not all individuals born in the
United States are automatically Citizens, so not all individuals
born in the United States fall under the house jurisdiction of
the King and his adhesive tentacles of Equity Jurisdiction. An
Attorney General once said that:
"... our Constitution, in speaking of NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS,
uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only
recognizes and reaffirms the universal Principle, common to all
nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in
a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are
NATURAL members of the body politic.
"If this be a true Principle, and I do not doubt it, it
follows that every person born in the Country is, at the moment
of birth, PRIMA FACIE a Citizen; and he who would deny it must
take upon himself the burden of proving some great
disenfranchisement strong enough to override the "NATURAL-BORN"
right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple
and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or
other accidental circumstance.
"That NATIVITY furnishes the rule, both of duty and of
right, as between the individual and the Government, is a
historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted
that it is needless to prove it by authority ...
"In every civilized Country, the individual is BORN to
duties and rights, the duty of allegiance and the right to
protection; and these are correlative obligations, the one the
price of the other, and they constitute the all-sufficient bond
of union between individual and his Country; and the Country he
is born in is, PRIMA FACIE, his Country. In most countries the
old law was broadly laid down that this natural connection
4
between the individual and his native country was perpetual; at
least, that the tie was indissoluble by the act of the subject
alone ...
"But that law of the perpetuity of allegiance is now changed
..." [meaning Americans can dissolve the tie whenever they feel
like it, a severance not possible under the old Britannic rule of
Kings.]
- Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in
["Citizenship"], 10 Opinions of the Attorney General
382 at 394, [W.H. & O. H. Morrison, Washington (1868)].
============================================================[508]
But once we are beyond that initial point of entrance into the
contract, then nothing whatsoever changes in the contractual
rights or duties involved when we transfer ourselves from
Membership in a Country Club setting over to American
Citizenship, as contracts govern both relationships.
Earlier, I mentioned that the 14th Amendment offers invisible
benefits that Citizens have been deemed by Federal Judges to have
accepted by their silence (since anything but silence is very
consistent with a person's wanting Citizenship), and so the 14th
Amendment then and there creates a Citizenship Contract. Yes,
there are special benefits to be had from the 14th Amendment.
[509]
[509]============================================================
"Since the 14th Amendment makes one a Citizen of the state where
ever he resides, the fact of residence creates universally
recognized reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of
allegiance and support by the Citizen. The latter obviously
includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is
largely a political matter."
- MILLER BROTHERS v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340, at 345
(1954).
============================================================[509]
So although the 14th Amendment creates benefits proprietary to
Citizenship, those are not the only Citizenship benefits that you
need to concern yourself with. Many Tax Protestors and Patriots
are aware of the 14th Amendment story, and accordingly counsel
their students to file NOTICES OF BREACH OF CONTRACT and the
like, and other hybrid unilateral declarations of RECESSION, in
an attempt to remove themselves as persons attached to the 14th
Amendment. Those students are then taught, quite erroneously,
that since the United States derives its taxing power from the
14th Amendment, therefore, once an Individual has severed his
relationship from the 14th Amendment, the student no longer need
5
concern himself with any federal Income Tax liability, or any
state tax liability. These folks preach the theory that MILLER
BROTHERS v. MARYLAND, [510]
[510]============================================================
347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954).
============================================================[510]
stands for the proposition that States derive their taxing and
regulatory jurisdiction from the 14th Amendment -- a particularly
stupid conclusion to arrive at since such a statement means that
prior to the 14th Amendment there were no State taxes or
regulatory jurisdictions; and that is a factually defective point
of beginning to commence any legal analysis. [511]
[511]============================================================
For example, some states required that auctioneers possess
licenses in the early 1800's, long before the 14th Amendment ever
made its appearance. Joseph Story mentions this in III
Commentaries on the Constitution, at page 483, ["Powers of
Congress - Taxes"], (Cambridge, 1833). This little regulatory
jurisdiction existed long before either the Civil War or any of
the so called Reconstruction Amendments [the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments] made their appearance; and since the States did not
need the 14th Amendment then to enact regulatory jurisdictions,
the States do not need the 14th Amendment to enact regulatory
jurisdictions, and your relational status to the 14th Amendment
is irrelevant in determining your attachment to regulatory
jurisdictions.
============================================================[511]
This view of legal liability propagated by Protestors is baneful,
and replicates the MODUS OPERANDI of Lucifer when he propagates
to his students many things which are technically accurate of and
by themselves, but then he teaches expansive conclusions which
are defective. Lucifer counsels his followers to get ready to
justify their actions at the Last Day, an alluring preventative
move that intellectuals find brilliant and intriguing background
advice; so now Lucifer has their attention. [512]
[512]============================================================
When some folks emphasize the value to you of PREVENTION, what
they are also saying is that they realize that it is beneficial
for folks to occasionally look up and ahead once in a while; and
out of such a vision into the future, unpleasant circumstances
can be deflected from making their appearance (the avoidance of a
negative), as well as great and fabulous circumstances can and
will come to pass (by planning for a positive). These reasons
explain why an occasional glimpse into one's own future is very
6
much an instrument for intellectual conquest and has such an
alluring aura of mystique about it -- generating an atmosphere of
success that intrigues INTELLECTUALS so much -- who go for all
they can grab. Gremlins have taken cognizance of this high-
powered look ahead instrument (also called PLANNING), and have
experienced impressive benefits from it:
"As I have already pointed out, the true speculator is one
who observes the future and acts before it occurs. Like a
surgeon, he must be able to search through a mass of complex and
contradictory details to [get to] the significant facts. Then,
still like the surgeon, he must be able to operate coldly,
clearly, and skillfully on the basis of the facts before him.
"What makes this task of fact finding so difficult is that
in the stock market the facts of any situation come to us through
a curtain of human emotions. What drives the prices of stocks up
or down is not impersonal economic forces or changing events but
the human reactions to these happenings. The constant problem of
the speculator or analyst is how to disentangle the cold, hard
economic facts from the rather warm feelings of the people
dealing with these facts.
"Few things are more difficult to do. The main obstacle
lies in disentangling ourselves from our own emotions."
- Gremlin Bernard Baruch in Baruch: My Own Story, at 248
[Henry Holt and Company, New York (1957)].
On the following pages in this book [which is his autobiography],
Bernard Baruch gives two stores from his business dealings
exemplifying why and how he deemed it so extremely important to
approach the task of fact finding free of emotions -- and the
reason is because often the facts that are the answers to what we
are searching for are not found where we thought they might be,
and when the answers arrived they were not presented to us under
circumstances that we thought we would be expecting. Since our
emotions color our judgment constantly, merely controlling
emotions until after we have been steeped with an enlarged basis
of factual knowledge to exercise judgment on, then escalates
dramatically the caliber of judgment that can be exercised.
Gremlin Bernard Baruch, a looter EXTRAORDINAIRE, perhaps one of
the greatest American business speculators of all time -- who
started from scratch and would up controlling at one time a
significant percentage supply of the world's silver -- concluded
his second business example with some advice presented in the
form of a STATEMENT:
"Experts will step in where even fools fear to tread."
- Bernard Baruch, id., at page 253
Why will experts step in where fools fear to tread? The answer
lies in examining what characteristic separates the expert from
7
the fool: Simple lack of factual knowledge, acquired in part
experientially, which is often corrected in the future. Tax and
Highway Contract Protestors searching for that elusive SILVER
BULLET out there will find it -- of all places -- resting with
themselves; and they will also find, in an unexpected place, an
institution functioning as an accessory instrument offering them
assistance to accomplish the most NOBLE and GREAT objectives that
the mind can imagine -- an ecclesiastical institution that has
always been there during your life, but whose potential
beneficial significance was tossed aside and ignored due to
overruling emotional intervention. Yes, OVERCOMING YOUR OWN
EMOTIONS is a difficult task as high-powered imp Bernard Baruch
related so well to a setting involving the intense pursuit of
commercial enrichment. Where there are difficult tasks, there
also lies impressive benefits not otherwise obtainable; Celestial
benefits whose reception then requires a forward glimpse into the
future, now. Those Celestial Benefits will be acquired then
through the correlative requisite behavioral changes made at the
present time -- beneficial changes that cannot be made if that
alluring look ahead glimpse into the future that INTELLECTUALS
and imps appreciate the value of such much, was not made at the
present time. When we make that look ahead glimpse into the
future, we ask ourselves a QUESTION: Do I really want to leave
this Estate without replacement Covenants?
============================================================[512]
Then Lucifer continues on (also quite technically correct), that
all of their behavior down here should be so organized as to be
"justifiable" before Father at the Last Day; this too is correct,
as Father will be soliciting our feelings at the Last Day. But
just one tiny problem surfaces for the world's Gremlins to
consider as they dance the jig in ecstasy over the prospects of
being able to get away with murder, mischief, and mayhem down
here: An invisible Contract that Father extracted out of us all
before we came down here. So yes, although you can "justify"
your acts to Father if you want to, that justification is not
relevant to Father in his judgment decision making. Only the
terms of the Contract will be of interest to Father; and back in
the First Estate, everyone was once on their knees before Father,
uttering from their own tongues, in a Heavenly angelic language
we all spoke then, the terms of the Contract we all would later
be judged by. So, yes, you will be given the opportunity to
justify your abominations before Father if you want to, but your
justifications sounding in Tort are not going to be taken into
consideration by Father and you Gremlins out there are damaging
and deceiving yourselves. And in a very similar way, many Tax
Protestors are coaching their followers to concern themselves
with the 14th Amendment -- a very accurate and correct statement,
of and by itself. [513]
[513]============================================================
8
The way to correctly read Supreme Court rulings on 14th Amendment
taxation questions is to keep an eye on what the 14th Amendment
did in the area of restraining reciprocity expectations political
jurisdictions created when throwing benefits at folks. The 14th
Amendment prohibited double taxation, and no more. DOUBLE
TAXATION is the layering of a plurality of taxes on the same
economic asset or legal right by competing jurisdictions. In
some factual settings, the jurisdiction to tax an economic asset
actually belongs to several states, but should be conceded to
only one State for the exercise of taxation jurisdiction. See
JURISDICTION TO TAX UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT in Notes, 25
Georgetown Law Journal 448 (1937).
============================================================[513]
But the conclusions those Tax Protestors draw, that termination
of the adhesive King's Equity Jurisdiction that the 14th
Amendment attaches is the only thing they need concern themselves
with, is incorrect. 14th Amendment pleading, standing alone by
itself, doesn't vitiate anyone's state or federal Income Tax
liability -- it never has, and it never will. The legal argument
I hear many folks throw at Federal Judges, that they are a COMMON
LAW CITIZEN, or a PREAMBLE CITIZEN, and not a 14TH AMENDMENT
CITIZEN, is patently stupid, and carries no weight, merit, or
attractiveness before Federal Judges; and for very good reasons:
Because all Citizens of the United States are acceptants of that
profile of juristic benefits that the King is offering, and these
benefits are offered by the King regardless of the claimed COMMON
LAW or PREAMBLE classification status. And so correlatively,
since those juristic benefits are accepted by all United States
Citizens regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or so-called
PREAMBLE jurisdictional origin of the classification of
Citizenship (distinctions that Citizenship Contract Protestors
like to make and argue), these distinctions mean absolutely
nothing in important areas involving Tax and Military
Conscription reciprocity expectations the King maintains on his
Citizens. [514]
[514]============================================================
The extent to which Juristic Institutions should be restrained in
the placement of tortious covenants within adhesive contracts
heavily skewed towards Government like Citizenship, has been an
article of discussion since the founding days of the Republic:
"How in a Republican regime, is the supremacy of the
private, self-regarding sphere in the life of each Citizen to be
reconciled with the obligation of the People at large to perform
the public-regarding duties of Citizenship? It is interesting
that [James] Wilson did not propose to solve this problem by
blinking at the magnitude of the apparent dilemma. More vividly
even than Locke himself, Wilson stated his liberal creed that
"domestic society," that is, the private social life of each
9
individual, must be deemed intrinsically superior in dignity to
all public matters, including Law and Government."
- Stephen Conrad discussing the views of one of our
Founding Fathers, in CITIZENSHIP AND COMMON SENSE IN
JAMES WILSON'S REPUBLICAN THEORY, 8 Supreme Court
Review at 383 [University of Chicago Press, Chicago
(1984)].
============================================================[514]
There is no single place I can point folks to and say "Here,
Citizens, are your benefits." [515]
[515]============================================================
The same frustrations and headaches that I have gone through
trying to get at the very bottom of just what those specific
benefits are that the King is offering to his Citizens, is the
same frustration [if FRUSTRATION is the word] that others have
experienced in the past -- because the definition of American
Citizenship and the correlative concise presentation of the
benefits of American Citizenship, simply does not exist. In a
previous day and era, an Attorney General of the United States
once expressed similar reservations:
"Who is a Citizen? What constitutes a Citizen of the United
States? I have often been pained by the fruitless search in our
law books and the records of the courts, for a clear and
satisfactory definition of the phrase CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES. I find no such definition, no authoritative
establishment of the meaning of the phrase, neither by a course
of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and
consentaneous action of the different branches of our political
Government. For aught I see to the contrary, the subject is now
as little understood in its details and elements, and the
question as open to arguments and speculative criticism, as it
was at the beginning of the Government. Eighty years of
practical enjoyment of Citizenship, under the Constitution, have
not sufficed to teach us either the exact meaning of the word, or
the constituent elements of the thing we prize so highly."
- Edward Bates, United States Attorney General
["Citizenship"], in 10 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
382 at 383 [W. H. & O. H. Morrison, Washington (1868)].
The reason why I have had such headaches getting to the very
bottom of Citizenship is because the King's boy's clam up tight
and refuse to talk about this subject matter. A Deputy United
States Attorney in the Department of Justice in Washington once
turned me off but quick when I asked for a simple answer to a
simple question: What are the benefits you give to American
Citizens? When I once had a conversation with a Federal Judge,
he went through muscular distortions in his face when I asked him
10
the same simple question. They know exactly what we are up to,
and they are not about to assist or facilitate our depriving them
of revenue; a good snortation representing how Federal Judges
think in this area was once penned by the Supreme Court:
"The Citizen who fails to pay his taxes or to abide by the
law safeguarding the integrity of elections deals a dangerous
blow to his country."
- PEREZ v. BROWNELL, 356 U.S. 44, at 92 (1958).
Moments earlier in that conversation I had with the Judge,
the Judge was friendly and spoke very knowledgeably about the
location of Citizenship benefits [as well they should know the
location of benefits because Federal Judges are steeped in
benefit justification in those seminars of theirs], but now the
atmosphere quickly chilled when I presented him with an explicit
inquiry on the specific identification of Citizenship benefits,
and the Judge very quickly terminated the conversation. Those
benefits of Citizenship are all listed and neatly presented to
Federal Judges in that BENCH BOOK of theirs; this is important
material for Federal Judges to know since the King deems it
extremely important that Judges feel justified and comfortable
CRACKING Protestors under the Citizenship Contract; and this is
also the real meaning behind an occasional blurb emanating down
from the bench that "you've accepted a benefit [snort!]." What
few words the Judge is saying is a fractured piece of the total
contract pie, as contracts are properly in effect whenever
benefits offered conditionally [offered with a hook in them] were
accepted by you; so the Judge's short blurb about accepting
benefits is a reference to the fact that you are patently BLACK
AND WHITE wrong -- caught in the very act of contract defilement.
But just because the Judge remains silent on the existence of the
retained expectations of reciprocity that the King holds, and
that a contract is in effect, does not annul the existence of the
contract. Very rarely in life in any setting such as science,
business, the law, or commerce, does anyone ever go into
prolixitous elucidations when explaining error or justifying
something. But the juristic contract is there, the explanation
[or here in a Courtroom, the snortation] is optional, and the
fact that the contract is invisible to you does not vitiate your
liability when the contract comes up for review [a feature of
Nature every single person who ever lived on the face of the
Earth will become very well acquainted with at the Last Day].
============================================================[515]
Even listings of benefits in the dicta of Supreme Court rulings
are fractured and incomplete. [516]
[516]============================================================
For example, in UNITED STATES v. MATHESON [532 F.2nd 809
(1976)], the Second Circuit mentioned that some of those benefits
11
received by a Mrs. Burns that were attributable to her United
States Citizenship were the issuance of her Passport, the
issuance of a license on her yacht by the United States Coast
Guard, and the benefit of standing assistance offered by an
American foreign diplomatic consular office, since she had
registered as a Citizen with the United States Mission [although
such registration is not necessary to trigger assistance of
diplomatic consular offices when requested]. See UNITED STATES
v. MATHESON, id., at 819. Remember that the Law is always
justified, and the acceptance of benefits, however flaky those
benefits are in substance, do correctly justify the King's
retention of expectations of financial reciprocity.
============================================================[516]
And the Congress is largely the same. [517]
[517]============================================================
There is no statute existing anywhere that presents a composite
blended profile of all benefits inuring to Citizens of the United
States. When searching through Congressional documents at just a
Committee Hearing level, for perhaps some small list of benefits
that may have slipped out here or there, the only discussion of
benefits was characterizes as RIGHTS, and then treated as a
unitary subject [see CITIZENS GUIDE TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, 94th Congress, Second Session (October, 1970), which
largely discusses those Clauses in the Constitution that restrain
Government Tortfeasance (which although such restrainments are
benefits in a sense, the restrainment of the King's own
prospective Tortfeasance is not the character of benefits whose
acceptance by Citizens enables expectations of reciprocity to
operate on in the formation of juristic contracts)].
============================================================[517]
Some of the juristic benefits that the King is offering to his
Citizens originate in the Constitution, where these benefits are
inferred by Federal Judges from certain wording and phrases in
that Majestic Document; [518]
[518]============================================================
For certain limited purposes, Federal Judges view the
Constitution in its aggregate as being a collection of senior
statutes, differing only from ordinary statutes in the sense that
the Constitution's pronouncements are more tactically difficult
to enact and repeal.
============================================================[518]
12
other benefits the King is offering find their home nestled in
his pile of LEX, other benefits are located in still another
layer of administrative LEX called the CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS; and still other benefits do not explicitly appear
anywhere in the King's statutes, but are defined in a wide
ranging multiplicity of court rulings. When we posses that
factual knowledge contained in those court rulings, then the
cryptic phrases appearing in some offbeat slice of LEX come alive
and make a great deal of sense. [519]
[519]============================================================
For example, one of the judicially defined benefits of American
Citizenship is the right to sue and be sued in Federal and State
Courts in the United States:
"George Bird ... [having] ... fulfilled the conditions
which, under law enacted by Congress, entitle him to all the
rights, privileges, [benefits,] and immunities of Citizenship.
He is a Citizen of the United States, and entitled, equally with
all other Citizens, to make lawful use of his own property, and
to prosecute and defend in the courts of this state and in the
courts of the United States actions affecting his legal rights
with respect to property, and to make [commercial] contracts [I
will discuss this later] ..."
- BIRD v. TERRY, 129 Federal 472, at 477 (1903).
With the right to sue and be sued in Federal and State Courts
being a benefit to Citizens, now the following cryptic words in
the Civil Rights statutes [giving Blacks Citizenship benefits
that only Whites enjoyed before the Civil War], now come alive
with meaning:
"Equal Just under the Law:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States
shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make
and enforce contracts [I will discuss this very important benefit
later], TO SUE, BE PARTIES, GIVE EVIDENCE, and to the full and
equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of
persons and property as is enjoyed by white Citizens ..."
- Title 42, Section 1981 ["Civil Rights"] (1870).
Notice how the use of the Courtroom as an instrument of
Government to sue someone with is deemed to be a benefit -- and
yes, it is a benefit; the absence of which would place a lot of
Protestors out of business. But the King offers out his benefit
with latent hooks of reciprocity adhesively attached thereto;
just like fish thinking that they have finished their evening
meal by swallowing that attractive piece of meat over there,
unknown to the fish is the fact that an invisible hook awaits
whoever goes after that bait. So now let us continue on with
13
Section 1981: Having defined some benefits, now the King's
Scribes plant the hook of reciprocity for those who swallow and
accept the King's benefits:
"[those Blacks, now turned Citizens, as just mentioned
above] ... shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties,
taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and no other."
- The balance of Title 42, Section 1981.
Yes, Citizenship is a Contract: Juristic benefits are offered
with latent hooks of reciprocity lying in wait for those who have
silently accepted the King's benefits. And Tax and Draft
Protestors will continue to lose, and will continue to snicker at
the wrong people [hard working Judges] in total error, when the
fact of the matter is that it is their boosting of their
Citizenship status which is in fact the very juristic contract
that the Federal Judges use to CRACK Protestors with.
... The benefit of Citizenship allowing those PERSONS to sue in
Federal Courts once surfaced in HAMMERSTEIN v. LYNE as a
jurisdictional question, since one of the statutes in Title 28
confers jurisdiction to Federal District Courts to hear diversity
cases involving CITIZENS in different States:
"In order to give jurisdiction to the Courts of the United
States, the Citizenship of the party must be founded on a change
of domicile and permanent residence in the State to which he may
have removed from another State. Mere residence is PRIMA FACIE
evidence of such change, although, when it is explained and shown
to have been for temporary purposes, the presumption is
destroyed."
- HAMMERSTEIN v. LYNE, 200 Federal 165, at 169 (1912).
============================================================[519]
Some benefits of Citizenship are proprietary and the distribution
of those benefits are limited to identifiable groups, for
example, such as the elective franchise. [520]
[520]============================================================
See ENFRANCHISEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP by Edward J. Pierce [Roberts
Brothers, Boston (1896) {Harvard University, WIDENER LIBRARY,
Cambridge, Massachusetts}]. Even many of the covenant terms of
the Country Club Contract and the Citizenship Contract are
identical. For example, Country Clubs rarely admit people into
membership positions unless that person is of age, so either all
Country Club Members are generally assumed to have the elective
franchise to turn over house management, or some type of junior
Membership is created for young dependent offspring. Citizenship
does differ; there was once a time in the United States when a
14
large body of Citizens were denied the benefit of elective
franchise rights, back before Women's Sufferrage matured:
"Again, women and minors are Citizens of the [various
States], and also of the United States; but they are not
electors, nor are they eligible to office, either in those States
or in the United States."
- Caleb Cushing, Attorney General of the United States,
["Chickasaw Constitution"] in 8 OPINIONS OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL 300, at 302, [R. Farnham, Washington
(1858)].
Yes, the elective franchise, together with the right to hold
government offices, is deemed to be one of the many benefits
inuring to Citizens, even though not all Citizens universally
enjoy such benefits.
============================================================[520]
Some other benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States are,
in general, the protection of United States Marshals. [521]
[521]============================================================
When I read about this benefit in a Supreme Court Case, my mind
was reading it if it were, or could possibly be converted into, a
specific duty on the part of the Marshals -- which is the way the
wording was written; later a Federal Judge once disputed this
with me in part, stating that United States Marshals owe no
American any protective duty specifically [meaning that if the
Marshals default in protecting Citizens, then the Marshals have
no reciprocal liability inuring in return to Citizens in favor of
Breach of Contract damages or perhaps negligence on their part;
this means that if you request the Marshals' services and the
Marshals mess up for some reason, then you are without recourse
to sue them for damages]. In reading all of the Federal statutes
on Citizenship and of the United States Marshals, there is no
exact statute anywhere which binds the Marshal, or otherwise
creates such a duty, to specifically protect you, yet their
protectorate services are deemed to be a benefit by Federal
Judges.
============================================================[521]
Yes, all Citizens accept the protectorate benefits offered by the
United States Marshal Service. [522]
[522]============================================================
"The people of the United States resident within any State are
subject to two Governments; one State, and the other National;
but there needs be no conflict between the two ... It is the
natural consequence of a Citizenship, which owes allegiance to
15
two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The Citizen
cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to
such a form of Government. He owes allegiance to the two
departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres
must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its
laws. In return, he can demand protection from each with its own
jurisdiction."
- UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 550
(1875).
And so the King needs some bouncers to justify his claim of
protecting Citizens.
============================================================[522]
And unlike your local Police Department, when you call up the
U.S. Marshals and request their security assistance, generally
they will not bark, snap, or snort at you for doing so. [523]
[523]============================================================
To this extent, United States Marshals are somewhat like the old
Roman Centurions, who protected Roman Citizens from murder and
other dangers originating from attack Gremlins:
"... the ruling power at Rome, whether Republican or
imperial, granted, from time to time, to communities and to
individuals in the conquered East, the Title of ROMAN, and the
rights of Roman Citizens.
"A striking example of this Roman naturalization, of its
controlling authority as a political law, and of its beneficent
power to protect a persecuted Citizen, may be found in the case
of Saint Paul, as it is graphically reported in the ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES. Paul, being at Jerusalem, was in great peril of his
life from his countrymen ... who accused him of crimes against
their own law and faith, and were about to put him to death by
mob violence, when he was rescued by the commander of the Roman
troops, and taken into a fort for security. [Paul] first
explained, both to the Roman officer and to his own countrymen,
who were clamoring against him, his local status and municipal
relations; that he was ... of Tarsus, a natural born Citizen, of
no mean city, and that he had been brought up in Jerusalem, in
the strictest manner, according to the law and faith of his
fathers. But this did not appease the angry crowd, who were
proceeding with great violence to kill him. And then:
"the Chief Captain [of the Jews] commanded that he be
brought into the castle, and bade that he should be EXAMINED BY
SCOURGING, that is, tortured to enforce confession.
"And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the
Centurion that stood by, 'Is it lawful for you to scourge a man
16
that is A ROMAN AND UnConDEMNED?' When the Centurion heard THAT,
he went out and told the Chief Captain, saying, take heed what
thou doest, FOR THIS MAN IS A ROMAN. Then the Chief Captain came
and said, 'Tell me, art thou a ROMAN?' [Paul] said yea; and the
Chief Captain said, 'With a great sum obtained I THIS FREEDOM.'
And Paul said, 'But I was FREE BORN.' Then straightaway THEY
departed from him which should have examined him. And the Chief
Captain also was afraid, after he knew that [Paul] was a ROMAN,
and because [Paul] had BOUND HIM."
"Thus Paul, under circumstances of great danger and obloquy,
asserted his immunity, as "a Roman unCondemned," from ignominious
constraint and cruel punishment, a constraint and punishment
against which, as a mere provincial subject of Rome, he had no
legal protection. And thus the Roman officers instantly, and
with fear, obeyed the law of their country and respected the
sacred franchise of the Roman Citizen.
"Paul, as we know by this record, was a natural born Citizen
of Tarsus, and as such, no doubt, had the municipal freedom of
that city; but that would not have protected him against the
throngs and the lash. How he became a Roman we learn from other
historical sources. Caesar granted to the people of Tarsus (for
some good service done, probably for taking his side in the war
which resulted in the establishment of the Empire) the title of
Roman, and the freedom of Roman Citizens. And, considering the
chronology of events, this grant must have been older than Paul;
and therefore he truly said 'I WAS FREE BORN' - a free Citizen of
Rome, and as such exempt by law from degrading punishment.
"And this immunity did not fill the measure of his rights as
a Citizen. As a Roman, it was his right to be tried by the
Supreme Authority, at the Capital of the Empire. And when he
claimed that right, and appealed from the jurisdiction of the
provincial governor to the Emperor of Rome, his appeal was
instantly allowed, and he was remitted to 'Caesar's judgment'."
- Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in
["Citizenship"], 10 Opinions of the Attorney General
382 at 392, [W. H. & O. H. Morrison, Washington
(1868)].
============================================================[523]
The United States Marshals today will make inquiries and ask
probing questions to uncover the reasons why you believe your
security is being impaired, as they do want to get to the bottom
of the threatening situation, in order to terminate whatever it
is that is giving you grounds for concern. On any serious
inquiry they will normally send out a Marshal immediately to see
you, and they will even put you up in a hotel if deemed provident
under the circumstances; so yes, the security benefits offered by
the U.S. Marshals are more than legitimate. But no one knows
anything about the protectorate benefits being offered by the
17
U.S. Marshals. Due to the HOLLYWOODIZATION of cops and robbers
television shows, people have been conditioned to think in terms
of calling up their local police department for security
assistance, and have also been conditioned to expect a tough
rebuffment when asking for bodyguard services -- when all along
it was the dormant and ignored U.S. Marshals that have been
schooled, trained and are expecting your pleas for limited
assistance. [524]
[524]============================================================
Other benefits offered to American Citizens by the King [and
Federal Judges know this, so we should too] is financial
assistance to American Citizens returning from foreign countries.
In Title 42, Section 1312, the Secretary of State is authorized
to provide temporary assistance to Citizens and to dependents of
those Citizens, if they have returned to the United States in a
state of destitution resulting from war, threat of war, invasion,
or some other crisis some Gremlin pulled off somewhere. Another
benefit offered to American Citizens is the protection of the
United States Government when travelling abroad; this service is
provided through foreign diplomatic consular offices. Our family
has businesses in other parts of the globe, and whenever we have
made phone calls to the American Embassy for assistance, they
have always sent out someone immediately. In Title 22, Section
1731 ["Protection of Naturalized Citizens Abroad"], the King has
decreed that PERSONS who have become naturalized Citizens are
entitled to this same benefit of protection assistance in foreign
lands, both for themselves and their property while over there.
In Title 22, Section 1732, the President of the United States is
under a specific duty to first inquire of foreign governments and
then offer assistance whenever an American is incarcerated
abroad. See:
- CITIZENSHIP by Edward Borehard, Thesis [Columbia
University, New York (1914)], discussing the diplomatic
protection of American Citizens abroad; refers to the
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW for July, 1913.
- United States Department Publication, THE RIGHT TO
PROTECT CITIZENS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY LANDING FORCES
[Second Edition, GPO (October 5, 1912)] {Harvard
University, WIDENER LIBRARY, Cambridge, Massachusetts},
contains a chronological listing of the occasions in
which the Government has taken action on behalf of
American Citizens up to 1912.
============================================================[524]
As for the 14th Amendment, the reason why the 14th Amendment as a
stand-alone line of Status defense is patently frivolous is
because all Citizens accept benefits that the King is offering,
and the classification by Tax Protestors of Citizens into
18
different categories, when benefits are being accepted by all
Citizens regardless of classification, is baneful. [525]
[525]============================================================
The word CITIZEN appears four times in the 14th Amendment; some
are in reference to Citizens of the United States, and others are
in reference to Citizens of the several States. There is a
Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment pertaining to the
benefits [a RIGHT is also frequently a benefit] enjoyed by
Citizens of the States in relationship to the benefits enjoyed by
Citizens of other States. Called the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE, this Clause has generated a large volume of Authors.
See:
- THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE
SEVERAL STATES, 1 Michigan Law Review 286 (1902);
- Roger Howell in CITIZENSHIP - THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF STATE CITIZENSHIP [John Hopkins Press,
Baltimore (1918)];
- Arnold J. Lien in PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS
[Columbia University Press, New York (1913)].
============================================================[525]
Claiming that you are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a PREAMBLE CITIZEN
with a special reciprocity exempt status to avoid that irritating
QUID PRO QUO ("something for something") payment of an
unreasonable enscrewment oriented Income Tax, is foolishness, and
you are not entitled to prevail under any circumstances before a
Federal Judge. [526]
[526]============================================================
Another line of foolishness some folks propagate is that, just
somehow, there is a relationship in effect between Social
Security and legal liability for the National Military Draft. In
propagating this line, these people suggest the view that Draft
Protestors are burning the wrong card, that is, that Draft
Resisters should be burning their Social Security Card. This
line of reasoning is defective, as the United States has been
successfully drafting Citizens into military service in World War
I, long before FDR's Rockefeller Cartel sponsors in New York City
presented the wealth transfer grab of Social Security to America
through their imp nominees in Washington in the 1930's; just like
the United States had been successfully collecting taxes on
Income during the Civil War, before the 14th or 16th Amendments
ever made their appearance. See the SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245
U.S. 366 (1917), for rulings on Draft Protestors in World War I.
And speaking of the draft, there is nothing immoral about the
draft, either. Reason: There is a very reasonable and even QUID
PRO QUO exchange of reciprocity going on that the Draft
19
Protestors don't see. If you examine the benefits American
Citizens accept above, one of them is "the protection of the
United States Marshals." Since the King is risking the physical
security of his bouncers to protect you [yes, and unlike your
local Police Department, the Marshals will not snort at you when
you request their security benefits], then would someone please
explain to me what is unreasonable about the King asking in
return for the male Citizenry to risk their physical security to
protect the King's kingdom?
"The very conception of a just Government and its duty to
the Citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the Citizen to
render military service in case of need and the right to compel
it."
- SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245 U.S. 366, at 378 (1917).
The reason why the obligation is reciprocal is because the King
is first offering to you the protectorate services of his
bouncers. The reciprocal and contractual nature of Citizenship
is recognized in Congress as such. When debates on the proposed
14th Amendment transpired in the Senate, Senator Trumbull stated
his understanding that:
"This Government ... has certainly some power to protect its
own Citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are
reciprocal rights."
- CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, at
page 1757 (1866).
============================================================[526]
The reason why self-proclaimed PREAMBLE CITIZENS and COMMON LAW
CITIZENS, so called, are properly burdened with the heavy QUID
PRO QUO reciprocity of the Income Tax is that all Citizens accept
and enjoy the protectorate benefits previously discussed that the
King is offering, so all Citizens accept Federal benefits. Yes,
Citizens under the 14th Amendment have additional contracts in
effect (stemming from the additional benefits that the 14th
Amendment offers), that they need to concern themselves with --
but all Citizens accept those other Federal benefits as well, and
so all Citizens are operating under the King's Equity
Jurisdiction of the United States, and are appropriate objects
for the assertion of a regulatory and taxation environment over,
through contract terms. [527].
[527]============================================================
This is not exactly the type of a talk a Tax Protestor wants to
hear, but there are many folks operating on Protestor caliber who
arrive at similar defective conclusions of law that their
philosophy is beckoning to hear.
20
============================================================[527]
I would advise you to terminate your reliance on information
originating from people who lace excessive priority attention on
the 14th Amendment Citizenship question, as their stand-alone
arguments are without any merit whatsoever for purposes of
detaching yourself away from Federal Taxation liability. [528]
[528]============================================================
"Citizens are members of the political community to which they
belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who,
in the associated capacity, have established or submitted
themselves to the dominion of a Government for the promotion of
their general welfare and the protection of their individual, as
well as their collective rights. In the formation of a
Government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they
choose. The Government, when so formed, may, and when called
upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of
the rights of its Citizens and the people within its
jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a
Government to afford protection is limited always by the power it
possesses for that purpose."
- UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
============================================================[528]
Above, I listed some of the benefits that all Citizens of the
United States enjoy; and this is important since Federal Judges
always view things from a "What benefit has this fellow
accepted?" attitude. [529]
[529]============================================================
"Income taxes are a recognized method of distributing the burdens
of Government, favored because requiring contributions from those
who realize current pecuniary benefits under the protection of
the Government, and because the tax may be proportioned to their
ability to pay."
- SHAFFER v. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 51 (1919).
============================================================[529]
But just where does the King and the Federal Judges get off with
the idea that Citizenship, all by itself, attaches liability to
Title 26? Nowhere in Title 26 is there any concise discussion
about how Citizens are those Persons identified in Section 7203
("Willful Failure to File") as being one of "all persons who are
required to file ..." [530]
[530]============================================================
21
Although there are 115 Sections of LEX where the root word
CITIZEN appears in Title 26, when considered as a whole they only
inferentially suggest that the CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT is the
primary center of gravity for federal taxation liability
attachment purposes. For example, some of these are:
- Section 63 ["Taxable Income Defined"];
- Section 303 ["Distributions in redemption of stock to
pay death taxes"];
- Section 407 ["Certain employees of domestic
subsidiaries engaged in business outside the United
States"];
- Section 861 ["Income from sources within the United
States"];
- Section 864 ["Definitions"];
- Section 871 ["Tax on nonresident alien individuals"];
- Section 872 ["Gross Income"];
- Section 883 ["Exclusions from gross income"];
- Section 906 ["Nonresident alien individuals and foreign
corporations"];
- Section 911 ["Citizens or residents of the United
States living abroad"];
- Section 932 ["Citizens of possessions of the United
States"];
- Section 933 ["Income from sources within Puerto Rico"];
- Section 1302 ["Definition of averagable income"];
- Section 1444 ["Withholding on Virgin Islands source
income"];
- Section 1491 ["Imposition of tax"];
- Section 2002 ["Liability for payment"];
- Section 2037 ["Transfers taking effect at death"];
- Section 2039 ["Annuities"];
- Section 2045 ["Prior interests"];
- Section 2053 ["Expenses, indebtedness, and taxes"];
- Section 2101 ["Tax imposed"];
- Section 2104 ["Property within the United States"];
- Section 2107 ["Expatriation to avoid tax"];
- Section 2208 ["Certain residents of possessions
considered Citizens of the United States"];
- Section 3121(e) ["State, United States, and Citizens"];
- Section 6854 ["Failure by individual to pay estimated
income tax"];
- Section 7325 ["Personal property valued at $2,500 or
less"];
- Section 7408 ["Action to enjoin promoters of abusive
tax shelters ..."];
See also Title 42:
- Section 410 ["Definitions relating to employment"];
- Section 411 ["Definitions relating to self-
employment"];
- Section 8143 ["Definitions"].
22
============================================================[530]
So just where do Federal Judges get the idea that Citizens are
PERSONS under contract, suitable for a smooth Federal taxation
shake down? [531]
[531]============================================================
For purposes of collecting an ESTATE TAX, the statutes in Title
26 are blunt and clear that CITIZENS must pay:
"A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable
estate of every decedent who is a Citizen or resident of the
United States."
- Title 26, Section 2001 ["Imposition and Rate of Tax"].
============================================================[531]
The answer lies by probing a level deeper into the King's
statutes, into an area Patriots and Tax Protestors do not seem to
be pursuing that much: Into the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,
which operate as junior statutes. [532]
[532]============================================================
The Code is divided into 50 titles or PARTS, which do not always
correlate to statutory Titles. For example, Title 26 UNITED
STATES CODE pertains to TAXATION, and the corresponding Part of
CFR that also pertains to TAXATION is Volume 26; however, Title
50 UNITED STATES CODE deals with WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, while
CFR Part 50 deals with WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES.
============================================================[532]
The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is a codification of the general
and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the
Executive Department and by agencies of the United States. The
Code is very powerful indeed (remember to always think like a
Federal Judge momentarily for analytical purposes, so you don't
react like a surprised clown when dragged into their courtroom on
a grievance with someone), and the contents of the Code of
Federal Regulations (like it's father, the Federal Register) are
required to be judicially noticed. [533]
[533]============================================================
44 United States Code 1507.
============================================================[533]
And the Code of Federal Regulations is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
of the text of the original documents. [534]
23
[534]============================================================
44 United States Code 1510.
============================================================[534]
This CFR is republished once each year, so the following
quotations, extracted from the 1985 edition, may have been
altered in future editions. With that in mind, consider the
following words from the CFR:
"In general, all Citizens of the United States, wherever
resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the
income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received
from sources within or without the United States ...
"Every person born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to its jurisdiction is a Citizen." [535]
[535]============================================================
26 CFR 1.0-1(b) and 1.0-1(c); (1985).
============================================================[535]
So you see for Citizens IN GENERAL, Federal Judges have already
quietly taken Judicial Notice of the fact that your Citizenship
is an invisible contract to pay Income Taxes -- but what if you
are not a Citizen GENERALLY speaking [meaning, like everyone
else, by their silence they have accepted Citizenship benefits].
By having vacated the factual record of any benefits having been
accepted, by striping the factual record of any QUID PRO QUO of
equivalence exchanged, that factual setting is no longer GENERAL
and ordinary, now it is SPECIAL and extraordinary, where if the
King makes any revenue collection attempt, you have him worked
into an immoral position. Yes, Citizenship is a contract in the
classical sense, since benefits offered conditionally were
accepted, and where expectations of reciprocity were retained by
the benefit contributor -- it's all there. [536]
[536]============================================================
What we view as Citizenship DUTIES are, when view from the King's
perspective, his expectations of reciprocity. A private
commentator once expressed some ideas regarding the "sale" of the
duties of Citizenship to other parties, by asking the question:
Should Citizens be able to contract out to others their required
reciprocal services?
Under the concept of inalienable duties [INALIENABLE meaning that
they cannot be transferred], Government requires certain actions
of its Citizens and forbids the transfer of these duties to
others. For example, calls for Voters, Jury Service, and
Military Enlistment are based on the invisible contract
24
attachment of Citizenship, and are, at the present time,
inalienable.
VOTERS: In some foreign countries, like Australia, voting
liability cannot be transferred to others -- but is mandatory
under fines [see H. Emy in THE POLITICS OF AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY:
FUNDAMENTALS IN DISPUTE, at page 596 et seq. (2nd Edition,
1978)]. In a sense, Government has set a price for not voting;
so theoretically, by inverse reasoning, Citizens should also be
able to set a price and buy their way out of not voting by
selling their right to others [there is not a lot of difference
between paying Government not to vote and paying someone else to
vote on your behalf].
SOLDIERS AND JURORS: The arguments for selling jury duty is
slightly different because the higher standards necessarily
exclude many Citizens from serving, but even the qualified sale
of a call to serve on a jury is appropriate for private
negotiation. Military enlistment in the United States was once
up for sale, i.e., the draft was an ALIENABLE [transferable]
duty. During the United States Civil War, draftees for both the
North and the South could buy their way out of the draft, or buy
a substitute; so the net effect was a military infantry
consisting of a volunteer army financed by wealthy draftees
instead of Taxpayers. While soldiers may have ended up being
paid the opportunity cost of enlistment, the Government is
planning its military activity was not required to take these
opportunity costs into account. The reason why this interesting
system broke down is because in the North, several municipalities
and States intervened by appropriating money to enable destitute
folks to buy their way out and then began to pay bounties to
enlistees. In the South, the purchase of substitutes was heavily
criticized and was abolished soon after it was begun, as the
howling of UNFAIRNESS ascended into Legislatures [see E. Murdock
in PATRIOTISM LIMITED: 1862-1854: THE CIVIL WAR DRAFT AND THE
BOUNTY SYSTEM (1967)]. See generally INALIENABILITY AND THE
THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ["Inalienability and Citizenship"], 85
Columbia Law Review 931, at 961 (1985).
============================================================[536]
The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is also another source of
identifying handouts and benefits offered to Citizens. [537]
[537]============================================================
I have decided to list each of the PARTS of the 1985 CODE OF
FEDERAL REGULATIONS, since in this way a quick glimpse starts to
uncover the wide-ranging extent of impressive Federal Benefits
that Federal Judges have had all neatly tied up in a bundle and
handed to them in that BENCH BOOK of theirs:
- Part 1: General Provisions;
- Part 2: General Provisions;
25
- Part 3: The President -- Proclamations, Executive
Orders;
- Part 4: General Accounting Office;
- Part 5: Federal Administrative Personnel;
- Part 6: [Reserved];
- Part 7: Agriculture -- price supports, inspections,
counseling benefits;
- Part 8: Aliens and Nationality [Citizenship];
- Part 9: Animal and Animal Products, Plant and Health
inspections;
- Part 10: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
- Part 11: Federal Elections;
- Part 12: Banks/Banking -- FDIC, Import-Export Bank and
other handouts to looters;
- Part 13: Business Credit & Assistance -- SBA, Economic
Development Administration;
- Part 14: FAA, Aviation, Department of Transportation;
- Part 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade;
- Part 16: Federal Trade Commission -- Regulatory
intervention on behalf of consumers;
- Part 17: Commodities and Securities Exchanges --
Regulatory intervention;
- Part 18: Conservation of Power and Water Resources --
Federal Regulatory Commission,
Department of Energy;
- Part 19: Customs, Duties -- United States Customs
Service;
- Part 20: Food and Drug -- FDA and related inspections;
- Part 21: Employee's Benefits -- Railroad Retirement
Board, Office of Workman's Compensation;
- Part 22: Foreign Relations -- United States
International Development Cooperation Agency
and related pipelines to looters;
- Part 23: Highways -- Federal Highway Administration;
- Part 24: Housing and Urban Development;
- Part 25: Indians -- Bureau of Indian Affairs; grants
and counseling;
- Part 26: Internal Revenue;
- Part 27: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- regulatory
intervention;
- Part 28: Judicial Administration -- Federal Prisons
(concentration camps);
- Part 29: Department of Labor -- grants and handouts;
- Part 30: Mineral Resources -- Mine Safety regulations
-- Inspections;
- Part 31: Money and Finance -- Treasury;
- Part 32: National Defense -- Contract administration;
- Part 33: Marine Navigation & Navigable Waters;
- Part 34: Education -- Grants to colleges, bilingual
education, vocational training;
- Part 35: Panama Canal;
- Part 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Lands;
- Part 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights;
- Part 38: Pensions, Bonuses, Veteran's benefits --
26
Veteran's Administration;
- Part 39: Postal Service;
- Part 40: Environmental Protection regulatory matters;
- Part 41: Public Contracts and Property Management;
- Part 42: Public Health -- Health care grants, Hospital
enrichment;
- Part 43: Public Land and Interiors -- Secretary of the
Interior, related infrastructure;
- Part 44: Federal Emergency Management Agency (a
Gremlin's dream come true);
- Part 45: Public Welfare -- Office of Family Assistance
and Child Support;
- Part 46: Shipping -- Coast Guard Services;
- Part 47: Telecommunications -- FCC regulatory
intervention;
- Part 48: Federal Acquisition Regulatory System --
Federal Procurement;
- Part 49: Transportation;
- Part 50: Wildlife and Fisheries -- Department of the
Interior -- fishing, hunting in National
Forests, wildlife management.
============================================================[537]
And the Judicial Notice, taken quietly IN CAMERA, that the
Citizenship Contract is the contract being operated on, is never
pronounced publicly in an open courtroom forum. Does that last
sentence I quoted from the CFR about how every person born or
naturalized in the United States seem familiar to you? It
should, because it comes straight out of the 14th Amendment, with
only one word being changed. And read it carefully, as there is
admitted a class of individuals, here residing in the United
States as a matter of birthright, who might not be subject to the
total jurisdiction of the United States Government. [538]
[538]============================================================
"... the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" relates to time of
birth, and one not owing allegiance at birth cannot become a
Citizen save by subsequent naturalization, individually or
collectively. The words do not mean merely geographical
location, but 'completely subject to the political
jurisdiction'."
- ELK v. WILINS, 112 U.S. 94, at 102 (1884).
============================================================[538]
Who are those individuals? For starters, they are those
Individuals who don't accept any benefits or handouts from the
King. [[539]
[539]============================================================
27
The most predominate ways that an individual can become subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States is by:
1. Violating a law the Government is authorized to
prosecute (counterfeiting, bank robbery, treason,
etc.);
2. Be employed by the Federal Government;
3. Apply for its privileges, or accept its benefits;
See generally:
- John H. Hughes in THE AMERICAN CITIZEN -- HIS RIGHTS
AND DUTIES [Pudney & Russell, New York (1857)];
- Luella Gettys in THE LAW OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED
STATES [University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1934)];
- Albert Brill in TEN LECTURES ON CITIZENSHIP [Ascendancy
Foundation, New York (1938)];
- David Josiah Brewer in YALE LECTURES ON THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF CITIZENSHIP -- OBLIGATIONS OF
CITIZENS [C. Scribner's Sons, New York (1907)];
- Imp Charles Beard in AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP [MacMillian,
New York (1921)];
- Editors, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP "Rights and Duties
of an American" [American Heritage Foundation, New York
(1948)];
- Nathan S. Shaler in CITIZENSHIP "The Citizen -- A Study
of the Individual and the Government" [A.S. Barnes &
Company, New York (1904)];
- Melvin Risa in CITIZENSHIP "Theories on the Obligations
of Citizens to the State," Thesis, [University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1921)];
- Ansaldo Ceba in CITIZENSHIP "Rights, Duties, and
Privileges of Citizens" [Paine & Burgess, New York
(1845)].
============================================================[539]
Despite the fact that I say a few isolated nice things about
Federal Judges (with the applicability of my favorable comments
being restricted to just a few limited grievance factual settings
Federal Judges preside over), I am unable to recall any Federal
Case that correctly talks about Citizenship as the pure, raw
contract that it very much is; yet it's all there in Citizenship,
all of the indicia that composes a contract: Benefits offered,
as well as their acceptance, reciprocity expected back in return,
28
and all this all written out in advance in specific and blunt
terms in Federal Statutes. [540]
[540]============================================================
Yes, benefits are the key to lock yourself into state and federal
taxation webs:
"... it is essential in each case that there be some act by
which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege
of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking
the benefits and protections of its laws."
- HANSEN v. DENCKLA, 357 U.S. 235, at 253 (1957); [A
state taxation jurisdiction question Case].
============================================================[540]
Why then does the Supreme Court not correctly address Citizenship
as the contract that it really is? I don't know why, precisely;
I could conjecture that they do not want to publish an exemplary
Case, explaining in the context of a specific factual setting,
how an Individual can get himself out of the contract containing
taxation reciprocity covenants. But I don't really care,
either; whatever information the Federal Judiciary is deficient
in elucidating regarding identifying Citizenship as the invisible
contract that it is, I can get from other sources, even
ecclesiastical sources, and then retrofit it interstitially to
uncover the real meaning of obscure Judicial reasoning:
"An old principle, laid down from the earliest ages of
British jurisprudence, from which we receive our national
institutions, is that allegiance is that ligament or thread which
bonds the subject to the sovereign, by an implied contract, owes,
in turn, protection to the subject; and the very moment that the
Government withholds its protection, that very moment allegiance
ceases." [541]
[541]============================================================
George A. Smith, from a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle,
Salt Lake City, on November 29, 1857; 6 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 84,
at 85 (London, 1859).
============================================================[541]
Yes, Citizenship is very much a contract, and Federal Judges
generally think in contract terms when dealing with a Tax or
Draft Protestor. [542]
[542]============================================================
I am not aware of any Federal statute anywhere that comes right
out in the open and explicitly correlates the benefits of
29
Citizenship with the reciprocal duties and liabilities all
participants in that contract encumber themselves with; however,
on a parallel tangent, but there is an interesting slice of LEX
in the Civil Rights Statutes which announces a similar theme of
benefits and duties, which I mentioned in two fragments:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States
shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make
and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to
the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the
security of persons and property as is enjoyed by White Citizens,
and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes,
licenses, and exactions of every kind, and no other."
- Title 42, Section 1981 ["Civil Rights"] (enacted May,
1870).
Multiple Tax Protestors have taken notice of this statute, and
have used it to try and argue that this Section 1981 conveys
jurisdiction to Federal District Courts for hearing PROTESTING
grievances arising out of Title 26; for example, see the
jurisdictional arguments in:
- SNYDER v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 240 (1984);
- CAMERON v. IRS, 593 F.Supp 1540 (1984) [appeal
published in 773 F.2nd 126 (1985)];
- YOUNG v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141 (1984).
Title 26 was deliberately designed by its draftsmen in Congress
to convey only that thin, tiny, minimum sliver of jurisdiction to
Federal District Courts that was necessary to hear grievances
initiated by the King's Agents, seeking the enforcement of taxes,
penalties, assessments, injunctions, summonses, etc.; Title 26
does not offer, and was not intended to offer, a good source of
statutes invoking Federal District Court jurisdiction to either
abate or remedy the naked Torts or contractual errors of IRS
termites. Tax Protestors might want to emulate the MODUS
OPERANDI of Federal Judges when dealing with a Title 26 related
grievance, and invoke the 16th Amendment as a source of
jurisdiction for their District Court Kingdom, which Federal
Judges quietly do [nowhere in the 16th Amendment do the words
JURISDICTION, DISTRICT COURT, or CONVEY appear anywhere, but
pesky little deficiency impediments like that are not about to
stop Federal Judges].
============================================================[542]
Citizenship is probably the single most important contract that
you need to come to grips with, as Citizens are suitable objects
to assert both a taxation and regulation jurisdiction over, and
properly so as a matter of Law; however, we all have
philosophical disagreements on some of the bitter terms this
30
particular Regulatory Jurisdiction contract calls for. With your
severance of the reciprocity liability that is associated with
Citizenship, a large amount of the friction relating to your
confrontations with Government will evaporate overnight -- but
your Citizenship contract is not the only exclusive contract you
need to concern yourself with; and be mindful that Citizenship,
or any other type of political status, is not relevant or
necessary in those types of criminal prosecutions that are
predicated on either Tort or special contract (like Highways).
So just where is the bottom line here to detach yourself away
from those adhesive statutes in Title 26? [543]
[543]============================================================
Your right to walk away from the Citizenship Contract, any time
you feel like it, is absolute [see 9 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL 356 ["Right of Expatriation"] (1859)], and you don't need
to follow Federal Statutes on Expatriation (the King wants all
pesky little tax avoidance oriented expatriators to physically
leave the United States, and then surrender their Passport to a
foreign consular office [meaning that you will be prevented from
re-entering the United States]; see Title 26, Section 2107 and
the Expatriation statutes in the King's Title 8 LEX). Meanwhile,
the King has no right in his statutes to force the unwanted
acceptance of juristic benefits, and silence in his statutes on
administrative procedures to go through to explicitly disavow
such benefits does not vitiate or negate this standing right of
rejection.
"There is a principle or theory in nations of Europe that if
allowed to be enforced [here in the United States] destroys the
quality of absolute American Citizenship. There is not a
civilized nation that does not in some form recognize the right
of a person to change his domicile or expatriate himself. The
doctrine of perpetual allegiance is derived from the Dark Ages,
the time when Governments were maintained for the benefit of
rulers and not for the people. Sovereigns were everything;
subjects were nothing."
- Congressman Norman Judd of Illinois on the Floor of the
House of Representatives, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 40th
Congress, 2nd Session, page 7 (December 2, 1867).
Just as pig Sovereigns in the Dark Ages demanded that Citizens
could not walk away from allegiance to his kingdom for any
reason, so too by corollary, should Federal Judges start to deem
the acceptance of Federal benefits as being mandatory and non-
waivable, then our reciprocation will be on terms our Founding
Fathers taught us so well: The kind of terms that leave a
lingering scent of nitrates in the air downwind from the Federal
Buildings where they all went to work synchronously.
============================================================[543]
31
If that is your objective, then you have to effectuate a pure
severance of yourself away from the King's Equity Jurisdiction,
and not just a partial severance. No, you don't get to
selectively pick and choose just what Federal benefits you want
and don't want. This Citizenship is one of the larger slices
that constitutes the Title 26 liability pie, and once Federal
Judges have quietly taken Judicial Notice of your Citizenship,
they generally then and there stop looking for other contracts to
nail on you, when ruling over civil Income Tax grievances. [544]
[544]============================================================
If in fact Citizenship is the dominate invisible contract that
Federal Judges are using as BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE justification to
adhesively hold the LEX of Title 26 to folks -- then there
necessarily rises to our attention another question. In 1939,
Congress enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT, designed to waive the
benefits inuring to Federal Employees of a long-standing doctrine
in the United States Supreme Court that prohibits the taxation of
Federal instrumentalities by the several States, and VICE-VERSA -
- called the INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE.
"What limitations does the Federal Constitution impose upon
the United States in respect of taxing instrumentalities and
agencies employed by a State and, conversely, how far does it
inhibit the States from taxing instrumentalities and agencies
utilized by the United States, are questions often considered
here. [Cases deleted].
"The Constitution contemplates a national Government free to
use its delegated powers; also state Governments capable of
exercising their essential reserved powers; both operate within
the same territorial limits; consequently the Constitution
itself, either by word or necessary inference, makes adequate
provision for preventing conflict between them.
"Among the inferences which derive necessarily from the
Constitution are these: No State may tax appropriate means which
the United States may employ for exercising their delegated
powers; the United States may not tax instrumentalities which a
State may employ in the discharge of her essential governmental
duties -- that is, those duties which the Framers intended each
member of the Union would assume in order adequately to function
under the form of Government guaranteed by the Constitution."
- HELVERING v. THERRELL, 303 U.S. 218, at 222 (1937).
The Constitution nowhere states that the Congress is barred from
taxing State Employees, or that the States are barred from taxing
Federal Employees; yet the Supreme Court held in COLLECTOR v.
DAY that the salary of a State Officer is immune from Federal
income taxation:
32
"That the taxing power of the Federal Government is
nevertheless subject to an implied restriction when applied to
State instrumentalities was first decided in COLLECTOR v. DAY,
11 Wallace 113, where the salary of a state officer, a probate
judge, was held to be immune from Federal income tax. The
question there presented was not one of interference with a
granted power in a field in which the Federal Government is
supreme, but a limitation by implication upon the granted Federal
power to tax."
- HELVERING v. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 414 (1937).
So even though Federal Employees cannot be taxed under this
immunity doctrine, the Congress enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT
to waive the immunity its employees would otherwise enjoy; The
Congress wanted to make sure that their help was paying the
freight like everyone else:
"Federal Employees ... too, should contribute to the support
o their State and local Governments to the same extent as private
Employees ... Employees of Governments receive all the benefits
of Government which their fellow Citizens do, and consequently
they should also bear their fair share of its costs."
- SENATE REPORT #112 ["Public Salary Tax Act"], 76th
Congress, First Session, at 4 (February, 1939).
And perhaps the Congress was also expecting some reciprocity back
in return from the States:
"The statute construed in COLLECTOR v. DAY afforded no
reciprocal right to the States to tax the salaries of Federal
Employees. In this respect, it might be said to be
discriminatory against the States. The proposed legislation does
permit the States to tax Federal Salaries."
- SENATE REPORT #112 ["Public Salary Tax Act"], 76th
Congress, First Session, at 8 (February, 1939).
After it was enacted, this PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT read that:
"The United States consents to the taxation of pay or
compensation for personal service as an office or employee of the
United States ..."
- Title 4, Section 111 ["Public Salary Tax Act"] (revised
September, 1966).
Tax Protestors reading this statute from the perspective that
only Federal Employees are PERSONS liable for the Title 26 tax
are in error. This Act only means that INTERGOVERNMENTAL
IMMUNITY is waived and that the States can tax the salaries of
Federal Employees, and no more. But where did the Congress
initially become so disabled from taxing State employees?
33
"The Constitution contains no express limitation on the
power of either a State or the national Government to tax the
other, or its instrumentalities. The doctrine that there is an
implied limitation stems from MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND [4 Wheat
316], in which it was held that a State tax laid specifically
upon the privilege of issuing bank notes, and in fact applicable
alone to the notes of national banks, was invalid since it
impeded the national Government in the exercise of its power to
establish and maintain a bank, implied as an incident to the
borrowing, taxing, war, and other powers specifically granted to
the national Government by Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution."
- HELVERING v. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 (1937).
[That's right, you FEDERAL RESERVE PROTESTORS out there: Your
arguments on the unConstitutionality of the Federal Reserve
System and its circulating notes, based on the monetary
disabilities present in Article 1, Sections 8 and 10, even though
factually correct of and by themselves, are only a very small
part of the larger jurisdictional pie our King has to justify his
juristic banking creations. I would like to see a Protestor try
and argue the unConstitutionality of the Fed based on the full
panoply of its sources of jurisdictional fuel: The BORROWING
POWER to contract for debts, the WAR POWERS to defend the United
States, the TAXATION POWERS resident in Article 1, Section 8, and
the regulation of COMMERCE POWER also in Article 1, Section 8,
etc. You Protestors can't do that as there are no countermanding
arguments for some of those sources of jurisdictional fuel, and
so now the end result is exactly what Federal Judges correctly
rule to be so down to the present day: That the Federal Reserve
System, Gremlins and all, is in fact Constitutional.]
QUESTION: So, if Citizenship is the contract operated on by
Federal Judges, then why will Federal Judges simply not refer
over to the Citizenship contract as overruling justification to
tax Governmental Employees?
The Answer lies in the fact that CITIZENSHIP is an implied
contract created and structured largely by statutory devices; as
an implied contract [meaning not expressly negotiated and
individually written down], Citizenship can only fill the vacant
contours that are left open by other premier boundary line
restrainments of a higher priority. Here we have a fundamental
intergovernmental immunity doctrine related to that granddaddy
itself: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Under this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
IMMUNITY DOCTRINE, Federal and State instrumentalities are pre-
emptively disabled from even asking for any taxation reciprocity
back in return from each other -- even though Federal juristic
benefits were accepted by a state employee in COLLECTOR v. DAY,
and an implied taxation contract was in effect. Remember that
the Congress is operating on a limited profiled slice of multiple
jurisdictional assignments; the Congress is pre-emptively
34
disabled from pulling off many things in the BILL OF RIGHTS that
requires either a Commercial Contract or individually negotiated
contract consent to overrule. The Corpus of the Constitution
also pre-emptively disables the Congress from asking for taxation
reciprocity back in return for important Commercial benefits
accepted in Article 1, Section 9 ["No Tax or Duty shall be laid
on Articles exported from any State"], even though those articles
destined for foreign nations were very much the product of
otherwise taxable INTERSTATE COMMERCE. The right of taxation,
where it does exist, is necessarily unlimited in its nature:
"... the right of taxation, where it exists, is necessarily
unlimited in its nature."
- MCCRAY v. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, at 57 (1903).
But as unlimited as it is in some areas, the right of taxation
does not exist everywhere; [EVANS v. GORE mentions the existence
of a class of "... excepted subjects," 253 U.S. 245, at 261
(1920)] -- so not everyone to whom benefits are thrown at are
automatically liable for the reciprocating financial payments of
taxation; in some cases Government is pre-emptively barred from
asking for benefit reciprocity, and implied contracts take a back
seat to overruling restrainments such as INTERGOVERNMENTAL
IMMUNITY.
This Taxation Immunity Doctrine is Judicially created, and
Judges, as the individuals that they are, frequent do possess
views diverging from the expected conformal median. Question:
Are there some Judges who would like to merely cite national
CITIZENSHIP as THE justifying taxation contract, and ignore
Immunity Doctrines? Yes, there are:
"... respondents, though Employees of the New York Port
Authority, are Citizens of the United States; the tax levied upon
their incomes from the Authority is the same as that paid by
other Citizens receiving equal net incomes; and payment of this
non-discriminatory income tax by respondents cannot impair or
defeat in whole or in part the governmental operations of the
State of New York. A Citizen who receives his income from a
State, owes the same obligation to the United States as other
Citizens who draw their salaries from private sources or the
United States and pay Federal income taxes."
- HELVERING v. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 424 [Justice
Black concurring] (1937).
The same difficulty in assigning values to competing
differentials in contract priority, that some Patriots will have
to come to grips with the strong relevance of national
CITIZENSHIP for taxation purposes when not otherwise disabled,
but not quite strong enough to pierce this State Employee
immunity veil, is exemplary of the same judgment we all confront
daily while we too, just like the Supreme Court, apply the
35
relevance of our Celestial Covenants to a wide ranging array of
factual settings that make their appearance in our lives. And
those factual settings also present to us a competing confluence
of incentives, to which we respond with differential levels of
perceived Covenant importance.
============================================================[544]
Your successful severance of liability away from the
administrative mandates of Title 26 requires a thorough
decontamination of yourself away from the contract of Citizenship
and all Commercial contracts. Yes, you can be an alien from some
foreign jurisdiction, you can be a Russian Native who never left
Russia or set foot in the United States, and still have a
liability to produce administrative conformance with Title 26.
[545]
[545]============================================================
Aliens from foreign political jurisdictions, who do not reside in
the United States and accept no political or protectorate
benefits from the United States, are still very much liable to be
bound by Title 26, if they experience any Commercial enrichment
over here. See EMILY DE GANAY v. LEDERER, 250 U.S. 376 (1919).
[A French Citizen and French resident very much owes equity
participation income taxes to the United States, because she
experience Commercial enrichment over here when she deals in debt
instruments such as mortgages, corporate paper, and securities.]
See also similar reasoning in COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1923)
[non-resident aliens who participate in American Commerce are
subject to the American Income Tax and Citizens residing abroad
are liable to pay the Income Tax]. The requirement for American
Citizens who live abroad and, seemingly, do not enjoy any
benefits of an American origin, to pay Income Taxes has irritated
a lot of folks -- see THE FOREIGN EARNED INCOME ACT OF 1978: NON-
BENEFITS FOR NONRESIDENTS, Editor's Note, 13 Cornell
International Law Journal 105, at 107 (1980) -- but latent
overseas benefits are actually being offered and accepted by
American Citizens who travel over there [the benefit to call upon
the local diplomatic consular offices for protectorate
assistance, and in Title 22, Section 1732, there lies a statute
which lays upon the President of the United States a specific
duty to intervene on your behalf whenever American Citizens have
been incarcerated by foreign jurisdictions. Although those
benefits might not seem worth such an extravagant percentage
demanded of your income, year in and year out without any letup
or impending relief, the value of those benefits to you is a
business judgment you need to make, and is not a question that
should be entertained by a Federal Judge after you have decided
to accept those benefits -- benefits that are considered to have
been accepted by your silence [as I will discuss in the next
section Federal Reserve Notes].
============================================================[545]
36
The idea of using the King's Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship a
the point of adhesion to tax individuals goes far back into
antiquity. [546]
[546]============================================================
The jurisdictional basis of Citizenship to tax is one of the
oldest juristic Principles that there is in law. See Edwin
Seligman, in ESSAYS ON TAXATION ["Double Taxation"], page 111
[MacMillian Company, New York (1928); 9th Edition].
============================================================[546]
In the old days of 1913, our Fathers came right out in the open
and declared for all to see that Citizens were taxable objects.
[547]
[547]============================================================
"... that there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid
annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all
sources in the preceding calendar year to every Citizen of the
United States, whether residing at home or abroad ..."
- THE REVENUE ACT OF 1913, chapter 16, Section IIA
(1913).
============================================================[547]
The decision that was made in 1913 to lay the tax on the
attachment of the King's Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship was
made apparently intuitively and without much debate. [548]
[548]============================================================
Surrey reviews this in his article entitled CURRENT ISSUES IN THE
TAXATION OF CORPORATE FOREIGN INCOME, 56 Columbia Law Review 815,
at 817 (1956).
============================================================[548]
The purpose of broadening the number of objects subject to
federal taxation, away from exclusively constituting only
participants in King's Commerce, over to the larger group of
Citizenry, was declared to be performed only with the noblest of
intentions, [549]
[549]============================================================
"Its purpose was to raise revenue on the basis of each Citizen's
ability to pay as opposed to the past practice of taxing the
individual on the basis of consumption."
37
- See HOUSE REPORT NUMBER 5, 63rd Congress, First
Session, 1 (1913).
============================================================[549]
but the true objective then is the same objective which sustains
the continuance of the Income Tax down to the present time: To
perfect Bolshevik enscrewment. [550]
[550]============================================================
Gremlins typically operate by mildly asking for just one more
turn of the screws; information propagated around Congress in
1909 (when the proposed 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress
and sent to the States), and thence propagated around the States,
was that the American Income Tax during the Civil War and in 1894
was only a tiny 3% to 7%, and it only affected the very rich, so
the passage of this technical little Amendment isn't anything you
legislators need to concern yourselves with. Our fathers back
then fell for that line, just as most folks would again fall for
it all over again today, never bothering to see the latent error
in yielding to Gremlins even one tiny bit:
[Speaking in the context of a Celestial Principle]:
"The old fable which Aesop tells of the woodsman who went
into the forest to get a handle for his axe describes accurately
the position in which we find ourselves. The woodsman went and
consulted with the trees of the forest, asking them to give him a
handle for his axe. The other trees, the stronger ones,
arrogating [means to "claim as one's own"] to themselves
authority and ignoring the rights of others, thought that they
could dispose of the smaller trees as they pleased. The larger
trees conferred together and decided to the grant the woodsman's
request, and so they gave to the woodsman the Ash tree. The Ash
soon fell; but the woodsman had no sooner fitted the handle to
his axe than he began upon the other trees. He did not stop with
the Ash, but he also hewed down the Oaks and the Cedars and the
great and mighty Monarchs of the forest who had surrendered in
their pride, the rights of the humble Ash. An old Oak was heard
to complain to a neighboring Cedar; "If we had not given away the
rights of the Ash we might have stood forever; but we have
surrendered to the destroyer the rights of one, and now we are
suffering from the same evil ourselves."
- Orson F. Whitney, in a discourse delivered in the
Tabernacle on April 9, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES
194, at 202 [London (1886)].
The fablest referred to, AESOP, wrote many Fables with an
instructional purpose running through them. AESOP is said to
have lived about 620 to 560 B.C., and once had a relationship
with Croesus. A Latin translation of 100 FABULAE AEOPICAE by
Renutius was published in Rome in 1476, and has since been handed
38
down the line. And what Principle applies in a Celestial setting
will always apply in a worldly setting, as our Creator did not
dispense or toss aside his Principles when he governed the
Creation of this planet architecturally; and the lesson is clear:
Those who compromise with Gremlins today will be sticking their
descendants with damages, just as we are now stuck with
unreasonable levels of taxation because our fathers once fell for
lies and yielded the first step.
============================================================[550]
Our Fathers fell for that "ability to pay" reasoning then, just
like most folks today continue to fall for that same line today.
[551]
[551]============================================================
Pathetic was the caliber of judgment that fell for this little
lie:
"For years there has been an overwhelming sentiment in this
country in favor of the income tax. The justice of such a tax is
so self-evident that few, if any, have been heard in opposition
to its enactment."
- Congressman Pepper, from Iowa, in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD for January 30, 1913, at page 5252.
============================================================[551]
Let us examine the Judicial Perspective on federal taxation under
the Citizenship Contract by way of a Case study. One such ruling
touching on the Citizenship Contract involves COOK v. TAIT,
[552]
[552]============================================================
265 U.S. 47 (1924).
============================================================[552]
where the Supreme Court ruled that income received by a Citizen
of the United States while living in Mexico is taxable due to the
benefits received while outside the United States (the old
acceptance of benefits story: When benefits that were offered
with an expectation of reciprocity back in return have been
accepted, there lies a contract and it now becomes immoral not to
require a mandatory exchange of reciprocity). The Court then
listed those benefits that American Citizens carried with them no
matter what their geographical situs was. [553]
[553]============================================================
39
Many Patriots will be quite familiar with the following widely
published words from a Supreme Court ruling called HALE v.
HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1915), which discusses the difference in
rights and duties between Corporations and Individuals:
"The individual ... owes no duty to the State, since he
receives nothing therefrom ..."
- HALE v. HENKEL, id., at 74.
Not once to this day have I ever seen a correct discussion of
what HALE v. HENKEL really means: Because it does not purport
at all to say that Individuals [human beings] are somehow exempt
from Government taxes that Corporations are required to pay
because Individuals are made of flesh and bones, and therefore,
somehow exempt from duties. Notice how the Supreme Court did not
try to distinguish between PERSON clothed with multiple layers of
juristic accoutrements lending to their very appearance a special
and suggestive flavoring to it -- and INDIVIDUALS without such
juristic accoutrements [or "liberated"]; the Supreme Court was
contrasting Corporate entities and Individuals due to the
JURISTIC PERSONALITY that benefit acceptants clothe themselves
with. Knowing what you know now about the invisible contracts
that are in effect whenever there has been an acceptance of
benefits, go back and read that line over again. Both Artificial
and Natural Persons either owe the money, or don't owe the money,
based upon their acceptance or nonacceptance of juristic
benefits, and not based upon their biological Status as human
INDIVIDUALS (or NATURAL PERSONS, as lawyers would call them). If
you do accept those juristic benefits, then you very much owe the
money, regardless of whether or not you are a human Individual
(NATURAL PERSONS) or a Corporation (an ARTIFICIAL PERSON). I
once saw a 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE prosecution conviction
appeal in California where the criminal defendant argued that he
was exempt from Income Tax Liability because he was an "absolute
individual," and not a Corporation. When I saw this argument in
this appeal brief, I felt sorry for him, as I knew he would
eventually be incarcerated; as that biological Status argument of
being a human "individual" means nothing -- in fact, actually
means less than nothing, as it operates negatively against your
credibility if there is a disputed element of law or fact in a
grey area that could have otherwise favored you. Many other
folks pushing law materials also propagate this fraudulent line
(that Title 26 does not apply to human individuals, somehow), and
they should know better: Because your natural biological Status
as an "Individual" means absolutely nothing when juristic
benefits were accepted by you: That is the seminal point of the
formation of contracts in Nature, and contracts overrule NATURAL
LAW RIGHTS arguments; if you are having trouble understanding now
the reason why contracts ascend to the elevated level of priority
in Nature like they do -- passing by all of the lower arguments
sounding in the Tort of fairness and unfairness -- then you will
understand this Principle in no uncertain term at the Last Day.
40
[I would like to see Protestors try to snicker at Father at the
Last Day, like they snicker at Judges now].
In arguing HALE v. HENKEL, Tax Protestors are correct by noting
that Corporations are very unique creatures in the Law; they are
created by Juristic Institutions, and whatever the Juristic
Institution created, it can modify, rearrange, and dissolve any
time, in any manner, and under any circumstances that it feels
like. For example, such a differential in rights surfaced in
Rhode Island once, when some judges were discussing the
relationship in effect between the right of corporations [if
RIGHT is the word] to pick and choose their own state Residency
situs:
"We do not think a foreign corporation can under any
circumstances be regarded as a RESIDENT of the state, in the
absence of any legislation recognizing it or giving it a STATUS
as such. The proper seat or "residence" of such a corporation is
the State which created it and which continues it in existence,
otherwise the corporation might have its residence in a multitude
of jurisdictions. The residence of a corporation is created for
it by an act of law, and can not be changed by act of the
corporation. A more permanent residence than that of a domestic
corporation in the State which created it can hardly be
conceived."
- ATTORNEY GENERAL v. POLICE COMMISSIONERS, 30 Rhode
Island 212, at 220 (1909).
As distinguished from Corporations, Individuals can very much
pack up and move to a new State -- whenever they feel like it; so
yes, some differences do exist in rights and duties from
Corporations to Individuals, but Individuals take upon themselves
the taxable status of Corporations whenever juristic benefits,
offered conditionally, have been accepted; under such a juristic
environment, such an INDIVIDUAL is now a PERSON, and PERSONS,
carrying the special and suggestive juristic accoutrements around
with them like they do, are in no position to start arguing for
rights or judicially created exemptions.
============================================================[553]
In another Case in 1968, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that Felix Rexach owed American income taxes by reason of his
United States Citizenship. [554]
[554]============================================================
FELIX REXACH v. UNITED STATES, 390 F.2nd 631 (1968).
============================================================[554]
41
Felix Rexach was a native born Puerto Rican, who acquired
statutory American Citizenship by virtue of the Jones Act of
1917. [555]
[555]============================================================
Title 48, Section 731, et seq.
============================================================[555]
In 1944, Felix left Puerto Rico and became a resident of the
Dominican Republic, where he remained resident until 1961.
However, in 1958 Felix executed a written renunciation of his
American Citizenship before a United States consulate official in
the Dominican Republic, pursuant to the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952. [556]
[556]============================================================
Title 8, Section 1481(c).
============================================================[556]
His renouncement of American Citizenship was accepted without any
frictional hassles by the United States, and a written
Certificate of Loss of Nationality was approved by the Department
of State. On July 26th of 1958, his desired severance away from
American Citizenship was perfected as Felix was decreed to be a
Citizen of the Dominican Republic. [557]
[557]============================================================
"Thereafter, [Felix] naturally suffered certain losses of status
and benefits as a consequence of being declared a non-resident
alien of the United States."
- REXACH, id., at 631.
See how Federal Judges are just fixated to view questions from a
BENEFITS perspective; yes BENEFITS are the Center of Gravity in
the minds of Federal Judges -- that central axis upon which
adhesive attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction have their
organic point of formation into contracts.
============================================================[557]
Felix was no ordinary fellow, as he busied himself on a large
scale by contracting activities in the Dominican Republic,
contracts obtained by associating with its ruling dictator,
Trujillo. [558]
[558]============================================================
REXACH, id., at 631.
42
============================================================[558]
But fortunes soon turned adverse for Felix when the Dictator he
was milking was assassinated in 1961. Felix suddenly decided
that American Citizenship was now desirable, and so in 1962 he
applied for reinstatement of his American Citizenship by applying
for a Passport; claiming that his 1958 renunciation was
involuntary and had been compelled against his will by reason of
physical threats and economic pressures. The United States
Consul denied his application, and on administrative appeal,
Felix's testimony was accepted, reversing the local Consul, so
his Loss of National Certificate was cancelled.
However, now things turn into an interesting direction, because
the Department of State, aware of Felix's financial resources,
notified the Internal Revenue Service that Felix was now an
American Citizen again; and so now termites in the IRS came out
of the woodwork. [559]
[559]============================================================
My characterization of the Internal Revenue Service as being
termites is an assessment of the practical effect of those agents
doing no more than trying to get people to honor their juristic
contracts with Royalty. With the Direct IN PERSONAM Taxation
grab of an Income Tax structurally designed by Gremlins to
accomplish their objectives of maximum enscrewment damages, IRS
Agents are caught in the middle of the cross fire, or as the
vernacular of the day goes, 'stuck between a rock and a hard
place'; on the one hand doing no more than the prevention of
defilement under invisible contracts, yet on the other hand they
are the visible persons responsible for so smoothly eating out
the Countryside's substance.
"There is nothing about federal and state employees as a
class which justifies depriving them or society of the benefits
of their participation in public affairs. They, like other
Citizens, pay taxes and serve their country in peace and in war.
The taxes they pay and the wars in which they fight are
determined by the elected spokesman of all people. They come
from the same homes, communities, schools, churches, and colleges
as do other Citizens. I think the Constitution guarantees to
them the same rights that other groups of good Citizens have ..."
- UNITED PUBLIC WORKS v. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, at 111
[dissenting opinion] (1948).
============================================================[559]
And so deficiency assessments were thrown at Felix for income
earned in the four intermittent years between his renunciation
and his reinstatement. Felix ignored the deficiency assessments,
and so Internal Revenue termites then threw liens on property
43
Felix owned, followed by foreclosure actions. Felix countered
against the foreclosures by throwing Petitions for Summary
Judgements of Foreclosure Dismissal at the IRS.
In his legal arguments seeking to deflect the foreclosure, Felix
reasoned that, in effect, the reciprocal benefits of Citizenship
obligation language in COOK v. TAIT [560]
[560]============================================================
265 U.S. 47 (1924).
============================================================[560]
overruled the unpleasant covenant terms his special statutory
Citizenship Contract how called for: The preclusion of Felix
from claiming, as a matter of statutory law, that he ever ceased
to be a United States Citizen. Felix argued that since the
United States had owned him no protection benefits during his
four year hiatus of alien, that therefore no reciprocal tax was
owing in return to the United States. The First Circuit
disagreed, and countered by ruling that:
"We cannot agree that the reciprocal obligations are mutual,
at least in the sense that [the] taxpayer contends." [561]
[561]============================================================
REXACH, id., at 632.
============================================================[561]
So yes, that QUID PRO QUO of reciprocity that I have been talking
about all along does have to be there, but the failure of Felix
to present a proper factual setting to the Judicial was fatal on
his part Felix reentered the stream of Citizenship under
contract, and the terms of his contract called for the
irrelevancy of his alien status, since his loss of Citizenship
was originally tax avoidance motivated. Felix admitted that he
never really ceased to be an American Citizen -- and there lies
the key to see why the First Circuit correctly ruled the way they
did. The price one pays for maneuvering one's Citizenship [and
lying to get it back] to secure self enrichment and economic
advantage, according to the First Circuit, is continued liability
for United States taxes. The obligation to pay taxes is thus
clearly applicable although the Taxpayer who has temporarily
abandoned the United States, for purposes of pursuing Commercial
enrichment, receives no reciprocal benefits from the Government.
In conclusion, most noteworthy is the last line in Rexach, as the
First Circuit said that although there is a factual setting that
could be presented to them where the lack of reciprocal benefits
would preclude the assessment of Internal Revenue taxes, the
factual elements necessary to so rule were not present here:
44
"The hypothetical [factual setting where a person rejects
benefits timely and then does not return into a King's Equity
relational status with the United States at a future time]
suggested by taxpayer during oral argument involved aspects of
estoppel on the part of the Government. Whatever may be the
merit of such cases, that element is not present here." [562]
[562]============================================================
REXACH, id., at 632.
============================================================[562]
Well, George, that DICTA was interesting, but could we see a Case
where an Individual rejects all benefits timely, and then a
Federal Court vitiated his taxing liability? No, sorry you
cannot; [563]
[563]============================================================
There is a line of Cases in the United States Supreme Court
touching on a Citizenship Naturalization question while
occasionally mentioning taxation, but even in those Cases, I am
not aware of any explicit statement that exists which
specifically attaches reciprocal taxation liability for PERSONS
holding Citizenship, nor is there any explicit indication that
Citizenship is a contract. To have folks think in terms of
contract when addressing Citizenship, would result in some folks
eventually figuring out that the underlying indicia that create
commercial contracts might also create political contracts where
Juristic Institutions are a party thereto; and so it would not be
too long before folks start figuring out that the seminal point
in all commercial contracts stand on that practical operation of
Nature taking place called CONSIDERATION, where benefits are
exchanged. And so folks, very properly, would then start to
examine the passing scene for evidence that Citizens just might
have also exchanged some unseen benefits here or there -- and
such an open examination will very much uncover such an
evidentiary array of juristic benefits accepted in a state of
silence. Exemplary of a Supreme Court ruling managing not to let
the cat out of the bag while talking about Citizenship, would the
Naturalization Case of ANGELICA SCHNEIDER v. DEAN RUSK [377 U.S
163 (1964)].
============================================================[563]
such a published ruling so favorable to us folks out here in the
countryside does not exist, and will never exist -- as I have
been saying all along, Cases presented to Federal Judges that
come even close to pure Equity severance are being sandbagged at
low levels, and you will not even be getting a hearing before the
Supreme Court. [564]
[564]============================================================
45
A Federal Judge in Texas told an acquaintance of mine that the
reason why he was not going to issue out any written ruling on a
Citizenship/tax liability question that was presented to him in a
Case was because the Judge was afraid that such an opinion "would
threaten the entire tax system" [a literal quotation]. So those
are the kind of degenerate information sequestration terms
Federal Judges think in, as they go about their work trying to
keep the lid clamped down tight on knowledge propagation -- a
pretty pathetic objective; and so now the published ruling some
folks are waiting for -- of a judicial ruling showing by example,
how step by step a person could terminate altogether his tax
liability; a ruling that would very much benefits others -- that
ruling will never make an appearance. Incidentally, notice how
Federal Judges conveniently refuse to get involved with
addressing tough questions like whether or not the claimed
underlying authenticity of Constitutional Amendments are actually
fraudulent sources of jurisdiction when used by the King as
justification to damage people -- by deferring such questions
over to "the political departments of Government"; yet twist the
factual setting around slightly to create different philosophical
incentives, and Federal Judges very quickly bend over backwards
to use such purely political concerns like aggregate revenue
questions as justification to once again avoid doing the right
thing.
============================================================[564]
Those Citizenship Cases are of interest to us as good TOUCHSTONES
indicia of Citizenship liability and of benefit acceptance in
general, but they do not meet the Refiner's Fire threshold
requirement of just what happens when Citizens simple waive and
reject all political benefits, that Model Case that so many folks
are looking for. [565]
[565]============================================================
In ancient times, the test for purity of Gold was performed with
a smooth black stone, called a Touchstone. When rubbed across
the Gold, the Gold produced a streak or mark on the surface of
the Touchstone. The goldsmith would then match this mark with a
chart he had showing different graded colors. The mark left on
the Touchstone was redder in color as the amount of copper or
other alloys increased, and was yellower as the percentage of
Gold increased. This process showed the purity of the Gold
within reasonable limits. The Touchstone method for testing the
quality of Gold was quick and fairly accurate for most common
purposes; but the goldsmith who, for some special reason, needed
more precise information on the Gold used a process that involved
fire. And by running the Gold through the much more intense
Refiner's Fire, extremely accurate (as accurate went in those
days) measurements of the Gold content could then be determined.
However, the Refiner's Fire process took a lot of additional
time, and didn't really tell the goldsmith anything that he
46
didn't already know. In similar ways, I would suggest that
Patriot inactivity (because you are "waiting" for the Model Case
to come down from on High) is improvident, and such a Model Case
will not tell you anything you don't already know.
============================================================[565]
What happens to Citizens who reject the King's benefits? They
become Denizens. [566]
[566]============================================================
In old English Common Law, DENIZENS had no political rights,
i.e., they could not vote or hold office. So by mutuality they
also owed no Citizen-like capitation tax to the Crown. Although
Denizens had occupancy jurisdiction to stay within a Kingdom, the
only taxes the Crown was able to get out of them was limited to
the extent that the Denizen participated in Commerce. See
generally, James Kettner, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
1608-1870 [University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina (1976)].
That I am aware of, the word DENIZEN appears 21 times in the
United States Supreme Court between 1952 [in ON LEE v. UNITED
STATES, 343 U.S. 747] and 1812 [in FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE v. HUNTER'S
LEASEE, 11 U.S. 603]. For example, it is mentioned in LUDECKE
v. WATKINS [333 U.S. 160, at 161 (1947)], in the context of a
quotation from Title 50, Section 21 ["Enemy Alien Act"]. BLACK'S
FIFTH, in their style of poorly written definitions, states that
a Denizen is:
"... in kind of a middle state between an alien and a
natural born subject, and partakes of the STATUS of both of
these."
- BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY ["Denizen"], Fifth Edition,
[West Publishing, St. Paul]
and adds that an American judicial definition of Denizen has
changed somewhat from its historical English counterpart. What
DENIZEN means today is the same that it has always meant:
"Our laws give certain privileges [benefits] and withhold
certain privileges from our adopted subjects, and we may
naturally conclude, that there may be some qualification of the
privilege in the laws of other countries. But our resident
Denizens are entitled, as I take it, to all sorts of commercial
privileges, which our natural-born subject can claim."
- MARRYAT v. WILSON, a British case (1799).
Yes, Denizens do not enjoy political franchise rights [nor can
they hold elective Government office], but they do hold occupancy
jurisdiction, and they do enjoy Commercial benefits created by
47
the State, and so Denizens were only taxed to the extent they
participated in Commerce. Back before the Civil War days, Blacks
were not Citizens of the United States, as only White folks could
be Citizens before the RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS made their
appearance. An Attorney General once spoke on how colored
persons are not ALIENS and not CITIZENS, yet they are something
-- but what are they? They are DENIZENS, as Denizens hold
occupancy jurisdiction, but do not enjoy any juristic benefit
originating from the United States of a political nature:
"It is not necessary, in my view of the matter, to discuss
the question how far a free man of color [meaning a black who was
not a slave] may be a Citizen, in the highest sense of the word -
- that is, one who enjoys in the fullest manner all the JURA
CIVITATIS under the Constitution of the United States ... Now
free people of color are not ALIENS, they enjoy universally
(while there has been no express statutable provision to the
contrary) the rights of Denizens ... How far a political STATUS
may be acquired is a different question, but his civil STATUS is
that of a complete Denizenship."
- Hugh S. Legare, Attorney General of the United States,
in ["Pre-Emption Rights of Colored Persons"], 4
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 147, at 147 (March,
1843).
Here in the United States of 1985, PERSONS participating in that
closed private domain of King's Commerce without enjoying any
political benefits pay the same identical taxes as those who do
enjoy political benefits; there is no economy now associated with
being a Denizen pursuing commercial enrichment today. The
economy long sought after by Tax Protestors will be realized only
effectuating a total and pure severance of themselves away from
the adhesive attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction, which
consists of having accepted either Commercial benefits, or of the
political benefits derived from an operation of Citizenship.
============================================================[566]
Why are Citizens of the United States now burdened down with such
an incredible Bolshevik Income Tax Machine, so smoothly eating
away at our substance the way it does? The answer lies by the
acceptance of protectorate benefits the King is offering. [567]
[567]============================================================
Even if you want the protectorate benefits the King is offering,
at a minimum it is improvident to remain silent on his
manipulative use of his administration of this contract by
Gremlins. Today in 1985, our King is busy with talk of
negotiating construction suspension agreements with a foreign
adversary -- Russia; called the STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS
(SALT). The King wants to suspend our production of certain
defense hardware in the interest of cordialities, a spirit of
48
unilateral disarmament that was publicly initiated in 1972 with
an operation of Royal diplomatic deception called DETENTE. The
reason why this is of significance is because a war with Russia
is on the horizon -- a war to be presented to us as a surprise
from the world's Gremlins; and folks making practical assessments
of potential impending events by giving any weight to the
carefree and factually limited judgment exercised by others is
improvident. In a previous era, administrative Gremlins working
for the King of England once pulled off the identical same pre-
war measure; but we should not really be surprised, as Lucifer
finds it unnecessary to change, alter, or modify his MODUS
OPERANDI, as he goes about his work running one civilization into
the ground after another. In a news article that could have
appeared in today's news with only a change in names and
technology:
"There has as yet been no reply from German official
quarters to the British proposal of a year's suspension of
battleship construction. The President of the German Naval
League has declared Winston Churchill's offer to be undeserving
of serious consideration; but this is a natural position for a
president of a naval league to take. In the meanwhile, it is to
be noted that the German authorities, while fond of speaking of
REALPOLITIK -- a policy based on frank recognition of actualities
instead of sentiment or general principles -- have in this matter
of the limitation of naval armaments not been quite so REAL as
they might be ... The Kaiser's Ministers usually speak of their
naval plans as dictated by Germany's Imperial interests and by
the necessity of safeguarding the Empire's coasts."
- Editors, 29 THE NATION MAGAZINE, at 375 (October 23,
1913). [THE NATION was once a very popular magazine in
the United States.]
The following year, in 1914, the visible public movements of
World War I began to surface with numerous German offenses made
throughout Europe. While Gremlins had been hard at work running
the defense structure of Great Britain into the ground (of which
hardware construction suspensions are one such visible
manifestation of termite management) [and which is taking place
in the United States today], her impending adversary, Germany,
was building an attack naval fleet -- and not for the claimed
purpose of "safeguarding of the Empire's coasts," but for
military attack purposes. Throwing deceptions at planned
adversaries to lull them asleep is extensively used by Gremlins
as a pre-War tool, just like Lucifer's deceptive withholding of
factual information from his imp assistants on the existence of
Covenants in effect with Father overruling his Tort damages
justifications, is a war measure.
Mark my words this day in 1985: The more that glowing statements
are made about missile treaties and arms reduction agreements
between Russia and the United States, the closer the two are to
outright war. When the news media tries to emphasize the
49
importance of some new "breakthrough" missile agreement, the more
imminent are the open hostilities. Remember, Gremlins never
change a successful MODUS OPERANDI, -- and they deem lulling you
to sleep to be very important.
... This Second Estate is very much adversarial in nature, and
all of the rules applicable to deception used by Gremlins in war
will be found incorporated by Lucifer in his SUB ROSA attacks on
your impending embryo Celestial Status. And whatever is
necessary to get folks to bypass their own good judgment and
sense of positive responsibility, however momentarily
uncomfortable, and rely instead upon the more comforting passive
inactivity and nonchalant judgment of others that ALL IS WELL IN
IGNORANCE, will be done -- it is being done politically by
Americans generally ignoring numerous visible signs of an
impending domestic military invasion and correlative secondary
internal damages that will occur in its wake; and it is being
done Spiritually by getting folks to ignore and toss aside any
concern for a known impending Judgment and replacing that concern
with the more comforting sugar-coated assurance that, yes, since
they have accepted Jesus Christ, they will be Saved, and they
don't need concern themselves with anything else -- some hokey
religion out there -- baah.
============================================================[567]
The correct origin of the Citizenship problem (if PROBLEM is the
word) lies back in the 1700's, not with Lucifer and his filthy
little Gremlin Karl Marx, but with our own Fathers, back when our
Founding Fathers created the Constitution, a document that
warrants your objective evaluation, because our Founding Fathers
gave the King just too much jurisdiction: [568]
[568]============================================================
See generally: Bernard Bailyn in the IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION ["Sovereignty"], at page 198, et seq. [The
Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1967)].
Bernard Bailyn went back into the 1770's and uncovered some 400
pamphlets on all sorts of writings that he reviewed -- treatises
on political theory, essays on history, political arguments,
sermons, correspondence, poems and other literary devices. They
were all expressions of the kind of society the Framers lived in,
and were exemplary of the intellectual thought then permeating
the American countryside at that time. Those pamphlets and other
literary devices were explanatory to a degree beyond the
FEDERALIST PAPERS, in so far as they reveal motives,
undercurrent, and understandings in addition to the known ideas
and assumptions expressed on world views at that time -- hence
the ideological origins of the American Revolution.
============================================================[568]
50
No explicit and blunt restrainments were made against the
circulation of paper currency media; no provision for the Bill of
Rights restrainments to operate irrespective of impending
technology that otherwise alters factual settings not originally
contemplated when the Bill of Rights was drafted; [569]
[569]============================================================
Ben Franklin once expressed reservations about certain features
of the Constitution in particular, and then encouraged its
ratification as a whole; and so we too can take a similar
position:
"Mr. President: I confess that there are several parts of
this Constitution which I do not at present approve ...
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution,
with all of its faults, if they are such; because I think a
general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of
Government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well
administered; ..."
- Ben Franklin in 5 DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, James Madison, Editor, at page
554 [J.P. Lippincott & Company, Philadelphia (1863)].
============================================================[569]
and then the Framers gave the King the blank check to nail
Citizens to the wall as taxable objects, a situation that did not
exist with the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION:
"Both the States and the United States existed before the
Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a
more perfect union by substituting a national Government, acting,
with ample power, directly on the Citizens, instead of the
confederate Government, which acted with powers, greatly
restricted, only upon the States." [570]
[570]============================================================
IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 573, at 578 (1894).
============================================================[570]
Notice how the Federal Government now operates with AMPLE POWER
DIRECTLY ON THE CITIZENS, which National Citizenship did not
exist under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. Our Founding Fathers
wanted a National Government, and so now we have got their
largesse. [571]
[571]============================================================
51
"Experience has made the fact known to the people of the United
States that they required a national Government for national
purposes. The separate Governments of the separate States, bound
together by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION alone, were not
sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people
in respect to foreign nations, or to their complete protection as
Citizens of the United States, 'in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty; to themselves and their prosperity,
ordained and established the Government of the United States, and
defined its powers by a constitution, which they adapted as its
fundamental law, made its rule of action."
- UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 549
(1875).
============================================================[571]
QUESTION: How does someone get rid of his Citizenship Contract
without packing their bags and leaving the United States
physically, as the King would like his little subjects to do?
[572]
[572]============================================================
For commentary on loss of Citizenship for any one of several
reasons, see:
- Lawrence Abramson in UNITED STATES LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP
LAW AFTER TERRAZAS: DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF
APPELLATE REVIEW, 16 New York University Journal of
International Law and Politics 29 (1984);
- Terry Reicher in A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF
INVOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION AND A TAXPAYER'S RIGHT TO
DISCLAIM CITIZENSHIP in 15 Vanderbuilt Journal of
Transnational Law 123 (Winter, 1982).
When money is at stake, Federal Judges have noted that all of a
sudden the traditional allure of possessing American Citizenship
now suddenly takes upon itself an unattractive dimension:
"... since United States Citizenship is considered by most
to be a prized status, it is usually the Government which claims
that the Citizen has lost it, over the vigorous opposition of the
person facing the loss. In this rare case the roles are
reversed. Here the estate of a wealthy deceased United States
Citizen seeks to establish over the Government's opposition that
she expatriated herself. As might be suspected, the reason is
several million dollars in tax liability, which the estate might
escape if it could sustain the burden of showing that the
deceased lost her United States Citizenship."
52
- UNITED STATES v. MATHESON, 532 F.2nd 809, at 811
(1976).
The only reason why folks want out of the reciprocal taxation
demands of Citizenship is because the cost of Citizenship is
obviously, if given but a few moments thought, for the null
paltry value of the juristic benefits justifying it, not worth
the price tag that looters and Gremlins are demanding through
their juristic enrichment instrumentality, the King. Rather than
snickering at ex-Protestors who wised up a little, Federal Judges
would be smart to start to create remedies negating the unlawful
use of the Legislature by looters and Gremlins [of which dormant
and forgotten Clauses now exist in the Constitution], which is
the true seminal point of origin as to why the Countryside is now
reacting negatively to avoid and terminate unreasonable taxation
demands not related to benefit equivalence. [Remember that your
consent, individually, is very important adhesive material in the
formation of contracts; see ASSENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN
CONTRACT: AN ANALYSIS OF OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN CONTEMPORARY
CONTRACT ADJUDICATION by Brian Blum, 59 St. John's Law Review 1
(Fall, 1984); and it is this very POINT OF FORMATION in Contract
Law that needs to be correctly understood and handled, so that
the contract can be annulled properly.]
============================================================[572]
ANSWER: The same way one gets rid of any other contract. [573]
[573]============================================================
Yes, such a simple solution as that to remedy taxation ailments,
and many folks will not associate any significance to it.
Sometimes the most profound circumstances in life are not
understood for what they really mean, as folks frequently fail to
correlate previous events that have already occurred as harbinger
models that foreshadow future events yet to make their
appearance.
... For example, previous circumstances, seemingly innocent, that
once transpired in Downtown San Francisco in 1969 regarding the
construction of the Transamerica Corporation pyramid office tower
will one day be replicated synchronously all across the United
States. John Beckett, President of Transamerica Corporation,
wanted to build a 55-story high-rise on Montgomery Street to
house the offices of Transamerica. The announcement of the plans
for the tower immediately generated a heavy controversy locally;
this was the Vietnam era where Bay area protesting was in vogue.
After making preliminary inquiries to San Francisco planning and
zoning officials, the building was downsized to 48 stories.
Numerous environmental groups (such as THE ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP),
neighborhood associations (such as the TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS
ASSOCIATION), and other assorted individuals (such as activist
Alvin Daskin) just looking for something tame to challenge -- let
53
it be known that they disapproved of these plans. Numerous other
professional architectural groups from surrounding areas (such as
the CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS),
otherwise normally passive, also entered into this arena to throw
their opposition invectives at the proposed Transamerica Tower.
Public interest attorneys (like Peter A. Gunnufsen) filed
lawsuits, attempting to seek judicial restraining orders halting
the construction on technical grounds relating to procedures used
by the City of San Francisco to transfer a public street to
Transamerica. During hearings held by city officials across the
summer of 1969, protest groups would hold vigils and march
outside City Hall to express their dissent from this heinous
outrage. But Mayor Joseph Alioto and a majority of City
Supervisors wanted the high-rise to be built, as they made
numerous references to the $1 million annual contribution this
tower would be making to the San Francisco tax rolls. A unique
confluence of incentives came into focus at the end of 1969 that
pressured Transamerica President John Beckett to act in the
unusual, sneaky and clever way that he did, in order to get the
tower built -- the same UNUSUAL, SNEAKY, and CLEVER ways that all
Americans, and even the entire world, will one day be very well
acquainted with, but for very different objectives: Because next
time around, building a high-rise will not be the objective.
For many years the California State Legislature in
Sacramento had encouraged insurance companies to locate home
offices in California by allowing them to deduct from their state
income taxes whatever amount those companies had paid in local
property taxes on a headquarters building. This generous state
taxation statute contributed to San Francisco's status as the
financial center of the American West, and to the placement of
several high-rises in San Francisco's skyline. But this state
statute was due to expire at the end of 1969 for buildings
constructed after this date; and if John Beckett could not get
the SITE PERMIT issued and at least some construction started by
December 31st, then his proposed high-rise would not qualify for
the special $1 million annual property tax deductions. The first
day in December had arrived with the City Supervisor's formal
approval, but Transamerica still needed a SITE PERMIT, which
would permit ground to be broken and construction thereby to
commence. Time was running out, but John Beckett had a few ideas
of his own. These were very adversary proceedings he was
swirling in, and with the opposition ventilating their hot air,
being determined to kill this project but dead -- that would be
the opposition's way of making their STATEMENT. Going into the
first week of December, the paper work in City Hall to issue out
a SITE PERMIT was gaining momentum. The opposition, lead by
lawyers, knew that their only hope was to file a SITE PERMIT
appeal, which would automatically delay construction until
another hearing on the Appeal could be heard in the following
year. However, such an appeal by the opposition could not be
made until the SITE PERMIT itself had first been issued. In
early December, both sides watched the paperwork going back and
forth in City Hall, with the opposition actually having arranged
54
for observers to man the PERMIT desk and the Montgomery Street
construction site to watch for movements by Transamerica. By
mid-December, the permit paperwork had been completed, and the
opposition intensified its watch of City Hall like an English
Hunting Dog at Full Point; the opposition had their own plans to
appeal the SITE PERMIT immediately after its issuance to block
construction until the following year -- but John Beckett was
playing his cards with an ace tucked up his sleeves, because when
he had hired Dinwiddie Construction Corporation to be the
contractor on the building, he had given them very special
instructions. That long awaited December day arrived when
Transamerica decided it was ready to pick up the SITE PERMIT and
start construction on the Transamerica high-rise. One morning an
unknown representative of Dinwiddie Construction went to City
Hall and made sure that the SITE PERMIT was available for the
asking, which it was. During the noon lunch hour, a Transamerica
corporate vice-president, dressed in farmer's overall's, arrived
at City Hall in an old pickup truck; he did not want his true
identity to be recognized by the opposition and their watchers.
The VP looked plain, he looked normal, he looked like an everyday
type of ordinary Joe -- why, he "... just couldn't possibly have
nutin' to do with no big important high-rise." Having picked up
the SITE PERMIT undetected, he phoned ahead to the construction
supervisor, who was hiding in a restaurant across the street from
where the Transamerica Tower was to be built. The go-signal
having been received, all of a sudden a construction crew
appeared at the Montgomery Street site out of nowhere. Literally
within minutes, heavy construction equipment that had been
quietly sneaked into Downtown San Francisco and hidden away under
covers in a nearby basement excavation, surfaced into the open
and went to work. To the cheers of the tiny crowd conducting the
abbreviated groundbreaking ceremonies, the bulldozer bit through
the surface of the parking lot while other construction equipment
went to work excavating at the Transamerica site. Just an hour
later the same day, word came that a SITE PERMIT APPEAL had been
quickly filed -- but as exceptionally quick as the opposition
was, they were too late, as commencement of construction bars
appeal.
[See: John Krizek [manager of Public Relations for
Transamerica] in PUBLIC RELATIONS JOURNAL ["How to Build a
Pyramid"], at page 17 (December, 1970). The opposition lingered
on even after construction started -- see BUSINESS WEEK
["Beautiful Building of Inhuman Eyesore?"], page 41 (October 31,
1970). Clippings taken from the two local newspapers, the SAN
FRANCISCO CHRONICLE and the SAN FRANCISCO EXPRESS supplied the
details herein, through the HISTORY ROOM ["Transamerica File"] of
the San Francisco Public Library].
... One day off in the future, this clever little harbinger act
that John Beckett once pulled off is going to happen all over
again under circumstances that the entire world will take rather
strong notice of. Nothing will change the next time around,
other than that the desired end objective will be different.
55
Next time, instead of an American Corporate President like John
Beckett pulling off something quick and clever to get the upper
hand over adversaries, next time, a Russian General will be
supervising the logistics. Instead of heavy construction
equipment being sneaked into urban areas and then pulled out into
the open quickly, next time heavy Russian tanks, personnel
carriers, and attack support equipment will come forth one day
out of their hiding places to roll down American streets to grab
the police barracks and nearby Army Base. Next time, instead of
a handful of environmental activists left scratching their heads,
puzzled as to how John Beckett pulled off that instant appearance
of construction equipment -- next time all Americans will be
asking themselves the same question: How did they sneak in all
of those tanks, helicopters, and the like? Where did those SPACE
PLATFORMS come from? Where were all those tank stashed away?
Yes, it is going to happen, just like John Beckett has already
made it happen once before on a small introductory scale in San
Francisco. Just like major media news correspondents -- those
pathetic little idiots -- expressing amazement on how well
organized the North Vietnamese were in their take-over of Saigon
in April of 1975, folks who actually rely on the caliber of such
baneful judgement (like news correspondents who were amazed that
professional Gremlins actually knew what they were doing), will
also find themselves being amazed when we are next. The only
folks who are ever surprised by passing events are those who live
most distant from reality -- and a very good way to become
removed from reality is to rely on those incompetent clowns in
the news media who were amazed that professional Gremlins
practicing COUPS D'ETAT for some 200 years might just know what
they are doing.
[I come down hard on Journalists for the same reason that I
come down hard on Lawyers: Both professions involve the
presentation of intellectual material to others; so when they
mess up, then out comes my invectives. However, when an everyday
type of Joe SixPack messes up, I respond with patience and
instructional counseling. In contrast these Joe SixPacks do not
represent themselves as being professionals, so Joe SixPacks are
not held to the more stringent standards that Journalists and
Lawyers seeking financial compensation for their errors are held
to.]
The instant appearance of construction crews that John Beckett
pulled off was not even considered as a factual possibility by
this opponents; just like Russian opposition in the United States
[alleged tough cookie right-wing CONSERVATIVES self-perceiving
themselves as being pretty sharp politically] are not even
considering the factual possibility that Mikhail Gorbachev's
superiors have already had planned out long ago similar American
domestic instant appearance circumstances in extended and
considerable detail. They fully intend to clean out the Gremlins
in Washington, as they have been setup [meaning provoked] to do
under attractive Bolshevik inducement.
56
Nothing ever changes from one setting to the next. Learning in a
small way that getting out of an automobile lease contract is
accomplished by getting rid of the benefit acceptance by
returning the car physically to the owner, and not by filing
worthless NOTICES OF RECESSION OF CONTRACT, IN REM -- that is
preparatory to learn that it is the same simple solution to get
out of the adhesive juristic reciprocity demanded under
Citizenship Contracts: Get rid of those benefits and stop
snickering at Federal Judges cracking defiled giblets. By not
even considering the factual possibility, however remote, that
the tax prosecution defendant may himself be in error, having
listened to the distractions of Protestors talking about why the
Federal Government is not entitled to prevail due to multiple LEX
deficiencies of some type, the tax prosecution defendants finds
himself exactly where John Beckett's opponents once found
themselves [and exactly where CONSERVATIVES, so called, will also
one day be finding themselves]: Out smarted by adversaries who
have a few ideas of their own, and for the same reason.
============================================================[573]
But lawyers throwing technical arguments at Federal Judges in Tax
and Draft Protesting cases have never bothered to see Citizenship
from the judicial trajectory of benefits and retained reciprocity
expectations, so lawyers have never correctly handled Tax and
Draft Protestors in counsel, and lawyers will continue to throw
technical arguments at Judges [just like Tax Protestors] trying
to explain why the King is wrong, until such time as the latent
high powered juristic velocity instrument of Citizenship is
identified for what it really is: A contract. [574]
[574]============================================================
Many commentators have noted that the relational status of
American Citizens to the Federal Government today is quite
similar to the relational status experienced by SUBJECTS in the
old monarchial days of the Kings of England. Even though
contemporary Americans are now called CITIZENS, many lost rights,
benefits, protections, together with unfairly skewed reciprocal
duties and liabilities that characterize the subparity
relationship of old Britannic SUBJECTS, are in effect today --
hence as well my characterization of the Executive Branch of the
United States as a KING.
One writer who elucidates very well on this status declension of
Americans from being CITIZENS holding the upper hand, down to
SUBJECTS doing what they are told and paying what they are told
to pay, is Francis X. Hennessy in his book about the 18th
Amendment entitled CITIZENS OR SUBJECT? Even though Americans
are still called CITIZENS today in name [an initially impressive
but meaningless characterization substantively] the Kingly status
that the American Revolution of 1776 once created for us all [as
the Supreme Court noted in GEORGE v. BRAILSFORD] has been
reversed back to the Crown again, through the devilish
57
maneuverings of Gremlins. Back in the early American Colonial
days the political factions in America were split into WHIGS and
TORIES -- and knowledge of the philosophical distinction between
the two is being withheld from American high school history books
here in the 1980's for a very good reason: TORIES were
sympathetic with the Aristocratic Class who simply had to have
the masses controllable and their pockets reachable for some
looting; Tories do not want a nation of CITIZENS, they want
fleeceable SUBJECTS. Today, Tory Aristocrats are filthy little
creatures who want to use Juristic Institutions to transfer money
from your pockets to theirs. Where with the 18th Amendment,
Tories wanted to use the guns of Government to create
PROHIBITION, so that they could then practice commercial
enrichment in the BLACK MARKET of elevated prices and restricted
competition that all exclusion monopolies creates. Some of the
most prominent American families had been sponsoring the WOMAN'S
CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE LEAGUE and other nominees using deceptive
names, to plaster the countryside with the noble and lofty
sounding objectives of ridding drunks from our society -- while
all along the sponsors of PROHIBITION could care less about
drunks and merely wanted to experience the commercial enrichment
a BLACK MARKET creates. Today, other plant derivatives have
replaced alcohol in the statutes now creating another BLACK
MARKET, while second and third generational descendants of those
same identical American families smuggle cocaine and marijuana
instead of bourbon.
Today, a Tory sympathizer is a jealous person who wants to be
sure that everyone else is paying their taxes; a Tory sympathizer
is someone who is content with the STATUS QUO as it has been
brought to its present position by Gremlins, and has no desire to
return to our Father's quiescent STATUS QUO ANTE. A Tory
sympathizer is a little dupe who feels good about going off to a
foreign country to fight a war -- because the President says its
Patriotic to do so. Yes, a Tory sympathizer plays into the hands
of Gremlins by giving them what they want -- as Gremlins want the
contemporary STATUS QUO, the foreign wars, and BLACK MARKETS they
have created.
"Whenever Government exists, even Government limited to
those powers thought by its Citizens necessary to secure human
liberty, the weakness of human nature makes it certain that the
exercise of granted powers will not always be for the common
benefit of the Citizens who grant them. When the Government is
the State and human beings its SUBJECTS, that weakness is usually
more apparent. As a result, in every country the rich and
powerful largely secure the actual control of the Government.
That they may entrench themselves in its control and exercise of
even its lawful powers, they lavish favors on a class actually
large in number but comparatively constituting a small minority
of the people of the country. For this [Aristocratic] class, it
is of material advantage [to them] that Government should be the
State and the people its SUBJECTS. When a man is born or
educated as a member of this [Aristocratic] minority, it is
58
beyond the experience of the human race that his mental attitude
should not regard the relation of SUBJECT to ruler as the proper
relation of human being to Government."
- Francis X. Hennessy in CITIZEN OR SUBJECT? ["The Exiled
Tory About To Return"], at 235 [E.P. Dutton, New York
(1923)].
Gremlins want such a KING TO SUBJECT relational status in effect
specifically for purposes of conquest and furthering their own
proprietary enrichment through taxation enstripment. Francis
Hennessy, an attorney and member of the New York State Bar, goes
into highly detailed factual recital of the circumstances
surrounding the proposal and later ratification of the 18th
Amendment [the PROHIBITION AMENDMENT]. From debates on the Floor
of the Congress to the inner sanctums of Gremlin power, Francis
Hennessy chronicles out the impediments, headaches, and legal
difficulties the sponsors of the 18th Amendment had in 1917
trying to force Prohibition on us all, by virtue of the fact that
the United States Constitution is a hybrid composite blend of
NATIONAL and FEDERAL power, and therefore requires different
procedures to effectuate modifications, based on the nature of
the right being modified. This was one of the legal arguments
considered by the Supreme Court when the underlying legality of
the 18th Amendment itself came under attack [see THE NATIONAL
PROHIBITION CASES, 253 U.S. 350 (1920)]. Because the nature of
the right that the Congress was about to deprive American
Citizens of [the right to eat or drink anything they feel like]
was of a NATIONAL nature, the proposed 18th Amendment was worded
in such a way as to circumvent the Constitution's ARTICLE 5
CONVENTION requirement by subtly commanding the States to first
enact Prohibition legislation (see Section 2 of the 18th
Amendment).
Yes, Gremlins are well-oiled experts at both political
circumvention, as well as running Citizens into the ground. A
devilishly brilliant MODUS OPERANDI that if not understood now,
will be understood in no uncertain terms when, during the
impending CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION that is close to being
called, Gremlins using slick Parliamentary devices divert the
floor proceedings away from the BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT over to
discussing an entire new Constitution altogether -- THEIR
Constitution. All of a sudden, folks who thought they had the
situation under control by having State Legislatures self-
restrict the content being discussed at that Convention to
consider only the proposed BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, will see
then that they were outsmarted by imps, as they will also be
outsmarted by either Mikhail Gorbachev or his successors, who
have a few ideas of their own on how to control Gremlins in
Washington.
============================================================[574]
59
As a point of beginning, contracts are entered into by the
acceptance of benefits, and they are terminated by the explicit
disavowal rejecting benefits [as I will explain later in the next
section on Federal Reserve Notes]. And Citizenship is one of the
most important contracts the Judiciary takes Notice of for
purposes of perfecting taxation enstripment. [575]
[575]============================================================
But this great revenue contract of Citizenship is also the
greatest weakness the King has, due to the dual stratified nature
of American Juristic Institutions being layered into State and
Federal slabs. Because of this STATE TO FEDERAL satrapic
relational setting, the Federal Citizenship and State Citizenship
are sourced from different jurisdictional origins, and are
separate and distinct legal relationships. The weakness of
Citizenship surfaces by reason of the fact that our King is
without and wanting jurisdiction to tax State Citizens [the King
acquires the requisite jurisdiction by consent, obtainable
through several channels]. Yes, there are numerous technical
grounds for beating the King, as well as fundamental grounds, but
the entire orientation of such a defense posture necessarily
gravitates around the error present in an adversary -- not a very
secure way to win a battle, without having to turn around and
keep looking over your shoulder [always looking for some new LEX
deficiency or Court Opinion somewhere]. The remedy to these
legal impediments (of which there are quite a few), are more and
more corrective slices of LEX being thrown into an organic Title
26. The very fact that some Congress off in the 1990's enacts a
statute declaring that State Citizens are PERSONS adhered to
Title 26, automatically admits in inference that all previous
income taxation dollars collected by the King were illicitly
looted -- absent express contracts.
... Eventually, this letter will filter down and circulate
throughout the corridors of prosecution officialdom [as the King
does have his ears close to the ground]; and if there is any
Government attorney out there who can show me where the King has
the jurisdiction -- either Case Law or Statutory pronouncements -
- to tax State Citizens residing in the States, then please come
forth and now do so. I would like to see the citation that shows
where Title 26 applies to State Citizens residing in the several
States. The right to tax is the right to throw juristic benefits
at folks creating invisible implied contracts, and then turn
around and demand financial reciprocity in return pursuant to an
ADHESION covenant therein. The King's Federal Jurisdiction is
necessarily limited to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
the United States Congress -- meaning limited to Federal
Employees, residents of the District of Columbia and Federal
Territories, and other Federal Enclaves. QUESTION: Is that
closed private domain of King's Commerce a Federal Enclave? Is
the acceptance of Federal protectorate benefits the creation of a
situation specific AD HOC Federal Enclave? I am not really
interested in arguing those questions, because I am not
60
interested in probing for error in others. I would rather vacate
the acceptance of all Federal benefits from off of the record,
work the King into an immoral position of having made an
Assessment in want of a QUID PRO QUO equivalence having been
exchanged, and then have an administrative sandbagging effected
on my Case: Because clean NO WIN Cases are in fact dropped by
the King's termites in the IRS -- who know when it's best to
throw in the towel, call it a day, and go chase after another
piece of meat.
============================================================[575]
And so it is the explicit rejection of juristic benefits that
will sever the adhesive reciprocal liability of King's Equity
Jurisdiction that attaches itself invisibly to everyone else.
So getting rid of your National Citizenship, while very
important, is only a first step, and there are numerous other
invisible contracts that you need to concern yourselves with, if
you are to leave the Bolshevik Income Tax grab without leaving
any lingering illicit Equity trail behind you. [576]
[576]============================================================
In a limited sense today, the relationship of the world's
political jurisdictions to the United Nations is somewhat
structurally similar to the pre-1787 relationship in effect
between the various American State political jurisdictions and
the CONFEDERACY in Washington. The old CONFEDERACY back then had
no serious taxing power of any significance, and had to make
financial requisitions to its member States. There was no
National American Citizenship back then that could enable the
national Government to bypass the States and go directly to the
common folks for money, either. That relational model is
somewhat similar to what the world's numerous political
jurisdictions are involved with today in the United Nations --
today the United Nations has no power to tax, makes financial
contribution requests to member Nations, and there is no World
Citizenship. With that modeling scenario in mind, consider the
following: Citizenship is known up and down the corridors of
Gremlin power world wide as being a very interesting adhesive
source of Object Jurisdiction to loot. For example, even if the
atrophied remnants of the Rockefeller Cartel are unsuccessful in
convincing Americans to hand over their national Sovereignty to
some world Juristic Institution like the United Nations, then one
of the ways that the ONE WORLDERS could largely accomplish their
Grand Objectives of global conquest through global Government, is
to stop trying to get the various national Sovereignties
throughout the world to forfeit over their Sovereignty (which
isn't very likely anyway), and just create an invisible
attachment of Equity Jurisdiction by creating World Citizenship.
In bypassing individual regional political jurisdictions this way
[American Citizens are free to enter into contracts with the
United Nations, or any other political jurisdiction in the
61
world], income taxes and the like can be collected from its
Citizens in reciprocating exchange for some benefits that will be
created; and with World Citizenship in place, handy regulatory
jurisdictions, licensing, and other favorite Bolshevik
enscrewment tools can be erected. Gremlins in the Rockefeller
Nest have already given this idea some thought; see an interview
with imp Robert Hutchins in THE CENTER MAGAZINE, ["What the World
Needs Now is Citizens"], page 23 (January/February, 1971). The
Gremlin drive for World Citizenship has been in gestation for
some time; see EDUCATION FOR WORLD CITIZENSHIP by William George
Can [Stanford University Press, Stanford, California (1928)].
Under the classical contours of INTERNATIONAL LAW, only political
jurisdictions were subjects accountable to it, and individuals
were simply not included; while the Nuremberg Trials changed all
this on an AD HOC basis, the status of people as being STRANGERS
to INTERNATIONAL LAW continues on down to the present day -- but
when the adhesive Equity tentacles of World Citizenship are
nestled in place someday, the world's Gremlins will be ecstatic
on that grand impending day when an operation of the World Court
reaches through to individuals world wide, transparent to any
prospectively beneficent intervention on your behalf from any
other jurisdiction [just like today when your State will not
intervene in any manner whatsoever on your behalf when Federal
Marshals come knocking on your door]. For a commentary on the
relational setting in effect between individuals and
INTERNATIONAL LAW that is neither critical nor justifying the
enlargement of INTERNATIONAL LAW that took place at Nuremberg,
see THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
by Ernst Schneedberger in 35 Georgetown Law Journal, 481 (1947).
============================================================[576]
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
George Mercier