Appendix U
Revocation of Voter Registration
Reader's Notes:
c/o general delivery
San
Rafael [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA
STATE
March
10, 1992
Registrar of Voters
c/o general delivery
San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]
CALIFORNIA STATE
Dear Registrar:
As instructed
by a member of your staff, please accept this letter as formal notice that I hereby revoke my voter registration
with your office.
It is with enormous
regret that I must take this step, because I consider voting to be among the
most important civic duties that we have in America today, particularly during
a presidential election year.
Nevertheless,
it has come to my attention that your registration forms now explicitly state,
in red letters, that they are "For U.S. Citizens Only". Moreover, these same forms exhibit the
following affidavit, which must be signed under penalty of perjury:
"I
am a citizen of the United States and will be at least 18 years of age at
the time of the next election. I am not
imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the information on this affidavit is true and correct."
This
affidavit is followed by a clear WARNING, also in red letters, that
"Perjury is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three or
four years. Section 126 Penal
Code".
My chief
concern with this affidavit has to do with the definition of "United
States" that is implied by the form.
I have recently authored a well
documented book, a major thesis of which relies upon the following
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court:
The term "United States" may be
used in any one of several senses. It may
be merely the name of a sovereign
occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the
family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United
States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are
united by and under the Constitution.
[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt,
324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
[emphasis added]
From this
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is obvious that the term "United
States" can mean any one of three entirely different things. I draw your attention specifically to the
second of these three different meanings of "United States": it
may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States
extends. This territory includes only
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, and the federal "enclaves" which have been ceded to
Congress by acts of the 50 State Legislatures.
The authority to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over this
limited area of land is granted to Congress by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
It follows,
then, that declaring oneself to be a "citizen of the United States"
could be construed to mean that one has been either born or naturalized into
this jurisdiction and, that one is therefore subject to this jurisdiction (see
26 CFR 1.1-1(c)). This is particularly
true if the "c" in "citizen" is lower case, as is the case
in the Code of Federal Regulations just cited, and also in the so-called 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Last but not least, the word "of" is often interpreted by courts
to mean "belonging to". Thus,
the term "citizen of the United States" can and has been interpreted
by the courts to mean a "subject" who "belongs to" the
"Congress".
On the
contrary, I have recently filed a notarized affidavit with the California
Secretary of State, March Fong Eu, in which I declare my status to be that of a
"natural born Citizen" as stated in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of
the U.S. Constitution. Contrary to
widespread public opinion, a "natural born Citizen" is not the same
thing as a "citizen of the United States". There are also numerous court authorities for these two different
kinds of citizenship. As a natural born
Citizen, I am a member of the Sovereignty;
I am subject only to my Creator,
because my fundamental, unalienable rights are endowed by my Creator (see
Declaration of Independence, 1776).
Those rights are not granted
to me by anyone or anything else. If
you request it in writing, a notarized copy of my affidavit can be provided to
you.
Accordingly,
a shrewd and constructive fraud has been perpetrated upon me, if the presence
of my name on your voter registration roster can be presumed by State and
federal courts to mean that I am a "citizen of the United States",
with all of the legislated privileges, immunities and liabilities attached
thereto. I will not allow such a
presumption or adhesion to exist, and it is primarily for this reason that I
hereby revoke my registration as a voter in the County of Marin, California
Republic. This revocation is
retroactive to my date of majority, which date was June 21, 1969. I remind you that there is no statute of
limitations on fraud.
Please be
advised that my use of the phrase "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY
RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)" above my signature on
this document indicates:
1. that I explicitly reject any and all
benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement
which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon ALL agencies
of government, whether international, national, state, or local, that they, and
not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited
herein or not;
2. that my explicit reservation of Rights has
served notice upon ALL agencies of government of the "Remedy" they must
provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code,
whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to
perform under any contract or
commercial agreement into which I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily,
and intentionally;
3. that my explicit reservation of Rights has
served notice upon ALL agencies of government that they are ALL limited to
proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not,
and will not, accept the liability associated with the "compelled"
benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements; and
4. that my valid reservation of Rights has
preserved all my rights and
prevented the loss of any such Rights by application of the concepts of waiver
or estoppel.
I presume
that you will make copies of this letter of revocation available to all
interested County departments.
Thank you
very much for your consideration.
WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS
AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)
/s/ John Q. Doe
All Rights Reserved
registered as: John
Q. Doe
Address
City,
State
copies: County
Board of Supervisors
Jury
Commissioner, County of Marin
California
Secretary of State
State Citizens Stop Voting:
An Outline of Legal Reasons
and an Academic Debate
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General
Last Update:
December 9, 1993
INTRODUCTION
I. There are 2 classes of citizenship under current
American Law, not just 1 class
A. State Citizenship (upper-case "C")
1. a/k/a California Citizen, Nevada Citizen,
etc.
2. a/k/a "Citizen of one of the
States united"
B. federal citizenship (lower-case
"c")
1. a/k/a "citizen of the United
States"
2. a/k/a "U.S. citizen"
II. Under current California State law, only
federal citizens can register to vote;
State Citizens cannot register
A. see voter registration form, available at
Post Office
III. Registering to vote produces material evidence
that one is a federal citizen who is, by definition, liable for federal income
taxes, whereas State Citizens are not
A. State Citizens are protected by
constitutional limits against direct taxation
1. direct taxes must be apportioned per Article
1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
B. federal citizens are not protected by these
same constitutional limits
IV. State Citizens must cancel their voter
registration to perfect and maintain their status under the Law
I. There are 2
classes of citizenship under American Law
A. State Citizenship
1. found in the U.S. Constitution prior to
Civil War
a. e.g.
see qualifications for Representative, Senator, and President
2. this is a Sovereign class created and
endowed by the Creator
1. 14th Amendment attempted to formalize a
second class of citizen first defined in 1866 Civil Rights Act
2. this is a statutory creation, a subject
class, created and endowed by the Congress, not by the Creator
II. 2 recent decisions of Utah Supreme Court
struck down the 14th Amendment
A. Congress and the President forced southern
States to vote for it "at the point of a bayonet", using the duress and
undue influence of martial law
B. The Civil War was over and the southern
States had already been counted upon to ratify the 13th Amendment, banning
slavery
III. The consequences of the failed ratification
are many and far-reaching:
A. federal citizenship is not defined in the
supreme Law (i.e. the U.S.
Constitution)
1. it is, at best, the creation of federal
statute
2. as such, it can be taxed, regulated, and
even revoked, just like a corporation
B. in contrast, State Citizenship is an
unalienable Right which Congress cannot tax, regulate, or revoke
1. Congress cannot amendment the Constitution
a. Congress derives its power solely from the
Constitution
b. Congress can lawfully exercise its powers
only within the limits of the Constitution
2.
qualifications for Representative,
Senator, and President have never been amended by the States
a. the term "United States" in these
provisions means "States united" (see People v. De La Guerra
and Ex parte Knowles, Calif. Supreme Court)
3. since the Constitution as lawfully
amended is perpetual, then so is the Sovereign State Citizenship which it has
recognized from the beginning (1787)
IV. The term "United States" has three
(3) separate and distinct meanings in American Law:
A. The name of the sovereign nation, occupying
the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations
B. The federal government and the limited
territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority
1. to be a federal citizen is to be a
"citizen of the United States" in this second sense of the term (i.e. a "citizen of the federal
zone")
C. The collective name for the States united by
and under the Constitution for the United States of America
2. to be a State Citizen is to be a
"Citizen of the United States" in this third sense of the term (i.e. a "Citizen of one of
the States united")
V. One can be a State Citizen without also
being a federal citizen
A. see Crosse case from Maryland Court
of Appeals:
"Both before and after the
Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for
a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his
state."
B. see State v. Fowler case from
Louisiana Supreme Court:
"But a person may be a citizen of
a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the
state the highest exercise of its sovereignty -- the right to declare who are
its citizens."
C. see Cruikshank court from U.S.
Supreme Court:
"We have in our political
system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the
several States. Each of these
governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own
...." [!!!]
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
[emphasis added]
VI. California Legislature now requires that an
elector be a "citizen of the United States"
A. this qualification was predicated on a
ratified 14th Amendment
1. the ambiguities in Section 1 of the 14th amendment
confuse many into thinking there is but one class of citizenship throughout
America
2. State legislators were likewise confused by
these ambiguities, and by the deception surrounding the adoption of this
amendment
B. this qualification prohibits State Citizens
from registering to vote, and from voting
1. the voter registration form exhibits a
formal affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, that voter is a federal
citizen (see sample form)
a. such an affidavit is admissible evidence in
any State or federal court
b. federal courts use this affidavit to
establish income tax liabilities
2. perjury is punishable by 2, 3 or 4 years in
State prison (see warnings on registration form)
a. warnings are in CONSPICUOUS text, which prevents signer from saying he didn't see
it
C. State Citizens must cancel their voter
registration in order to perfect and maintain their status.
1. most registration forms were signed in
ignorance of the 2 classes of citizenship in America
2. with this knowledge, State Citizens elect
"to be treated" as federal citizens if they continue to vote after
learning the law
VII. federal citizens are liable for federal income
taxes; State Citizens are not
A. State Citizens are protected by federal constitutional
limits against direct taxation without apportionment
1. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
2. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4
B. federal citizens are not protected by these
same constitutional limits
1. Constitution for the "United
States" as such does not extend beyond the boundaries of the 50 States
which are united by and under it
a. The Insular Cases established this dubious
precedent at the turn of the century (1901)
2. the guarantees of the Constitution extend to
the federal zone only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable
a. The Hooven case established this
principle when it confirmed that the "United States" has three (3)
different meanings in law
3. a "citizen of the United States"
is, effectively, a citizen of the District of Columbia, which never joined the
Union of Sovereign States
a. Congress can create local,
"municipal" laws for D.C. which are not constrained by the federal
Constitution
b. a federal court has ruled that
"citizenship" is a term of municipal law, not general law
I. State Citizens cannot register to vote under
current California State law.
II. California voter registration form has a
formal affidavit by which signer swears, under penalty of perjury, that s/he is
a "citizen of the United States".
III. Such completed affidavits become admissible
evidence and conclusive proof that signer is a federal citizen.
IV. The exercise of federal citizenship is a
statutory privilege which can be created, taxed, regulated and even revoked by
Congress.
V. The exercise of State Citizenship is an
unalienable Right which Congress cannot tax, regulate or revoke under any
circumstances.
VI. Such a Right is guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution, which Congress cannot amend without the consent of three-fourths
of the Union States.
#
# #
The following pages are the text of a
ten-minute debate on the subject -- 5 minutes in favor of withdrawing voter
registration, and 5 minutes against withdrawing. These materials were used with much success in a public speaking
class at the College of Marin, Kentfield, California Republic, in December of
1993. For more information about this
and related subjects, please write to the Account for Better Citizenship, c/o
general delivery, San Rafael, California Republic, Postal Code 94901/tdc.
Major Proposition:
A sovereign Citizen of the California
Republic
should withdraw from voter
registration.
Exposition:
There are two classes of citizenship in America:
State Citizens
and federal citizens
The first class consists of Citizens of one of the
States of the Union, for example:
Citizens of
California,
Citizens of
New York,
Citizens of
Florida, etc.
The "C" in State Citizen is a CAPITAL or
UPPER-CASE "C".
This class of Citizen has existed
since the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.
The second class consists of federal
citizens, also known as "citizens of the United States" and as
"U.S. citizens".
The "c" in federal citizen is a lower-case
"c".
This class was first defined in the 1866 Civil Rights
Act.
It was also defined by the 14th
Amendment in 1868, which tried to establish that federal citizens are citizens
of the State where they live.
But the Utah Supreme Court has ruled twice
that this amendment was never properly approved and adopted.
Also, some constitutions were printed
with a lower-case "c" where it should have been UPPER-CASE
"C", suggesting fraud.
Rather than refer to these citizens as
"federal citizens", the lawyers chose the term "citizen of the
United States" in order to confuse this class with the first class.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that
the term "United States" has 3 different meanings in law.
In 1945, the Court ruled that the term
"United States" can refer to:
1. the name of a sovereign nation, like other
sovereigns in the family of nations (United States*)
2. the "United States" is also the
federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive
sovereign authority (United States**)
Think
of this jurisdiction as "the federal zone".
3. the "United States" is also the
collective name for the States which are united by and under the U.S.
Constitution (United States***)
Think
of this jurisdiction as "the state zone".
A State Citizen is a Citizen of one of
the States united, i.e. a Citizen of
the state zone.
A federal citizen is a citizen of the
United States**, i.e. a citizen of
the federal zone.
The major difference between these two
classes is that State Citizens are Sovereigns, whereas federal citizens are
subjects of Congress.
Also, State Citizens are exempt from federal income
taxes.
It is very important to realize that
one can be a State Citizen without also being a federal citizen.
The Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that:
Both before and after the Fourteenth
Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person
to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.
The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that:
A person may be a citizen of a particular
state and not a citizen of the United States.
So, what is sovereignty?
Sovereignty is independent and supreme authority -- the authority to which there is politically no superior.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said:
Sovereignty itself remains with the
people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
To be a subject is to be under the
control of some other supreme authority.
A federal citizen is a subject of Congress.
The 50 States of the Union are Republics, by Law.
Black's Law Dictionary says that a
republican form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are
vested in the people and are exercised by the people.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees a
republican form for each State in the Union:
The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
The California Elections Code states
that an elector must be a "United States citizen".
But the voter registration form
contains a formal affidavit that the signer is a "citizen of the United
States".
This terminology corresponds exactly to the legal description of a
federal citizen.
The affidavit is also signed under penalty of perjury!
Perjury is punishable with 2, 3, or 4 years in State
prison.
Therefore, registering to vote
produces material evidence that the signer has opted to be identified as a
federal citizen.
If one wants to remain a Sovereign
State Citizen and not be identified as a federal citizen, then it is necessary
to cancel one's voter registration.
The California Elections Code states
that one can do so without giving any reason.
#
# #
Counter Proposition:
A Sovereign Citizen of the California
Republic
should not withdraw from voter registration.
Exposition:
Even though I am surprised and a bit
confused to learn that the law is so different from the common understanding of
citizenship, I have verified and honestly cannot dispute the law and cases
which are quoted so accurately by my colleague.
Due to the very serious nature of
these distinctions between the two kinds of citizens, and due to the importance
of voting in a democratic society, I am going to present arguments why a
California State Citizen should not withdraw from voter registration.
As an alternative, I would recommend the following:
Before doing anything else, California
Citizens should write to the Registrar of Voters, requesting clarification
about several things:
1. Which meaning of the term "United
States" is being used on the voter
registration affidavit (see copy attached)?
2. Is there any difference between the term
"United States citizen" as found in the Elections Code, and the term
"citizen of the United States" as found in the registration
affidavit, and if so, what is that difference?
3. Does the Registrar of Voters know that there
are two classes of citizenship in American law?
4. To which class of citizens should the registration affidavit refer?
5. Does the Registrar of Voters know that
silence can be equated with fraud, when there is a legal or moral duty to speak
(see U.S. v. Tweel and U.S. v. Prudden)?
A similar letter should be written to
the Jury Commissioner and also to the Grand Jury Foreperson. Serving on trial juries and grand juries is
an important civic duty, in addition to voting. If California Citizens cancel voter registration, they will not
have an opportunity to perform any of these duties, because potential jurors
are selected from voters' registration lists.
In these letters, I would be careful to enclose copies of the relevant
court cases, laws, and constitutional provisions which were cited by my
colleague.
For example:
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States
and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which
depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
[Slaughter
House Cases]
[U.S. Supreme
Court (1873)]
We have in our political system a Government of the United
States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of
these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own .... Slaughter-House Cases
[United States
v. Cruikshank]
[U.S. Supreme
Court (1875)]
A person who is a citizen of the
United States is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he
resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a
citizen of the United States. To
hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its
sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens.
[State v.
Fowler, Louisiana Supreme Court (1889)]
I would also explain my desire to
become (or remain) a California State Citizen and to remain a registered voter,
in spite of the wording on the registration affidavit.
I would also inquire whether there is
a legal way for this to happen, without running the risk of my being wrongly
identified as a federal citizen at some future date.
It is also important for the record,
for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary taxation, and for the purpose of
asserting and maintaining each and every one of the fundamental and unalienable
rights which belong to California Citizens, that this correspondence be done in
good faith and in a highly professional manner.
There are many people, both inside and
outside government, who might react quite negatively to this information, for
any of several different reasons. For
one, it is so different from the "consensus reality" we all believe,
I could envision surprise, maybe some shock, and certainly some real opposition
to this information and to its legal implications as explained by my colleague.
If government people, in particular, should
choose to take issue with any of these points, I would certainly want to have
an opportunity to investigate their side of the story and to determine whether
there is any merit to their divergent opinions.
Depending on how divergent their
opinions are, it might be necessary to bring a test case before the proper
court, such as the California Superior Court, in order to clarify some of these
issues once and for all.
For example, it is my understanding
that one can only serve in the White House, the Senate, or the House of
Representatives if one is a State Citizen (see 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5).
The courts have ruled that the
constitutional qualifications for these offices stipulate that the candidates
must be Sovereign Citizens of one of the United States; specifically, that the term "United
States" in these provisions
means "States united".
This was explained by a judge in a
case which went to the California Supreme Court in the year 1870 (People v.
De La Guerra). This case has never
been overturned.
In conclusion, I can only reiterate
that voting is too important to be stopped for the reasons given by my
colleague.
I would look for ways to have my cake
and eat it too; in other words, I would
look for ways to keep voting and also to assert my proper status as a Sovereign
Citizen of the California Republic at the same time.
#
# #
[Teacher and student comments are addressed in what
follows.]
On the lack of
direct clash:
The direct
clash did not occur, and was not intended to occur, between the two speakers in
this debate. The direct clash they
caused was one which occurred in the minds of the teacher and the audience,
between the "consensus reality" which they have come to believe as absolute truth, on the one hand, and
the law as actually written and
interpreted by the courts, on the other hand. America has been deeply and systematically deceived, and such
dreadful lies will always clash with the truth, without fail.
On the failure to
examine historic aspects, especially the Civil War era:
On the
contrary, the speakers came to agree on key elements of the Law precisely
because they did examine the Civil
War and its legal aftermath, particularly the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Utah Supreme Court wrote in 1975:
I cannot believe that any court, in full
possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the [14th] amendment was
properly approved and adopted.
[State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d
936 (1975)]
This statement is followed by a footnote reference to an
earlier decision in which the same Court wrote:
How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a
combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right
to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its
people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment
was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.
[Dyett v. Turner, 430 P.2d 266
(1968)]
Some courts
credited a ratified 14th Amendment with settling the meaning of citizenship
once and for all, that is, by making federal citizenship paramount and State
citizenship subordinate. The failed
ratification proves that State citizenship remains paramount, because it has
been recognized in the federal Constitution since the Declaration of
Independence, whereas federal citizenship first occurred in the 1866 Civil
Rights Act. This Act is merely a
Congressional statute which Congress can change, and not the Constitution, which Congress cannot change!
In fairness,
however, a 20-minute debate left no time to consider the Civil War in any
detail. For purposes of this debate,
the Civil War was relevant only to the meaning of federal and State citizenship
and to its implications for the voter registration affidavit.
How does becoming
a sovereign Citizen address the tax issue:
Read The
Federal Zone for a complete and detailed answer to this question. Very briefly, the "United States"
is defined as the federal zone, for purposes of the federal income tax. If you are not a citizen of this zone, the
law says you are an "alien".
Likewise, if you are not a resident of this zone, the law says you are a
"nonresident". This is the
reason why New York Citizen and Brooklyn resident Frank R. Brushaber was described as a "nonresident
alien" by Treasury Decision 2313 in the year 1916.
It is crucial
to understand that the federal government made this determination about
his status, not Frank Brushaber. The
law reads that nonresident aliens only pay taxes on income derived from sources
that are inside the federal zone;
there is no tax liability for nonresident aliens on income from sources
that are outside the federal zone.
Not convinced of
its urgency:
The White
House budget office recently invented a new kind of "generational
accounting", so as to project a tax load of seventy-one percent on
future generations of federal citizens.
Put bluntly, this is slavery for ourselves and for our children, being
planned and formulated by federal officials who are sworn to support the
Constitution, which explicitly bans slavery.
This
Constitution is a solemn contract whose purpose is to "secure the
blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity", not to line the
pockets of a billionaire banker elite intent on financing a worldwide socialist
dictatorship. Citizens of a Republic
are not slaves; they are free. The California Supreme Court has told us
that it is not only our Right, but our duty to protect this chosen form of
government, not to genuflect before some arrogant and ruthless commercial
oligarchy.
The Grace Commission found that income tax revenues are
not paying for any government
services. Those revenues are being used
to make huge interest payments to banks for a bogus $4 trillion federal
debt. The debt is bogus because the
Federal Reserve, a private corporation, purchased Treasury Bonds with money
which they created out of thin air, money which they simply printed and loaned
into existence with the stroke of a keyboard.
This is
fraud, and the entire nation is now being swallowed by this octopus. The 14th Amendment attempted to authorize
Congress to lien on all land and future labor of federal citizens, because this
amendment states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. The land and labor Rights of State Citizens
are unalienable (i.e. un-lien-able).
The IRS would
collapse, maybe even the government:
This is
government propaganda. We are not
talking about dissolving the IRS; we
are talking about boycotting income taxes and doing so lawfully. After all, their own Treasury Officials
admit that the tax is 100% voluntary.
There will always be a need for some government agency to collect taxes.
The government is not going to
collapse. This is a "straw
man". The government would surely
contract in size, but not collapse.
Personal income taxes did not become a major source of government
revenue until the start of World War II.
This means that the federal government did just fine without an
income tax for more than three-fourths of our brief history as a nation.
The next time
you buy gasoline, look for the placard which itemizes the excise and sales
taxes which are levied on each gallon that you buy. We are not questioning these types of taxes, because they
are lawful and constitutional, and because they do support government services.
The IRS has
simply become too big and too powerful for the good of the America people. The evidence shows that the IRS is, in fact,
a criminal bureaucracy which routinely violates human rights in their arbitrary
administration of the federal tax laws.
Homes, jobs, bank accounts and entire families have been wrecked by
their lawlessness. It is time to show
them who is the boss -- the American People.
We are talking about a revolution here, a
revolution in the way people think and in the way they relate to
government. The Grace Commission
projected that federal waste would average $600 billion per annum thru the
year 2000. Do we really need
another study to measure the effects of smoking on dogs? Congress killed so many dogs with this
program, they had to spend more millions to fund a dog crematorium.
What is the
connection between driver's license and voter registration re: federal status?
In 1940,
Congress passed the Buck Act which authorized any federal agency to define
arbitrary "federal areas".
These areas are not territorial, but contractual "fictions"
which define a "State within a state". This act has permitted Congress to export its municipal laws into
the 50 Union States.
"Traveling"
is a Right, not a privilege, and the general principle in American Law is that
government can never tax the exercise of a Right; it can, however, tax the exercise of a privilege. "Driving," on the other hand, is defined
in the DMV Code as the chauffeuring of passengers for hire -- a privileged
activity which can be taxed and regulated by government.
The retention
of a driver's license is regarded by courts as evidence that its holder has
opted to "reside" inside this federal State-within-a-state, that is,
the holder has elected to be treated as
if he lives inside the federal zone, even if he does not. But, once again, this contract link to the
federal zone was never fully disclosed to us.
The voter registration form is a similar but clearer example of this "election", because it states specifically that the signer is a federal citizen.
How does the
famous Dred Scott case relate to this debate?
The
relationship is keen. Scott was a black
man who sued for his freedom by pleading the status of Missouri State Citizen
to a federal court. The case went to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that he was not a Missouri Citizen because
Negroes were not entitled to enjoy the status of Sovereign State Citizens. Justice Taney told Congress that it was not
the intent of the Constitution to admit blacks into this status; Congress would need to amend the
Constitution to make this possible.
This decision
ultimately led to the 13th and 14th Amendments, but not before a bloody war had
intervened. Congress botched the 14th
Amendment by failing to admit blacks and other minority races into the status
of Sovereign State Citizens; it created
instead a second-class citizenship which amounts to a corporate franchise with
the District of Columbia. Put simply,
Congress told blacks that they were free to leave, but if they stayed, they
would become "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government. State Citizens, on the other hand, are not
"subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government, unless they
choose to become so by means of valid contracts.
Remember, the
District of Columbia and the other places within the federal zone are still not Union States, by definition,
so they cannot have Sovereign State Citizens.
The California Supreme Court has explained that federal zone citizens
are actually "subjects" who cannot exercise the authority of a
Sovereign State until and unless they are admitted to the Union on an equal
basis with the other Union States.
#
# #
Reader’s Notes: