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]


"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.



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]


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.


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


automatically to  be Members,  and so  now you have to argue your
Case that you are not a Member.  [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

     -    Title    8,     Section    1401    ["Nationality    and

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


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

     -    Edward  Bates,   United  States  Attorney  General,  in
          ["Citizenship"], 10  Opinions of  the Attorney  General
          382 at 394, [W.H. & O. H. Morrison, Washington (1868)].


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.


"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


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


concern himself  with any  federal Income  Tax liability,  or any
state tax  liability.   These folks preach the theory that MILLER


347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954).


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]


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


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]


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


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


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?


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]



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
Georgetown Law Journal 448 (1937).


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
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]


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


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


There is  no single  place I  can point  folks to  and say "Here,
Citizens, are your benefits."  [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


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].


Even listings  of benefits  in the dicta of Supreme Court rulings
are fractured and incomplete.  [516]


For example,  in  UNITED  STATES  v.  MATHESON  [532  F.2nd  809
(1976)], the Second Circuit mentioned that some of those benefits


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.


And the Congress is largely the same.  [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
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)].


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]


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.



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]


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


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

     -    HAMMERSTEIN v. LYNE, 200 Federal 165, at 169 (1912).


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]


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


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

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.


Some other benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States are,
in general, the protection of United States Marshals.  [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


Yes, all Citizens accept the protectorate benefits offered by the
United States Marshal Service.  [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


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

     -    UNITED STATES  v. CRUIKSHANK,  92  U.S.  542,  at  550

And so  the King  needs some  bouncers to  justify his  claim  of
protecting Citizens.


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]


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


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


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


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]


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

     -    United States  Department  Publication,  THE  RIGHT  TO
          [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.


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


different categories,  when benefits  are being  accepted by  all
Citizens regardless of classification, is baneful.  [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.

          SEVERAL STATES, 1 Michigan Law Review 286 (1902);

     -    Roger  Howell  in  CITIZENSHIP  -  THE  PRIVILEGES  AND
          IMMUNITIES OF  STATE CITIZENSHIP  [John Hopkins  Press,
          Baltimore (1918)];

          [Columbia University Press, New York (1913)].


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]


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


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

     -    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).


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].


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.



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]


"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).


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]


"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).


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]



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
     -    Section 861 ["Income from sources within the United
     -    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
     -    Section 911 ["Citizens or residents of the United
          States living abroad"];
     -    Section 932 ["Citizens of possessions of the United
     -    Section 933 ["Income from sources within Puerto Rico"];
     -    Section 1302 ["Definition of averagable income"];
     -    Section 1444 ["Withholding on Virgin Islands source
     -    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
     -    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-
     -    Section 8143 ["Definitions"].



So just  where do  Federal Judges  get the idea that Citizens are
PERSONS under  contract, suitable  for a  smooth Federal taxation
shake down?  [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"].


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]


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


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]


44 United States Code 1507.


And the  Code of Federal Regulations is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
of the text of the original documents.  [534]



44 United States Code 1510.


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]


26 CFR 1.0-1(b) and 1.0-1(c); (1985).


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]


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


attachment  of   Citizenship,  and  are,  at  the  present  time,

VOTERS:   In  some  foreign  countries,  like  Australia,  voting
liability cannot  be transferred  to others  -- but  is mandatory
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
THEORY OF  PROPERTY RIGHTS ["Inalienability and Citizenship"], 85
Columbia Law Review 931, at 961 (1985).


The CODE  OF  FEDERAL  REGULATIONS  is  also  another  source  of
identifying handouts and benefits offered to Citizens.  [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;


     -    Part 3:  The President -- Proclamations, Executive
     -    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
     -    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
     -    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
     -    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 --


                    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
     -    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
     -    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.


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]


"... 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

     -    ELK v. WILINS, 112 U.S. 94, at 102 (1884).


Who  are  those  individuals?    For  starters,  they  are  those
Individuals who  don't accept  any benefits  or handouts from the
King.  [[539]



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,
     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
          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

     -    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


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,


and all  this all  written out  in advance  in specific and blunt
terms in Federal Statutes.  [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].


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]


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).


Yes, Citizenship  is very  much a  contract, and  Federal  Judges
generally think  in contract  terms when  dealing with  a Tax  or
Draft Protestor.  [542]


I am  not aware  of any Federal statute anywhere that comes right
out in  the  open  and  explicitly  correlates  the  benefits  of


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,

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].


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


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]


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

     "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.



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]


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 -

     "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:


     "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?


     "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

     -    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
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


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

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


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.


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.


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].



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]


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].


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.


"... 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


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]


Surrey reviews this in his article entitled CURRENT ISSUES IN THE
at 817 (1956).


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]


"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."


     -    See  HOUSE   REPORT  NUMBER  5,  63rd  Congress,  First
          Session, 1 (1913).


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]


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


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.


Our Fathers  fell for  that "ability to pay" reasoning then, just
like most  folks today continue to fall for that same line today.


Pathetic was  the caliber  of judgment  that fell for this little

     "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.


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,


265 U.S. 47 (1924).


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]



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.


[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

     "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

          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.


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]


FELIX REXACH v. UNITED STATES, 390 F.2nd 631 (1968).



Felix Rexach  was  a  native  born  Puerto  Rican,  who  acquired
statutory American  Citizenship by  virtue of  the Jones  Act  of
1917.  [555]


Title 48, Section 731, et seq.


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]


Title 8, Section 1481(c).


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]


"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.


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]


REXACH, id., at 631.



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]


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).


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


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]


265 U.S. 47 (1924).


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]


REXACH, id., at 632.


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:


     "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]


REXACH, id., at 632.


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]


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)].


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]



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


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]


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


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.


What happens  to Citizens  who reject  the King's benefits?  They
become Denizens.  [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
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

     -    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


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,

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.


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]


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


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

     "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


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.


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]


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.



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]


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

     "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)].


and then  the Framers  gave the  King the  blank  check  to  nail
Citizens to the wall as taxable objects, a situation that did not

     "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]


IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 573, at 578 (1894).


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]



"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


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?


For commentary  on loss  of Citizenship  for any  one of  several
reasons, see:

     -    Lawrence Abramson  in UNITED STATES LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP
          APPELLATE REVIEW,  16 New  York University  Journal  of
          International Law and Politics 29 (1984);

     -    Terry   Reicher    in   A    COMPARISON   BETWEEN   THE
          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."


     -    UNITED STATES  v. MATHESON,  532  F.2nd  809,  at  811

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 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.]


ANSWER:  The same way one gets rid of any other contract.  [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

... 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


it be known that they disapproved of these plans.  Numerous other
professional architectural groups from surrounding areas (such as
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


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

     [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
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.


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

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.


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
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.


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]


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


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


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

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

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



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]


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


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.


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]


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


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,
by Ernst Schneedberger in 35 Georgetown Law Journal, 481 (1947).


                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

George Mercier