2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
|
|
|
<title>incon007</title>
|
|
|
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../CSSstyle.css"/>
|
|
|
|
|
<!--Fill in your link line for CSS and JS in the XSLT here! -->
|
|
|
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
<h1 id="title-index">incon007</h1>
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
<nav id="menu">
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="../index.html">
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="button">Home</div>
|
|
|
|
|
</a>
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
<a href="../fulltext.html">
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
<div class="button">Fulltext</div>
|
|
|
|
|
</a>
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="../analysis.html">
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="button">Analysis</div>
|
|
|
|
|
</a>
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="../gallery.html">
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="button">Gallery</div>
|
|
|
|
|
</a>
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="../methods.html">
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="button">Methods</div>
|
|
|
|
|
</a>
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="../about.html">
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="button">About</div>
|
|
|
|
|
</a>
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="../GitHub.html">
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="button">GitHub <img alt="github icon"
|
|
|
|
|
src="https://logos-download.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/GitHub_logo.png"
|
|
|
|
|
width="15"/>
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
</a>
|
|
|
|
|
</nav>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<div id="conspiracy">
|
|
|
|
|
<p> I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
George Mercier</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p> THE CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
[Pages 386-434]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE CONTRACTS to an
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p> ====================P R E V I E W=============== So getting rid of your
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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===============</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Next, we turn now and discuss a layer of invisible contract that is rarely
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
addressed, thought of, or treated as the pure contract that it is really is:
|
|
|
|
|
National Citizenship. [506]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[506]============================================================= "The United
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
States chose to base its tax jurisdiction on Citizenship from the inception of
|
|
|
|
|
the Income Tax in 1913."
|
|
|
|
|
-Citizenship as a Jurisdictional Basis for Taxation:
|
|
|
|
|
Section 911 and the Foreign Source Income Experience
|
|
|
|
|
by John Christie, 8 Brooklyn Journal of International Law
|
|
|
|
|
109, at 109 (1982). Such a seemingly easy STATEMENT for someone
|
|
|
|
|
to make, yet pulling together all of the relevant factors on Citizenship is
|
|
|
|
|
difficult because they are not all located in one single place; and there
|
|
|
|
|
exists no simple, explicit, and blunt statement or Supreme Court ruling stating
|
|
|
|
|
so. Yet when everything is assembled there is a large collection of Federal
|
|
|
|
|
dribblings originating from disorganized DICTA located in Court Opinions,
|
|
|
|
|
Congressional enactments, and in Administrative LEX, which when analyzed
|
|
|
|
|
collectively as a whole, form a revealing picture of the surprises that
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens are really in for.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[506]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>As a point of beginning, it is perhaps most easy to think of Citizenship in
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[507]============================================================= The United
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 161, at 166 (1874). Here in MINOR, the
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court relates Citizenship to an association; while I have chosen
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTRY CLUB due to the easier relational image created by voluntarily joining
|
|
|
|
|
an institution that offers special and unique benefits available to members
|
|
|
|
|
only. Some of those special benefits offered are very important to some members
|
|
|
|
|
(I have many stories to tell of business deals and business introductions made
|
|
|
|
|
on golf courses), while to others, the Country Club is just a nice place to be
|
|
|
|
|
for lunch. =============================================================[507]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The procedure for entering into a Country Club Membership contract differs
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[508]============================================================= This shift
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
of burden originates with a slice of LEX the King's Scribes once enacted:
|
|
|
|
|
"The following shall be nationals and Citizens of the United States at
|
|
|
|
|
birth:
|
|
|
|
|
1)A person born in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION
|
|
|
|
|
thereof;"
|
|
|
|
|
-Title 8, Section 1401 ["Nationality and Naturalization"] Section 1401
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
then continues on with similar hooks planted into American <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Indians</span>, Eskimos,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 Kings.]
|
|
|
|
|
-Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in ["Citizenship"], 10
|
|
|
|
|
Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at 394, [W.H. & O.H. Morrison, Washington
|
|
|
|
|
(1868)]. =============================================================[508]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>But once we are beyond that initial point of entrance into the contract, then
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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.</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Earlier, I mentioned that the 14th Amendment offers invisible benefits that
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Citizens have been deemed by Federal Judges to have accepted by their silence
|
|
|
|
|
(since anything but silence is very consistent with a person's wanting
|
|
|
|
|
Citizenship), and so the 14th Amendment then and there creates a Citizenship
|
|
|
|
|
Contract. Yes, there are special benefits to be had from the 14th Amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
[509]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[509]============================================================= "Since the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340, at 345
|
|
|
|
|
(1954).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[509]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>So although the 14th Amendment creates benefits proprietary to Citizenship,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
those are not the only Citizenship benefits that you need to concern yourself
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
with. Many Tax Protestors and <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Patriots</span> are aware of the 14th Amendment story,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND,
|
|
|
|
|
[510]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[510]============================================================= 347 U.S.
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
340, at 345 (1954).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[510]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>stands for the proposition that States derive their taxing and regulatory
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[511]============================================================== For
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
example, some states required that auctioneers possess licenses in the early
|
|
|
|
|
1800's, long before the 14th Amendment ever made its appearance. Joseph Story
|
|
|
|
|
mentions this in III Commentaries on the Constitution, at page 483, ["Powers of
|
|
|
|
|
Congress - Taxes"], (Cambridge, 1833). This little regulatory jurisdiction
|
|
|
|
|
existed long before either the Civil War or any of the so called Reconstruction
|
|
|
|
|
Amendments [the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments] made their appearance; and
|
|
|
|
|
since the States did not need the 14th Amendment then to enact regulatory
|
|
|
|
|
jurisdictions, the States do not need the 14th Amendment to enact regulatory
|
|
|
|
|
jurisdictions, and your relational status to the 14th Amendment is irrelevant
|
|
|
|
|
in determining your attachment to regulatory jurisdictions.
|
|
|
|
|
==============================================================[511]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>This view of legal liability propagated by Protestors is baneful, and
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[512]============================================================= When some
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
folks emphasize the value to you of <span class="EVENT" title="EVENT">PREVENTION</span>, what they are also saying is
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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,
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
at 248 [Henry Holt and Company, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1957)]. On the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[512]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Then Lucifer continues on (also quite technically correct), that all of their
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 ecstacy 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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[513]============================================================= The way to
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
correctly read Supreme Court rulings on 14th Amendment taxation questions is to
|
|
|
|
|
keep an eye on what the 14th Amendment did in the area of restraining
|
|
|
|
|
reciprocity expectations political jurisdictions created when throwing benefits
|
|
|
|
|
at folks. The 14th Amendment prohibited double taxation, and no more. DOUBLE
|
|
|
|
|
TAXATION is the layering of a plurality of taxes on the same economic asset or
|
|
|
|
|
legal right by competing jurisdictions. In some factual settings, the
|
|
|
|
|
jurisdiction to tax an economic asset actually belongs to several states, but
|
|
|
|
|
should be conceded to only one State for the exercise of taxation jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
See JURISDICTION TO TAX UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT in Notes, 25 Georgetown
|
|
|
|
|
Law Journal 448 (1937).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[513]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>But the conclusions those Tax Protestors draw, that termination of the adhesive
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
King's Equity Jurisdiction that the 14th Amendment attaches is the only thing
|
|
|
|
|
they need concern themselves with, is incorrect. 14th Amendment pleading,
|
|
|
|
|
standing alone by itself, doesn't vitiate anyone's state or federal Income Tax
|
|
|
|
|
liability -- it never has, and it never will. The legal argument I hear many
|
|
|
|
|
folks throw at Federal Judges, that they are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a
|
|
|
|
|
PREAMBLE CITIZEN, and not a 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN, is patently stupid, and
|
|
|
|
|
carries no weight, merit, or attractiveness before Federal Judges; and for very
|
|
|
|
|
good reasons: Because all Citizens of the United States are acceptants of that
|
|
|
|
|
profile of juristic benefits that the King is offering, and these benefits are
|
|
|
|
|
offered by the King regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or PREAMBLE
|
|
|
|
|
classification status. And so correlatively, since those juristic benefits are
|
|
|
|
|
accepted by all United States Citizens regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or
|
|
|
|
|
so-called PREAMBLE jurisdictional origin of the classification of Citizenship
|
|
|
|
|
(distinctions that Citizenship Contract Protestors like to make and argue),
|
|
|
|
|
these distinctions mean absolutely nothing in important areas involving Tax and
|
|
|
|
|
Military Conscription reciprocity expectations the King maintains on his
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens. [514]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[514]============================================================= The extent
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 (1984)].
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[514]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>There is no single place I can point folks to and say "Here, Citizens, are your
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
benefits." [515]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[515]============================================================= The same
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 claim 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 VS. BROWNELL, 356 U.S. 44, at 92 (1958).
|
|
|
|
|
Moments earlier in that conversation I had with the Judge, the Judge
|
|
|
|
|
was friendly and spoke very knowledgeably about the location of Citizenship
|
|
|
|
|
benefits [as well they should know the location of benefits because Federal
|
|
|
|
|
Judges are steeped in benefit justification in those seminars of theirs], but
|
|
|
|
|
now the atmosphere quickly chilled when I presented him with an explicit
|
|
|
|
|
inquiry on the specific identification of Citizenship benefits, and the Judge
|
|
|
|
|
very quickly terminated the conversation. Those benefits of Citizenship are all
|
|
|
|
|
listed and neatly presented to Federal Judges in that BENCH BOOK of theirs;
|
|
|
|
|
this is important material for Federal Judges to know since the King deems it
|
|
|
|
|
extremely important that Judges feel justified and comfortable CRACKING
|
|
|
|
|
Protestors under the Citizenship Contract; and this is also the real meaning
|
|
|
|
|
behind an occasional blurb emanating down from the bench that "you've accepted
|
|
|
|
|
a benefit [snort!]." What few words the Judge is saying is a fractured piece
|
|
|
|
|
of the total contract pie, as contracts are properly in effect whenever
|
|
|
|
|
benefits offered conditionally [offered with a hook in them] were accepted by
|
|
|
|
|
you; so the Judge's short blurb about accepting benefits is a reference to the
|
|
|
|
|
fact that you are patently BLACK AND WHITE wrong -- caught in the very act of
|
|
|
|
|
contract defilement. But just because the Judge remains silent on the existence
|
|
|
|
|
of the retained expectations of reciprocity that the King holds, and that a
|
|
|
|
|
contract is in effect, does not annul the existence of the contract. Very
|
|
|
|
|
rarely in life in any setting such as science, business, the law, or commerce,
|
|
|
|
|
does anyone ever go into prolixitous elucidations when explaining error or
|
|
|
|
|
justifying something. But the juristic contract is there, the explanation [or
|
|
|
|
|
here in a Courtroom, the snortation] is optional, and the fact that the
|
|
|
|
|
contract is invisible to you does not vitiate your liability when the contract
|
|
|
|
|
comes up for review [a feature of Nature every single person who ever lived on
|
|
|
|
|
the face of the Earth will become very well acquainted with at the Last Day].
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[515]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Even listings of benefits in the dicta of Supreme Court rulings are fractured
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
and incomplete. [516]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[516]============================================================= For example,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
in UNITED STATES VS. 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
|
|
|
|
|
VS. MATHESON, id., at 819. Remember that the Law is always justified, and the
|
|
|
|
|
acceptance of benefits, however flaky those benefits are in substance, do
|
|
|
|
|
correctly justify the King's retention of expectations of financial
|
|
|
|
|
reciprocity. =============================================================[516]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>And the Congress is largely the same. [517]</p>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>[517]============================================================= There is no
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
statute existing anywhere that presents a composite blended profile of all
|
|
|
|
|
benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States. When searching through
|
|
|
|
|
Congressional documents at just a Committee Hearing level, for perhaps some
|
|
|
|
|
small list of benefits that may have slipped out here or there, the only
|
|
|
|
|
discussion of benefits was characterizes as RIGHTS, and then treated as a
|
|
|
|
|
unitary subject [see CITIZENS GUIDE TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
|
|
|
|
|
OF THE UNITED STATES, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the
|
|
|
|
|
Judiciary, United States Senate, 94th Congress, Second Session (October, 1970),
|
|
|
|
|
which largely discusses those Clauses in the Constitution that restrain
|
|
|
|
|
Government Tortfeasance (which although such restrainments are benefits in a
|
|
|
|
|
sense, the restrainment of the King's own prospective Tortfeasance is not the
|
|
|
|
|
character of benefits whose acceptance by Citizens enables expectations of
|
|
|
|
|
reciprocity to operate on in the formation of juristic contracts)].
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[517]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Some of the juristic benefits that the King is offering to his Citizens
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
originate in the Constitution, where these benefits are inferred by Federal
|
|
|
|
|
Judges from certain wording and phrases in that Majestic Document; [518]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[518]============================================================= For certain
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 Constitutions's pronouncements are more tactically difficult
|
|
|
|
|
to enact and repeal.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[518]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>other benefits the King is offering find their home nestled in his pile of LEX,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[519]============================================================= For example,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. 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 loose, 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 VS. LYNE as a jurisdictional question, since one
|
|
|
|
|
of the statutes in Title 28 confers jurisdiction to Federal District Courts to
|
|
|
|
|
hear diversity cases involving CITIZENS in different States:
|
|
|
|
|
"In order to give jurisdiction to the Courts of the United States, the
|
|
|
|
|
Citizenship of the party must be founded on a change of domicile and permanent
|
|
|
|
|
residence in the State to which he may have removed from another State. Mere
|
|
|
|
|
residence is PRIMA FACIE evidence of such change, although, when it is
|
|
|
|
|
explained and shown to have been for temporary purposes, the presumption is
|
|
|
|
|
destroyed."
|
|
|
|
|
-HAMMERSTEIN VS. LYNE, 200 Federal 165, at 169 (1912).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[519]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Some benefits of Citizenship are proprietary and the distribution of those
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
benefits are limited to identifiable groups, for example, such as the elective
|
|
|
|
|
franchise. [520]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[520]============================================================= See
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
ENFRANCHISEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP by Edward J. Pierce [Roberts Brothers, Boston
|
|
|
|
|
(1896) {Harvard University, WIDENER LIBRARY, Cambridge, Massachusetts}]. Even
|
|
|
|
|
many of the covenant terms of the Country Club Contract and the Citizenship
|
|
|
|
|
Contract are identical. For example, Country Clubs rarely admit people into
|
|
|
|
|
membership positions unless that person is of age, so either all Country Club
|
|
|
|
|
Members are generally assumed to have the elective franchise to turn over house
|
|
|
|
|
management, or some type of junior Membership is created for young dependent
|
|
|
|
|
offspring. Citizenship does differ; there was once a time in the United States
|
|
|
|
|
when a large body of Citizens were denied the benefit of elective franchise
|
|
|
|
|
rights, back before Women's Sufferrage matured:
|
|
|
|
|
"Again, women and minors are Citizens of the [various States], and also
|
|
|
|
|
of the United States; but they are not electors, nor are they eligible to
|
|
|
|
|
office, either in those States or in the United States."
|
|
|
|
|
-Caleb Cushing, Attorney General of the United States, ["Chickasaw
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution"] in 8 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 300, at 302, [R. Farnham,
|
|
|
|
|
Washington (1858)]. Yes, the elective franchise, together with the right to
|
|
|
|
|
hold government offices, is deemed to be one of the many benefits inuring to
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens, even though not all Citizens universally enjoy such benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[520]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Some other benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States are, in general,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
the protection of United States Marshals. [521]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[521]============================================================= When I read
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
about this benefit in a Supreme Court Case, my mind was reading it if it were,
|
|
|
|
|
or could possibly be converted into, a specific duty on the part of the
|
|
|
|
|
Marshals -- which is the way the wording was written; later a Federal Judge
|
|
|
|
|
once disputed this with me in part, stating that United States Marshals owe no
|
|
|
|
|
American any protective duty specifically [meaning that if the Marshals default
|
|
|
|
|
in protecting Citizens, then the Marshals have no reciprocal liability inuring
|
|
|
|
|
in return to Citizens in favor of Breach of Contract damages or perhaps
|
|
|
|
|
negligence on their part; this means that if you request the Marshals' services
|
|
|
|
|
and the Marshals mess up for some reason, then you are without recourse to sue
|
|
|
|
|
them for damages]. In reading all of the Federal statutes on Citizenship and of
|
|
|
|
|
the United States Marshals, there is no exact statute anywhere which binds the
|
|
|
|
|
Marshal, or otherwise creates such a duty, to specifically protect you, yet
|
|
|
|
|
their protectorate services are deemed to be a benefit by Federal Judges.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[521]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Yes, all Citizens accept the protectorate benefits offered by the United States
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Marshal Service. [522]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[522]============================================================= "The people
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 jurisdiction."
|
|
|
|
|
-UNITED STATES VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 550 (1875). And so the
|
|
|
|
|
King needs some bouncers to justify his claim of protecting Citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[522]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>And unlike your local Police Department, when you call up the U.S. Marshals and
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
request their security assistance, generally they will not bark, snap, or snort
|
|
|
|
|
at you for doing so. [523]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[523]============================================================= To this
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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:
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
"the Chief Captain [of the <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Jews</span>] commanded that he be brought into the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
(1868)]. =============================================================[523]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The United States Marshals today will make inquiries and ask probing questions
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[524]============================================================= Other
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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:
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
-CITIZENSHIP by Edward Borehard, Thesis [<span class="GPE" title="GPE">Columbia</span> University, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span>
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
(1914)], discussing the diplomatic protection of American Citizens abroad;
|
|
|
|
|
refers to the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW for July, 1913.
|
|
|
|
|
-United States Department Publication, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT CITIZENS
|
|
|
|
|
IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY LANDING FORCES [Second Edition, GPO (October 5, 1912)]
|
|
|
|
|
{Harvard University, WIDENER LIBRARY, Cambridge, Massachusetts}, contains a
|
|
|
|
|
chronological listing of the occasions in which the Government has taken action
|
|
|
|
|
on behalf of American Citizens up to 1912.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[524]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>As for the 14th Amendment, the reason why the 14th Amendment as a stand-alone
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[525]============================================================= The word
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 Court Cases. See:
|
|
|
|
|
-THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, 1
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Law Review 286 (1902);
|
|
|
|
|
-Roger Howell in CITIZENSHIP - THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF STATE
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
CITIZENSHIP [John Hopkins Press, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">Baltimore</span> (1918)];
|
|
|
|
|
-Arnold J. Lien in PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS [<span class="GPE" title="GPE">Columbia</span>
|
|
|
|
|
University Press, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1913)].
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
=============================================================[525]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Claiming that you are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a PREAMBLE CITIZEN with a
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[526]============================================================= Another line
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
military service in World War I, long before FDR's <span class="PERSON" title="PERSON">Rockefeller</span> Cartel sponsors
|
|
|
|
|
in <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York City</span> presented the wealth transfer grab of Social Security to
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 it."
|
|
|
|
|
-SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245 U.S. 366, at 378 (1917). The reason why
|
|
|
|
|
the obligation is reciprocal is because the King is first offering to you the
|
|
|
|
|
protectorate services of his bouncers. The reciprocal and contractual nature of
|
|
|
|
|
Citizenship is recognized in Congress as such. When debates on the proposed
|
|
|
|
|
14th Amendment transpired in the Senate, Senator Trumbull stated his
|
|
|
|
|
understanding that:
|
|
|
|
|
"This Government... has certainly some power to protect its own
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal
|
|
|
|
|
rights."
|
|
|
|
|
-CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, at page 1757 (1866).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[526]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The reason why self-proclaimed PREAMBLE CITIZENS and COMMON LAW CITIZENS, so
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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].</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[527]============================================================= This is not
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[527]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>I would advise you to terminate your reliance on information originating from
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[528]============================================================= "Citizens
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[528]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Above, I listed some of the benefits that all Citizens of the United States
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
enjoy; and this is important since Federal Judges always view things from a
|
|
|
|
|
"What benefit has this fellow accepted?" attitude. [529]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[529]============================================================= "Income
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 51 (1919).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[529]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>But just where does the King and the Federal Judges get off with the idea that
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[530]============================================================= Although
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
there are 115 Sections of LEX where the root word CITIZEN appears in Title 26,
|
|
|
|
|
when considered as a whole they only inferentially suggest that the CITIZENSHIP
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRACT is the primary center of gravity for federal taxation liability
|
|
|
|
|
attachment purposes. For example, some of these are:
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 63 ["Taxable Income Defined"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 303 ["Distributions in redemption of stock to pay death
|
|
|
|
|
taxes"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 407 ["Certain employees of domestic subsidiaries engaged in
|
|
|
|
|
business outside the United States"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 861 ["Income from sources within the United States"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 864 ["Definitions"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 871 ["Tax on nonresident alien individuals"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 872 ["Gross Income"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 883 ["Exclusions from gross income"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 906 ["Nonresident alien individuals and foreign
|
|
|
|
|
corporations"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 911 ["Citizens or residents of the United States living
|
|
|
|
|
abroad"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 932 ["Citizens of possessions of the United States"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 933 ["Income from sources within Puerto Rico"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 1302 ["Definition of averagable income"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 1444 ["Withholding on Virgin Islands source income"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 1491 ["Imposition of tax"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2002 ["Liability for payment"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2037 ["Transfers taking effect at death"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2039 ["Annuities"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2045 ["Prior interests"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2053 ["Expenses, indebtedness, and taxes"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2101 ["Tax imposed"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2104 ["Property within the United States"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2107 ["Expatriation to avoid tax"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 2208 ["Certain residents of possessions considered Citizens
|
|
|
|
|
of the United States"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 3121(e) ["State, United States, and Citizens"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 6854 ["Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 7325 ["Personal property valued at $2500 or less"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 7408 ["Action to enjoin promoters of abusive tax
|
|
|
|
|
shelters..."]; See also Title 42:
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 410 ["Definitions relating to employment"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 411 ["Definitions relating to self-employment"];
|
|
|
|
|
-Section 8143 ["Definitions"].
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[530]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>So just where do Federal Judges get the idea that Citizens are PERSONS under
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
contract, suitable for a smooth Federal taxation shake down? [531]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[531]============================================================= For purposes
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
of collecting an ESTATE TAX, the statutes in Title 26 are blunt and clear that
|
|
|
|
|
CITIZENS must pay:
|
|
|
|
|
"A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of every
|
|
|
|
|
decedent who is a Citizen or resident of the United States."
|
|
|
|
|
-Title 26, Section 2001 ["Imposition and Rate of Tax"].
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[531]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The answer lies by probing a level deeper into the King's statutes, into an
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
area <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Patriots</span> and Tax Protestors do not seem to be pursuing that much: Into the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, which operate as junior statutes. [532]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[532]============================================================= The Code is
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
divided into 50 titles or PARTS, which do not always correlate to statutory
|
|
|
|
|
Titles. For example, Title 26 UNITED STATES CODE pertains to TAXATION, and the
|
|
|
|
|
corresponding Part of CFR that also pertains to TAXATION is Volume 26; however,
|
|
|
|
|
Title 50 UNITED STATES CODE deals with WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, while CFR Part
|
|
|
|
|
50 deals with WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[532]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is a codification of the general and permanent
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[533]============================================================= 44 United
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
States Code 1507.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[533]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>And the Code of Federal Regulations is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of the text of
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
the original documents. [534]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[534]============================================================= 44 United
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
States Code 1510.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[534]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>This CFR is republished once each year, so the following quotations, extracted
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
from the 1985 edition, may have been altered in future editions. With that in
|
|
|
|
|
mind, consider the following words from the CFR:</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>"In general, all Citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[535]============================================================= 26 CFR
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
1.0-1(b) and 1.0-1(c); (1985).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[535]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>So you see for Citizens IN GENERAL, Federal Judges have already quietly taken
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
<span class="ORG" title="ORG">SPECIAL</span> and extraordinary, where if the King makes any revenue collection
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[536]============================================================= What we view
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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,
|
|
|
|
|
inalienable. VOTERS: In some foreign countries, like Australia, voting
|
|
|
|
|
liability cannot be transferred to others -- but is mandatory under fines [see
|
|
|
|
|
H. Emy in THE POLITICS OF AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY: FUNDAMENTALS IN DISPUTE, at
|
|
|
|
|
page 596 et seq. (2nd Edition, 1978)]. In a sense, Government has set a price
|
|
|
|
|
for not voting; so theoretically, by inverse reasoning, Citizens should also be
|
|
|
|
|
able to set a price and buy their way out of not voting by selling their right
|
|
|
|
|
to others [there is not a lot of difference between paying Government not to
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
vote and paying someone else to vote on your behalf]. SOLDIERS AND <span class="NORP" title="NORP">JURORS</span>: The
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
Civil War, draftees for both the <span class="LOC" title="LOC">North</span> and the South could buy their way out of
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
system broke down is because in the <span class="LOC" title="LOC">North</span>, several municipalities and States
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
intervened by appropriating money to enable destitute folks to buy their way
|
|
|
|
|
out and then began to pay bounties to enlistees. In the South, the purchase of
|
|
|
|
|
substitutes was heavily criticized and was abolished soon after it was begun,
|
|
|
|
|
as the howling of UNFAIRNESS ascended into Legislatures [see E. Murdock in
|
|
|
|
|
PATRIOTISM LIMITED: 1862-1854: THE CIVIL WAR DRAFT AND THE BOUNTY SYSTEM
|
|
|
|
|
(1967)]. See generally INALIENABILITY AND THE THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
["Inalienability and Citizenship"], 85 <span class="GPE" title="GPE">Columbia</span> Law Review 931, at 961 (1985).
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
=============================================================[536]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is also another source of identifying handouts
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
and benefits offered to Citizens. [537]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[537]============================================================= I have
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 Orders;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 4: General Accounting Office;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 5: Federal Administrative Personnel;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 6: [Reserved];
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 7: Agriculture -- price supports, inspections, counseling
|
|
|
|
|
benefits;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 8: Aliens and Nationality [Citizenship];
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 9: Animal and Animal Products, Plant and Health inspections;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 10: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 11: Federal Elections;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 12: Banks/Banking -- FDIC, Import-Export Bank and other handouts
|
|
|
|
|
to looters;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 13: Business Credit & Assistance -- SBA, Economic Development
|
|
|
|
|
Administration;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 14: FAA, Aviation, Department of Transportation;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 16: Federal Trade Commission -- Regulatory intervention on
|
|
|
|
|
behalf of consumers;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 17: Commodities and Securities Exchanges -- Regulatory
|
|
|
|
|
intervention;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 18: Conservation of Power and Water Resources -- Federal
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 19: Customs, Duties -- United States Customs Service;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 20: Food and Drug -- FDA and related inspections;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 21: Employee's Benefits -- Railroad Retirement Board, Office of
|
|
|
|
|
Workman's Compensation;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 22: Foreign Relations -- United States International Development
|
|
|
|
|
Cooperation Agency and related pipelines to looters;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 23: Highways -- Federal Highway Administration;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 24: Housing and Urban Development;
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
-Part 25: <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Indians</span> -- Bureau of <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Indian</span> Affairs; grants and counseling;
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
-Part 26: Internal Revenue;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 27: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- regulatory intervention;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 28: Judicial Administration -- Federal Prisons (concentration
|
|
|
|
|
camps);
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 29: Department of Labor -- grants and handouts;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 30: Mineral Resources -- Mine Safety regulations -- Inspections;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 31: Money and Finance -- Treasury;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 32: National Defense -- Contract administration;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 33: Marine Navigation & Navigable Waters;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 34: Education -- Grants to colleges, bilingual education,
|
|
|
|
|
vocational training;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 35: Panama Canal;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Lands;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 38: Pensions, Bonuses, Veteran's benefits -- Veteran's
|
|
|
|
|
Administration;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 39: Postal Service;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 40: Environmental Protection regulatory matters;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 41: Public Contracts and Property Management;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 42: Public Health -- Health care grants, Hospital enrichment;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 43: Public Land and Interiors -- Secretary of the Interior,
|
|
|
|
|
related infrastructure;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 44: Federal Emergency Management Agency (a Gremlin's dream come
|
|
|
|
|
true);
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 45: Public Welfare -- Office of Family Assistance and Child
|
|
|
|
|
Support;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 46: Shipping -- Coast Guard Services;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 47: Telecommunications -- FCC regulatory intervention;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 48: Federal Acquisition Regulatory System -- Federal
|
|
|
|
|
Procurement;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 49: Transportation;
|
|
|
|
|
-Part 50: Wildlife and Fisheries -- Department of the Interior --
|
|
|
|
|
fishing, hunting in National Forests, wildlife management.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[537]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>And the Judicial Notice, taken quietly IN CAMERA, that the Citizenship Contract
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[538]============================================================= "... the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" relates to time of birth, and one not
|
|
|
|
|
owing allegiance at birth cannot become a Citizen save by subsequent
|
|
|
|
|
naturalization, individually or collectively. The words do not mean merely
|
|
|
|
|
geographical location, but 'completely subject to the political jurisdiction'."
|
|
|
|
|
-ELK VS. WILINS, 112 U.S. 94, at 102 (1884).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[538]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Who are those individuals? For starters, they are those Individuals who don't
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
accept any benefits or handouts from the King. [[539]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[539]============================================================= The most
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
predominate ways that an individual can become subject to the jurisdiction of
|
|
|
|
|
the United States is by:
|
|
|
|
|
1.Violating a law the Government is authorized to prosecute
|
|
|
|
|
(counterfeiting, bank robbery, treason, etc.);
|
|
|
|
|
2.Be employed by the Federal Government;
|
|
|
|
|
3.Apply for its privileges, or accept its benefits; See generally:
|
|
|
|
|
-John H. Hughes in THE AMERICAN CITIZEN -- HIS RIGHTS AND DUTIES
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
[Pudney & Russell, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1857)];
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
-Luella Gettys in THE LAW OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES
|
|
|
|
|
[University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1934)];
|
|
|
|
|
-Albert Brill in TEN LECTURES ON CITIZENSHIP [Ascendancy Foundation,
|
|
|
|
|
New York (1938)];
|
|
|
|
|
-David Josiah Brewer in YALE LECTURES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
CITIZENSHIP -- OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENS [C. Scribner's Sons, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1907)];
|
|
|
|
|
-Imp Charles Beard in AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP [MacMillian, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span>
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
(1921)];
|
|
|
|
|
-Editors, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP "Rights and Duties of an American"
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
[American Heritage Foundation, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1948)];
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
-Nathan S. Shaler in CITIZENSHIP "The Citizen -- A Study of the
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
Individual and the Government" [A.S. Barnes & Company, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1904)];
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
-Melvin Risa in CITIZENSHIP "Theories on the Obligations of Citizens
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
to the State," Thesis, [University of <span class="GPE" title="GPE">Pennsylvania</span>, Philadelphia (1921)];
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
-Ansaldo Ceba in CITIZENSHIP "Rights, Duties, and Privileges of
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
Citizens" [Paine & Burgess, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1845)].
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
=============================================================[539]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Despite the fact that I say a few isolated nice things about Federal Judges
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
(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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[540]============================================================= Yes,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. DENCKLA, 357 U.S. 235, at 253 (1957); [A state taxation
|
|
|
|
|
jurisdiction question Case].
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[540]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Why then does the Supreme Court not correctly address Citizenship as the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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:</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>"An old principle, laid down from the earliest ages of <span class="NORP" title="NORP">British</span>
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[541]============================================================= George A.
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Smith, from a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, on
|
|
|
|
|
November 29, 1857; 6 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 84, at 85 (London, 1859).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[541]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Yes, Citizenship is very much a contract, and Federal Judges generally think in
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
contract terms when dealing with a Tax or Draft Protestor. [542]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[542]============================================================= I am not
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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, 1870). Multiple
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Protestors have taken notice of this statute, and have used it to try and
|
|
|
|
|
argue that this Section 1981 conveys jurisdiction to Federal District Courts
|
|
|
|
|
for hearing PROTESTING grievances arising out of Title 26; for example, see the
|
|
|
|
|
jurisdictional arguments in:
|
|
|
|
|
-SNYDER VS. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 240 (1984);
|
|
|
|
|
-CAMERON VS. IRS, 593 F.Supp 1540 (1984) [appeal published in 773
|
|
|
|
|
F.2nd 126 (1985)];
|
|
|
|
|
-YOUNG VS. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141 (1984). Title 26 was deliberately
|
|
|
|
|
designed by its draftsmen in Congress to convey only that thin, tiny, minimum
|
|
|
|
|
sliver of jurisdiction to Federal District Courts that was necessary to hear
|
|
|
|
|
grievances initiated by the King's Agents, seeking the enforcement of taxes,
|
|
|
|
|
penalties, assessments, injunctions, summonses, etc.; Title 26 does not offer,
|
|
|
|
|
and was not intended to offer, a good source of statutes invoking Federal
|
|
|
|
|
District Court jurisdiction to either abate or remedy the naked Torts or
|
|
|
|
|
contractual errors of IRS termites. Tax Protestors might want to emulate the
|
|
|
|
|
MODUS OPERANDI of Federal Judges when dealing with a Title 26 related
|
|
|
|
|
grievance, and invoke the 16th Amendment as a source of jurisdiction for their
|
|
|
|
|
District Court Kingdom, which Federal Judges quietly do [nowhere in the 16th
|
|
|
|
|
Amendment do the words JURISDICTION, DISTRICT COURT, or CONVEY appear anywhere,
|
|
|
|
|
but pesky little deficiency impediments like that are not about to stop Federal
|
|
|
|
|
Judges]. =============================================================[542]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Citizenship is probably the single most important contract that you need to
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[543]============================================================= Your right
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
to walk away from the Citizenship Contract, any time you feel like it, is
|
|
|
|
|
absolute [see 9 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 356 ["Right of Expatriation"]
|
|
|
|
|
(1859)], and you don't need to follow Federal Statutes on Expatriation (the
|
|
|
|
|
King wants all pesky little tax avoidance oriented expatriators to physically
|
|
|
|
|
leave the United States, and then surrender their Passport to a foreign
|
|
|
|
|
consular office [meaning that you will be prevented from re-entering the United
|
|
|
|
|
States]; see Title 26, Section 2107 and the Expatriation statutes in the King's
|
|
|
|
|
Title 8 LEX). Meanwhile, the King has no right in his statutes to force the
|
|
|
|
|
unwanted acceptance of juristic benefits, and silence in his statutes on
|
|
|
|
|
administrative procedures to go through to explicitly disavow such benefits
|
|
|
|
|
does not vitiate or negate this standing right of rejection.
|
|
|
|
|
"There is a principle or theory in nations of Europe that if allowed to
|
|
|
|
|
be enforced [here in the United States] destroys the quality of absolute
|
|
|
|
|
American Citizenship. There is not a civilized nation that does not in some
|
|
|
|
|
form recognize the right of a person to change his domicile or expatriate
|
|
|
|
|
himself. The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is derived from the Dark Ages,
|
|
|
|
|
the time when Governments were maintained for the benefit of rulers and not for
|
|
|
|
|
the people. Sovereigns were everything; subjects were nothing."
|
|
|
|
|
-Congressman Norman Judd of Illinois on the Floor of the House of
|
|
|
|
|
Representatives, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 40th Congress, 2nd Session, page 7
|
|
|
|
|
(December 2, 1867). Just as pig Sovereigns in the Dark Ages demanded that
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens could not walk away from allegiance to his kingdom for any reason, so
|
|
|
|
|
too by corollary, should Federal Judges start to deem the acceptance of Federal
|
|
|
|
|
benefits as being mandatory and non-waivable, then our reciprocation will be on
|
|
|
|
|
terms our Founding Fathers taught us so well: The kind of terms that leave a
|
|
|
|
|
lingering scent of nitrates in the air downwind from the Federal Buildings
|
|
|
|
|
where they all went to work synchronously.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[543]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>If that is your objective, then you have to effectuate a pure severance of
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[544]============================================================= If in fact
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Citizenship is the dominate invisible contract that Federal Judges are using as
|
|
|
|
|
BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE justification to adhesively hold the LEX of Title 26 to
|
|
|
|
|
folks -- then there necessarily rises to our attention another question. In
|
|
|
|
|
1939, Congress enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT, designed to waive the
|
|
|
|
|
benefits inuring to Federal Employees of a long-standing doctrine in the United
|
|
|
|
|
States Supreme Court that prohibits the taxation of Federal instrumentalities
|
|
|
|
|
by the several States, and VICE-VERSA -- called the INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
|
|
|
|
|
DOCTRINE.
|
|
|
|
|
"What limitations does the Federal Constitution impose upon the United
|
|
|
|
|
States in respect of taxing instrumentalities and agencies employed by a State
|
|
|
|
|
and, conversely, how far does it inhibit the States from taxing
|
|
|
|
|
instrumentalities and agencies utilized by the United States, are questions
|
|
|
|
|
often considered here. [Cases deleted].
|
|
|
|
|
"The Constitution contemplates a national Government free to use its
|
|
|
|
|
delegated powers; also state Governments capable of exercising their essential
|
|
|
|
|
reserved powers; both operate within the same territorial limits; consequently
|
|
|
|
|
the Constitution itself, either by word or necessary inference, makes adequate
|
|
|
|
|
provision for preventing conflict between them.
|
|
|
|
|
"Among the inferences which derive necessarily from the Constitution
|
|
|
|
|
are these: No State may tax appropriate means which the United States may
|
|
|
|
|
employ for exercising their delegated powers; the United States may not tax
|
|
|
|
|
instrumentalities which a State may employ in the discharge of her essential
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
governmental duties -- that is, those duties which the <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Framers</span> intended each
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
member of the Union would assume in order adequately to function under the form
|
|
|
|
|
of Government guaranteed by the Constitution."
|
|
|
|
|
-HELVERING VS. 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 VS. 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 VS. 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 VS. 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 VS. 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 VS.
|
|
|
|
|
MARYLAND [4 Wheat 316], in which it was held that a State tax laid specifically
|
|
|
|
|
upon the privilege of issuing bank notes, and in fact applicable alone to the
|
|
|
|
|
notes of national banks, was invalid since it impeded the national Government
|
|
|
|
|
in the exercise of its power to establish and maintain a bank, implied as an
|
|
|
|
|
incident to the borrowing, taxing, war, and other powers specifically granted
|
|
|
|
|
to the national Government by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution."
|
|
|
|
|
-HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 (1937). [That's right,
|
|
|
|
|
you FEDERAL RESERVE PROTESTORS out there: Your arguments on the
|
|
|
|
|
unConstitutionality of the Federal Reserve System and its circulating notes,
|
|
|
|
|
based on the monetary disabilities present in Article 1, Sections 8 and 10,
|
|
|
|
|
even though factually correct of and by themselves, are only a very small part
|
|
|
|
|
of the larger jurisdictional pie our King has to justify his juristic banking
|
|
|
|
|
creations. I would like to see a Protestor try and argue the
|
|
|
|
|
unConstitutionality of the Fed based on the full panoply of its sources of
|
|
|
|
|
jurisdictional fuel: The BORROWING POWER to contract for debts, the WAR POWERS
|
|
|
|
|
to defend the United States, the TAXATION POWERS resident in Article 1, Section
|
|
|
|
|
8, and the regulation of COMMERCE POWER also in Article 1, Section 8, etc. You
|
|
|
|
|
Protestors can't do that as there are no countermanding arguments for some of
|
|
|
|
|
those sources of jurisdictional fuel, and so now the end result is exactly what
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Judges correctly rule to be so down to the present day: That the
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Reserve System, Gremlins and all, is in fact Constitutional.] QUESTION:
|
|
|
|
|
So, if Citizenship is the contract operated on by Federal Judges, then why will
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Judges simply not refer over to the Citizenship contract as overruling
|
|
|
|
|
justification to tax Governmental Employees? The Answer lies in the fact that
|
|
|
|
|
CITIZENSHIP is an implied contract created and structured largely by statutory
|
|
|
|
|
devices; as an implied contract [meaning not expressly negotiated and
|
|
|
|
|
individually written down], Citizenship can only fill the vacant contours that
|
|
|
|
|
are left open by other premier boundary line restrainments of a higher
|
|
|
|
|
priority. Here we have a fundamental intergovernmental immunity doctrine
|
|
|
|
|
related to that granddaddy itself: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Under this
|
|
|
|
|
INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE, Federal and State instrumentalities are
|
|
|
|
|
pre-emptively disabled from even asking for any taxation reciprocity back in
|
|
|
|
|
return from each other -- even though Federal juristic benefits were accepted
|
|
|
|
|
by a state employee in COLLECTOR VS. 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 VS. 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
|
|
|
|
|
VS. GORE mentions the existence of a class of "... excepted subjects," 253 U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
245, at 261 (1920)] -- so not everyone to whom benefits are thrown at are
|
|
|
|
|
automatically liable for the reciprocating financial payments of taxation; in
|
|
|
|
|
some cases Government is pre-emptively barred from asking for benefit
|
|
|
|
|
reciprocity, and implied contracts take a back seat to overruling restrainments
|
|
|
|
|
such as INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. This Taxation Immunity Doctrine is
|
|
|
|
|
Judicially created, and Judges, as the individuals that they are, frequent do
|
|
|
|
|
possess views diverging from the expected conformal median. Question: Are there
|
|
|
|
|
some Judges who would like to merely cite national CITIZENSHIP as THE
|
|
|
|
|
justifying taxation contract, and ignore Immunity Doctrines? Yes, there are:
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
"... respondents, though Employees of the <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> Port Authority, are
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
State of <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span>. A Citizen who receives his income from a State, owes the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 424 [Justice Black
|
|
|
|
|
concurring] (1937). The same difficulty in assigning values to competing
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
differentials in contract priority, that some <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Patriots</span> will have to come to
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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.</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>=============================================================[544]</p>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Your successful severance of liability away from the administrative mandates of
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
foreign jurisdiction, you can be a <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Russian</span> Native who never left Russia or set
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
foot in the United States, and still have a liability to produce administrative
|
|
|
|
|
conformance with Title 26. [545]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[545]============================================================= Aliens from
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. 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 VS. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1923)
|
|
|
|
|
[non-resident aliens who participate in American Commerce are subject to the
|
|
|
|
|
American Income Tax and Citizens residing abroad are liable to pay the Income
|
|
|
|
|
Tax]. The requirement for American Citizens who live abroad and, seemingly, do
|
|
|
|
|
not enjoy any benefits of an American origin, to pay Income Taxes has irritated
|
|
|
|
|
a lot of folks -- see THE FOREIGN EARNED INCOME ACT OF 1978: NON-BENEFITS FOR
|
|
|
|
|
NONRESIDENTS, Editor's Note, 13 Cornell International Law Journal 105, at 107
|
|
|
|
|
(1980) -- but latent overseas benefits are actually being offered and accepted
|
|
|
|
|
by American Citizens who travel over there [the benefit to call upon the local
|
|
|
|
|
diplomatic consular offices for protectorate assistance, and in Title 22,
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1732, there lies a statute which lays upon the President of the United
|
|
|
|
|
States a specific duty to intervene on your behalf whenever American Citizens
|
|
|
|
|
have been incarcerated by foreign jurisdictions. Although those benefits might
|
|
|
|
|
not seem worth such an extravagant percentage demanded of your income, year in
|
|
|
|
|
and year out without any letup or impending relief, the value of those benefits
|
|
|
|
|
to you is a business judgment you need to make, and is not a question that
|
|
|
|
|
should be entertained by a Federal Judge after you have decided to accept those
|
|
|
|
|
benefits -- benefits that are considered to have been accepted by your silence
|
|
|
|
|
[as I will discuss in the next section Federal Reserve Notes].
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[545]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The idea of using the King's Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship a the point of
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
adhesion to tax individuals goes far back into antiquity. [546]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[546]============================================================= The
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
["Double Taxation"], page 111 [MacMillian Company, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1928); 9th
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Edition].</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>=============================================================[546]</p>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>In the old days of 1913, our Fathers came right out in the open and declared
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
for all to see that Citizens were taxable objects. [547]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[547]============================================================= "... that
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire
|
|
|
|
|
net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year
|
|
|
|
|
to every Citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad..."
|
|
|
|
|
-THE REVENUE ACT OF 1913, chapter 16, Section IIA (1913).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[547]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The decision that was made in 1913 to lay the tax on the attachment of the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
King's Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship was made apparently intuitively and
|
|
|
|
|
without much debate. [548]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[548]============================================================= Surrey
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
reviews this in his article entitled CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TAXATION OF
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
CORPORATE FOREIGN INCOME, 56 <span class="GPE" title="GPE">Columbia</span> Law Review 815, at 817 (1956).
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
=============================================================[548]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The purpose of broadening the number of objects subject to federal taxation,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[549]============================================================= "Its purpose
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[549]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>but the true objective then is the same objective which sustains the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
continuance of the Income Tax down to the present time: To perfect Bolshevik
|
|
|
|
|
enscrewment. [550]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[550]============================================================= Gremlins
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[550]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Our Fathers fell for that "ability to pay" reasoning then, just like most folks
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
today continue to fall for that same line today. [551]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[551]============================================================= Pathetic was
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
the caliber of judgment that fell for this little lie:
|
|
|
|
|
"For years there has been an overwhelming sentiment in this country in
|
|
|
|
|
favor of the income tax. The justice of such a tax is so self-evident that few,
|
|
|
|
|
if any, have been heard in opposition to its enactment."
|
|
|
|
|
-Congressman Pepper, from Iowa, in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for
|
|
|
|
|
January 30, 1913, at page 5252.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[551]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Let us examine the Judicial Perspective on federal taxation under the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Citizenship Contract by way of a Case study. One such ruling touching on the
|
|
|
|
|
Citizenship Contract involves COOK VS. TAIT, [552]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[552]============================================================= 265 U.S. 47
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
(1924). =============================================================[552]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>where the Supreme Court ruled that income received by a Citizen of the United
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[553]============================================================= Many
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
<span class="NORP" title="NORP">Patriots</span> will be quite familiar with the following widely published words from
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
a Supreme Court ruling called HALE VS. 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 VS. HENKEL, id., at 74. Not once to this day have I ever seen a
|
|
|
|
|
correct discussion of what HALE VS. 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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
PERSONS) or a Corporation (an <span class="ORG" title="ORG">ARTIFICIAL</span> PERSON). I once saw a 7203 WILLFUL
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. HENKEL, Tax Protestors are
|
|
|
|
|
correct by noting that Corporations are very unique creatures in the Law; they
|
|
|
|
|
are created by Juristic Institutions, and whatever the Juristic Institution
|
|
|
|
|
created, it can modify, rearrange, and dissolve any time, in any manner, and
|
|
|
|
|
under any circumstances that it feels like. For example, such a differential in
|
|
|
|
|
rights surfaced in Rhode Island once, when some judges were discussing the
|
|
|
|
|
relationship in effect between the right of corporations [if RIGHT is the word]
|
|
|
|
|
to pick and choose their own state Residency situs:
|
|
|
|
|
"We do not think a foreign corporation can under any circumstances be
|
|
|
|
|
regarded as a RESIDENT of the state, in the absence of any legislation
|
|
|
|
|
recognizing it or giving it a STATUS as such. The proper seat or "residence" of
|
|
|
|
|
such a corporation is the State which created it and which continues it in
|
|
|
|
|
existence, otherwise the corporation might have its residence in a multitude of
|
|
|
|
|
jurisdictions. The residence of a corporation is created for it by an act of
|
|
|
|
|
law, and can not be changed by act of the corporation. A more permanent
|
|
|
|
|
residence than that of a domestic corporation in the State which created it can
|
|
|
|
|
hardly be conceived."
|
|
|
|
|
-ATTORNEY GENERAL VS. POLICE COMMISSIONERS, 30 Rhode Island 212, at
|
|
|
|
|
220 (1909). As distinguished from Corporations, Individuals can very much pack
|
|
|
|
|
up and move to a new State -- whenever they feel like it; so yes, some
|
|
|
|
|
differences do exist in rights and duties from Corporations to Individuals, but
|
|
|
|
|
Individuals take upon themselves the taxable status of Corporations whenever
|
|
|
|
|
juristic benefits, offered conditionally, have been accepted; under such a
|
|
|
|
|
juristic environment, such an INDIVIDUAL is now a PERSON, and PERSONS, carrying
|
|
|
|
|
the special and suggestive juristic accoutrements around with them like they
|
|
|
|
|
do, are in no position to start arguing for rights or judicially created
|
|
|
|
|
exemptions. =============================================================[553]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>In another Case in 1968, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Felix
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Rexach owed American income taxes by reason of his United States Citizenship.
|
|
|
|
|
[554]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[554]============================================================= FELIX REXACH
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
VS. UNITED STATES, 390 F.2nd 631 (1968).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[554]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Felix Rexach was a native born Puerto Rican, who acquired statutory American
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Citizenship by virtue of the Jones Act of 1917. [555]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[555]============================================================= Title 48,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Section 731, et seq.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[555]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>In 1944, Felix left Puerto Rico and became a resident of the Dominican
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[556]============================================================= Title 8,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Section 1481(c).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[556]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>His renouncement of American Citizenship was accepted without any frictional
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[557]============================================================= "Thereafter,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
[Felix] naturally suffered certain losses of status and benefits as a
|
|
|
|
|
consequence of being declared a non-resident alien of the United States."
|
|
|
|
|
-REXACH, id., at 631. See how Federal Judges are just fixated to view
|
|
|
|
|
questions from a BENEFITS perspective; yes BENEFITS are the Center of Gravity
|
|
|
|
|
in the minds of Federal Judges -- that central axis upon which adhesive
|
|
|
|
|
attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction have their organic point of formation
|
|
|
|
|
into contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[557]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Felix was no ordinary fellow, as he busied himself on a large scale by
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
contracting activities in the Dominican Republic, contracts obtained by
|
|
|
|
|
associating with its ruling dictator, Trujillo. [558]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[558]============================================================= REXACH, id.,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
at 631. =============================================================[558]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>But fortunes soon turned adverse for Felix when the Dictator he was milking was
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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.</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>However, now things turn into an interesting direction, because the Department
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[559]============================================================= My
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, at 111 [dissenting
|
|
|
|
|
opinion] (1948).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[559]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>And so deficiency assessments were thrown at Felix for income earned in the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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.</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>In his legal arguments seeking to deflect the foreclosure, Felix reasoned that,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
in effect, the reciprocal benefits of Citizenship obligation language in COOK
|
|
|
|
|
VS. TAIT [560]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[560]============================================================= 265 U.S. 47
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
(1924). =============================================================[560]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>overruled the unpleasant covenant terms his special statutory Citizenship
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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:</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>"We cannot agree that the reciprocal obligations are mutual, at least
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
in the sense that [the] taxpayer contends." [561]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[561]============================================================= REXACH, id.,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
at 632. =============================================================[561]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>So yes, that QUID PRO QUO of reciprocity that I have been talking about all
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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:</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>"The hypothetical [factual setting where a person rejects benefits
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[562]============================================================= REXACH, id.,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
at 632. =============================================================[562]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Well, George, that DICTA was interesting, but could we see a Case where an
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Individual rejects all benefits timely, and then a Federal Court vitiated his
|
|
|
|
|
taxing liability? No, sorry you cannot; [563]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[563]============================================================= There is a
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. DEAN RUSK [377 U.S 163
|
|
|
|
|
(1964)]. =============================================================[563]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>such a published ruling so favorable to us folks out here in the countryside
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[564]============================================================= A Federal
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Judge in Texas told an acquaintance of mine that the reason why he was not
|
|
|
|
|
going to issue out any written ruling on a Citizenship/tax liability question
|
|
|
|
|
that was presented to him in a Case was because the Judge was afraid that such
|
|
|
|
|
an opinion "would threaten the entire tax system" [a literal quotation]. So
|
|
|
|
|
those are the kind of degenerate information sequestration terms Federal Judges
|
|
|
|
|
think in, as they go about their work trying to keep the lid clamped down tight
|
|
|
|
|
on knowledge propagation -- a pretty pathetic objective; and so now the
|
|
|
|
|
published ruling some folks are waiting for -- of a judicial ruling showing by
|
|
|
|
|
example, how step by step a person could terminate altogether his tax
|
|
|
|
|
liability; a ruling that would very much benefits others -- that ruling will
|
|
|
|
|
never make an appearance. Incidentally, notice how Federal Judges conveniently
|
|
|
|
|
refuse to get involved with addressing tough questions like whether or not the
|
|
|
|
|
claimed underlying authenticity of Constitutional Amendments are actually
|
|
|
|
|
fraudulent sources of jurisdiction when used by the King as justification to
|
|
|
|
|
damage people -- by deferring such questions over to "the political departments
|
|
|
|
|
of Government"; yet twist the factual setting around slightly to create
|
|
|
|
|
different philosophical incentives, and Federal Judges very quickly bend over
|
|
|
|
|
backwards to use such purely political concerns like aggregate revenue
|
|
|
|
|
questions as justification to once again avoid doing the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[564]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Those Citizenship Cases are of interest to us as good TOUCHSTONES indicia of
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[565]============================================================= In ancient
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
similar ways, I would suggest that <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Patriot</span> inactivity (because you are
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
"waiting" for the Model Case to come down from on High) is improvident, and
|
|
|
|
|
such a Model Case will not tell you anything you don't already know.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[565]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>What happens to Citizens who reject the King's benefits? They become Denizens.
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
[566]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[566]============================================================= In old
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
English Common Law, DENIZENS had no political rights, i.e., they could not vote
|
|
|
|
|
or hold office. So by mutuality they also owed no Citizen-like capitation tax
|
|
|
|
|
to the Crown. Although Denizens had occupancy jurisdiction to stay within a
|
|
|
|
|
Kingdom, the only taxes the Crown was able to get out of them was limited to
|
|
|
|
|
the extent that the Denizen participated in Commerce. See generally, James
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
Kettner, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP 1608-1870 [University of <span class="LOC" title="LOC">North</span>
|
|
|
|
|
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, <span class="LOC" title="LOC">North Carolina</span> (1976)]. That I am aware of, the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
word DENIZEN appears 21 times in the United States Supreme Court between 1952
|
|
|
|
|
[in ON LEE VS. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 747] and 1812 [in FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE VS.
|
|
|
|
|
HUNTER'S LEASEE, 11 U.S. 603]. For example, it is mentioned in LUDECKE VS.
|
|
|
|
|
WATKINS [333 U.S. 160, at 161 (1947)], in the context of a quotation from Title
|
|
|
|
|
50, Section 21 ["Enemy Alien Act"]. BLACK'S FIFTH, in their style of poorly
|
|
|
|
|
written definitions, states that a Denizen is:
|
|
|
|
|
"... in kind of a middle state between an alien and a natural born
|
|
|
|
|
subject, and partakes of the STATUS of both of these."
|
|
|
|
|
-BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY ["Denizen"], Fifth Edition, [West Publishing,
|
|
|
|
|
St. Paul] and adds that an American judicial definition of Denizen has changed
|
|
|
|
|
somewhat from its historical English counterpart. What DENIZEN means today is
|
|
|
|
|
the same that it has always meant:
|
|
|
|
|
"Our laws give certain privileges [benefits] and withhold certain
|
|
|
|
|
privileges from our adopted subjects, and we may naturally conclude, that there
|
|
|
|
|
may be some qualification of the privilege in the laws of other countries. But
|
|
|
|
|
our resident Denizens are entitled, as I take it, to all sorts of commercial
|
|
|
|
|
privileges, which our natural-born subject can claim."
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
-MARRYAT VS. WILSON, a <span class="NORP" title="NORP">British</span> case (1799). Yes, Denizens do not enjoy
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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, 1843). Here in the United States of 1985, PERSONS
|
|
|
|
|
participating in that closed private domain of King's Commerce without enjoying
|
|
|
|
|
any political benefits pay the same identical taxes as those who do enjoy
|
|
|
|
|
political benefits; there is no economy now associated with being a Denizen
|
|
|
|
|
pursuing commercial enrichment today. The economy long sought after by Tax
|
|
|
|
|
Protestors will be realized only effectuating a total and pure severance of
|
|
|
|
|
themselves away from the adhesive attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction,
|
|
|
|
|
which consists of having accepted either Commercial benefits, or of the
|
|
|
|
|
political benefits derived from an operation of Citizenship.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[566]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Why are Citizens of the United States now burdened down with such an incredible
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[567]============================================================= Even if you
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 technology:
|
|
|
|
|
"There has as yet been no reply from German official quarters to the
|
|
|
|
|
British proposal of a year's suspension of battleship construction. The
|
|
|
|
|
President of the German Naval League has declared Winston Churchill's offer to
|
|
|
|
|
be undeserving of serious consideration; but this is a natural position for a
|
|
|
|
|
president of a naval league to take. In the meanwhile, it is to be noted that
|
|
|
|
|
the German authorities, while fond of speaking of REALPOLITIK -- a policy based
|
|
|
|
|
on frank recognition of actualities instead of sentiment or general principles
|
|
|
|
|
-- have in this matter of the limitation of naval armaments not been quite so
|
|
|
|
|
REAL as they might be... The Kaiser's Ministers usually speak of their naval
|
|
|
|
|
plans as dictated by Germany's Imperial interests and by the necessity of
|
|
|
|
|
safeguarding the Empire's coasts."
|
|
|
|
|
-Editors, 29 THE NATION MAGAZINE, at 375 (October 23, 1913). [THE
|
|
|
|
|
NATION was once a very popular magazine in the United States.] The following
|
|
|
|
|
year, in 1914, the visible public movements of World War I began to surface
|
|
|
|
|
with numerous German offenses made throughout Europe. While Gremlins had been
|
|
|
|
|
hard at work running the defense structure of Great Britain into the ground (of
|
|
|
|
|
which hardware construction suspensions are one such visible manifestation of
|
|
|
|
|
termite management) >and which is taking place in the United States today<, her
|
|
|
|
|
impending adversary, Germany, was building an attack naval fleet -- and not for
|
|
|
|
|
the claimed purpose of "safeguarding of the Empire's coasts," but for military
|
|
|
|
|
attack purposes. Throwing deceptions at planned adversaries to lull them asleep
|
|
|
|
|
is extensively used by Gremlins as a pre-War tool, just like Lucifer's
|
|
|
|
|
deceptive withholding of factual information from his imp assistants on the
|
|
|
|
|
existence of Covenants in effect with Father overruling his Tort damages
|
|
|
|
|
justifications, is a war measure. Mark my words this day in 1985: The more that
|
|
|
|
|
glowing statements are made about missile treaties and arms reduction
|
|
|
|
|
agreements between Russia and the United States, the closer the two are to
|
|
|
|
|
outright war. When the news media tries to emphasize the importance of some new
|
|
|
|
|
"breakthrough" missile agreement, the more imminent are the open hostilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember, Gremlins never change a successful MODUS OPERANDI, -- and they deem
|
|
|
|
|
lulling you to sleep to be very important. ...This Second Estate is very much
|
|
|
|
|
adversarial in nature, and all of the rules applicable to deception used by
|
|
|
|
|
Gremlins in war will be found incorporated by Lucifer in his SUB ROSA attacks
|
|
|
|
|
on your impending embryo Celestial Status. And whatever is necessary to get
|
|
|
|
|
folks to bypass their own good judgment and sense of positive responsibility,
|
|
|
|
|
however momentarily uncomfortable, and rely instead upon the more comforting
|
|
|
|
|
passive inactivity and nonchalant judgment of others that ALL IS WELL IN
|
|
|
|
|
IGNORANCE, will be done -- it is being done politically by Americans generally
|
|
|
|
|
ignoring numerous visible signs of an impending domestic military invasion and
|
|
|
|
|
correlative secondary internal damages that will occur in its wake; and it is
|
|
|
|
|
being done Spiritually by getting folks to ignore and toss aside any concern
|
|
|
|
|
for a known impending Judgment and replacing that concern with the more
|
|
|
|
|
comforting sugar-coated assurance that, yes, since they have accepted Jesus
|
|
|
|
|
Christ, they will be Saved, and they don't need concern themselves with
|
|
|
|
|
anything else -- some hokey religion out there -- baah.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[567]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>The correct origin of the Citizenship problem (if PROBLEM is the word) lies
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[568]============================================================= See
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
the kind of society the <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Framers</span> lived in, and were exemplary of the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
intellectual thought then permeating the American countryside at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
Those pamphlets and other literary devices were explanatory to a degree beyond
|
|
|
|
|
the FEDERALIST PAPERS, in so far as they reveal motives, undercurrent, and
|
|
|
|
|
understandings in addition to the known ideas and assumptions expressed on
|
|
|
|
|
world views at that time -- hence the ideological origins of the American
|
|
|
|
|
Revolution. =============================================================[568]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>No explicit and blunt restrainments were made against the circulation of paper
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[569]============================================================= Ben Franklin
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
once expressed reservations about certain features of the Constitution in
|
|
|
|
|
particular, and then encouraged its ratification as a whole; and so we too can
|
|
|
|
|
take a similar position:
|
|
|
|
|
"Mr. President: I confess that there are several parts of this
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution which I do not at present approve...
|
|
|
|
|
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all of
|
|
|
|
|
its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary
|
|
|
|
|
for us, and there is no form of Government, but what may be a blessing to the
|
|
|
|
|
people if well administered; ..."
|
|
|
|
|
-Ben Franklin in 5 DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL
|
|
|
|
|
CONSTITUTION, James Madison, Editor, at page 554 [J.P. Lippincott & Company,
|
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia (1863)].
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[569]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>and then the <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Framers</span> gave the King the blank check to nail Citizens to the wall
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
as taxable objects, a situation that did not exist with the ARTICLES OF
|
|
|
|
|
CONFEDERATION:</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>"Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution.
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[570]============================================================= IN RE DEBS,
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
158 U.S. 573, at 578 (1894).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[570]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>Notice how the Federal Government now operates with AMPLE POWER DIRECTLY ON THE
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[571]============================================================= "Experience
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 549 (1875).
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[571]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>QUESTION: How does someone get rid of his Citizenship Contract without packing
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
their bags and leaving the United States physically, as the King would like his
|
|
|
|
|
little subjects to do? [572]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[572]============================================================= For
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
commentary on loss of Citizenship for any one of several reasons, see:
|
|
|
|
|
-Lawrence Abramson in UNITED STATES LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP LAW AFTER
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
TERRAZAS: DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW, 16 <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> University
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Journal of International Law and Politics 29 (1984);
|
|
|
|
|
-Terry Reicher in A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF INVOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION AND A TAXPAYER'S RIGHT TO
|
|
|
|
|
DISCLAIM CITIZENSHIP in 15 Vanderbuilt Journal of Transnational Law 123
|
|
|
|
|
(Winter, 1982). When money is at stake, Federal Judges have noted that all of a
|
|
|
|
|
sudden the traditional allure of possessing American Citizenship now suddenly
|
|
|
|
|
takes upon itself an unattractive dimension:
|
|
|
|
|
"... since United States Citizenship is considered by most to be a
|
|
|
|
|
prized status, it is usually the Government which claims that the Citizen has
|
|
|
|
|
lost it, over the vigorous opposition of the person facing the loss. In this
|
|
|
|
|
rare case the roles are reversed. Here the estate of a wealthy deceased United
|
|
|
|
|
States Citizen seeks to establish over the Government's opposition that she
|
|
|
|
|
expatriated herself. As might be suspected, the reason is several million
|
|
|
|
|
dollars in tax liability, which the estate might escape if it could sustain the
|
|
|
|
|
burden of showing that the deceased lost her United States Citizenship."
|
|
|
|
|
-UNITED STATES VS. MATHESON, 532 F.2nd 809, at 811 (1976). The only
|
|
|
|
|
reason why folks want out of the reciprocal taxation demands of Citizenship is
|
|
|
|
|
because the cost of Citizenship is obviously, if given but a few moments
|
|
|
|
|
thought, for the null paltry value of the juristic benefits justifying it, not
|
|
|
|
|
worth the price tag that looters and Gremlins are demanding through their
|
|
|
|
|
juristic enrichment instrumentality, the King. Rather than snickering at
|
|
|
|
|
ex-Protestors who wised up a little, Federal Judges would be smart to start to
|
|
|
|
|
create remedies negating the unlawful use of the Legislature by looters and
|
|
|
|
|
Gremlins [of which dormant and forgotten Clauses now exist in the
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution], which is the true seminal point of origin as to why the
|
|
|
|
|
Countryside is now reacting negatively to avoid and terminate unreasonable
|
|
|
|
|
taxation demands not related to benefit equivalence. [Remember that your
|
|
|
|
|
consent, individually, is very important adhesive material in the formation of
|
|
|
|
|
contracts; see ASSENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONTRACT: AN ANALYSIS OF OBJECTIVE
|
|
|
|
|
STANDARDS IN CONTEMPORARY CONTRACT ADJUDICATION by Brian Blum, 59 St. John's
|
|
|
|
|
Law Review 1 (Fall, 1984); and it is this very POINT OF FORMATION in Contract
|
|
|
|
|
Law that needs to be correctly understood and handled, so that the contract can
|
|
|
|
|
be annulled properly.]
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[572]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>ANSWER: The same way one gets rid of any other contract. [573]</p>
|
|
|
|
|
<p>[573]============================================================= Yes, such a
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
simple solution as that to remedy taxation ailments, and many folks will not
|
|
|
|
|
associate any significance to it. Sometimes the most profound circumstances in
|
|
|
|
|
life are not understood for what they really mean, as folks frequently fail to
|
|
|
|
|
correlate previous events that have already occurred as harbinger models that
|
|
|
|
|
foreshadow future events yet to make their appearance. ... For example,
|
|
|
|
|
previous circumstances, seemingly innocent, that once transpired in Downtown
|
|
|
|
|
San Francisco in 1969 regarding the construction of the Transamerica
|
|
|
|
|
Corporation pyramid office tower will one day be replicated synchronously all
|
|
|
|
|
across the United States. John Beckett, President of Transamerica Corporation,
|
|
|
|
|
wanted to build a 55-story high-rise on Montgomery Street to house the offices
|
|
|
|
|
of Transamerica. The announcement of the plans for the tower immediately
|
|
|
|
|
generated a heavy controversy locally; this was the Vietnam era where Bay area
|
|
|
|
|
protesting was in vogue. After making preliminary inquiries to San Francisco
|
|
|
|
|
planning and zoning officials, the building was downsized to 48 stories.
|
|
|
|
|
Numerous environmental groups (such as THE ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP), neighborhood
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
associations (such as the TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS <span class="ORG" title="ORG">ASSOCIATION</span>), and other
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 the CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS), otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
normally passive, also entered into this arena to throw their opposition
|
|
|
|
|
invectives at the proposed Transamerica Tower. Public interest attorneys (like
|
|
|
|
|
Peter A. Gunnufsen) filed lawsuits, attempting to seek judicial restraining
|
|
|
|
|
orders halting the construction on technical grounds relating to procedures
|
|
|
|
|
used by the City of San Francisco to transfer a public street to Transamerica.
|
|
|
|
|
During hearings held by city officials across the summer of 1969, protest
|
|
|
|
|
groups would hold vigils and march outside City Hall to express their dissent
|
|
|
|
|
from this heinous outrage. But Mayor Joseph Alioto and a majority of City
|
|
|
|
|
Supervisors wanted the high-rise to be built, as they made numerous references
|
|
|
|
|
to the $1 million annual contribution this tower would be making to the San
|
|
|
|
|
Francisco tax rolls. A unique confluence of incentives came into focus at the
|
|
|
|
|
end of 1969 that pressured Transamerica President John Beckett to act in the
|
|
|
|
|
unusual, sneaky and clever way that he did, in order to get the tower built --
|
|
|
|
|
the same UNUSUAL, SNEAKY, and CLEVER ways that all Americans, and even the
|
|
|
|
|
entire world, will one day be very well acquainted with, but for very different
|
|
|
|
|
objectives: Because next time around, building a high-rise will not be the
|
|
|
|
|
objective.
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
For many years the California State Legislature in <span class="GPE" title="GPE">Sacramento</span> had
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
[See: John Krizek [manager of Public Relations for Transamerica] in
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC RELATIONS JOURNAL ["How to Build a Pyramid"], at page 17 (December,
|
|
|
|
|
1970). The opposition lingered on even after construction started -- see
|
|
|
|
|
BUSINESS WEEK ["Beautiful Building of Inhuman Eyesore?"], page 41 (October 31,
|
|
|
|
|
1970). Clippings taken from the two local newspapers, the SAN FRANCISCO
|
|
|
|
|
CHRONICLE and the SAN FRANCISCO EXPRESS supplied the details herein, through
|
|
|
|
|
the HISTORY ROOM ["Transamerica File"] of the San Francisco Public Library].
|
|
|
|
|
... One day off in the future, this clever little harbinger act that John
|
|
|
|
|
Beckett once pulled off is going to happen al 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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
adversaries, next time, a <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Russian</span> General will be supervising the logistics.
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
Instead of heavy construction equipment being sneaked into urban areas and then
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
pulled out into the open quickly, next time heavy <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Russian</span> tanks, personnel
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
little idiots -- expressing amazement on how well organized the <span class="LOC" title="LOC">North</span>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<span class="NORP" title="NORP">Vietnamese</span> were in their take-over of Saigon in April of 1975, folks who
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
actually rely on the caliber of such baneful judgement (like news
|
|
|
|
|
correspondents who were amazed that professional Gremlins actually knew what
|
|
|
|
|
they were doing), will also find themselves being amazed when we are next. The
|
|
|
|
|
only folks who are ever surprised by passing events are those who live most
|
|
|
|
|
distant from reality -- and a very good way to become removed from reality is
|
|
|
|
|
to rely on those incompetent clowns in the news media who were amazed that
|
|
|
|
|
professional Gremlins practicing COUPS D'ETAT for some 200 years might just
|
|
|
|
|
know what they are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
[I come down hard on Journalists for the same reason that I come down
|
|
|
|
|
hard on Lawyers: Both professions involve the presentation of intellectual
|
|
|
|
|
material to others; so when they mess up, then out comes my invectives.
|
|
|
|
|
However, when an everyday type of Joe SixPack messes up, I respond with
|
|
|
|
|
patience and instructional counseling. In contrast these Joe SixPacks do not
|
|
|
|
|
represent themselves as being professionals, so Joe SixPacks are not held to
|
|
|
|
|
the more stringent standards that Journalists and Lawyers seeking financial
|
|
|
|
|
compensation for their errors are held to.] The instant appearance of
|
|
|
|
|
construction crews that John Beckett pulled off was not even considered as a
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
factual possibility by this opponents; just like <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Russian</span> opposition in the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 worthless NOTICES OF RECESSION OF
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRACT, IN REM -- that is prepatory to learn that it is the same simple
|
|
|
|
|
solution to get out of the adhesive juristic reciprocity demanded under
|
|
|
|
|
Citizenship Contracts: Get rid of those benefits and stop snickering at Federal
|
|
|
|
|
Judges cracking defiled giblets. By not even considering the factual
|
|
|
|
|
possibility, however remote, that the tax prosecution defendant may himself be
|
|
|
|
|
in error, having listened to the distractions of Protestors talking about why
|
|
|
|
|
the Federal Government is not entitled to prevail due to multiple LEX
|
|
|
|
|
deficiencies of some type, the tax prosecution defendants finds himself exactly
|
|
|
|
|
where John Beckett's opponents once found themselves [and exactly where
|
|
|
|
|
CONSERVATIVES, so called, will also one day be finding themselves]: Out smarted
|
|
|
|
|
by adversaries who have a few ideas of their own, and for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[573]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>But lawyers throwing technical arguments at Federal Judges in Tax and Draft
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[574]============================================================= Many
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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.</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>One writer who elucidates very well on this status declension of Americans from
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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 VS. 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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
<span class="NORP" title="NORP">CHRISTIAN</span> TEMPERANCE LEAGUE and other nominees using deceptive names, to
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
President says its <span class="NORP" title="NORP">Patriot</span>ic to do so. Yes, a Tory sympathizer plays into the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
Return"], at 235 [E.P. Dutton, <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> (1923)]. Gremlins want such a KING TO
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
SUBJECT relational status in effect specifically for purposes of conquest and
|
|
|
|
|
furthering their own proprietary enrichment through taxation enstripment.
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
Francis Hennessy, an attorney and member of the <span class="GPE" title="GPE">New York</span> State Bar, goes into
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
highly detailed factual recital of the circumstances surrounding the proposal
|
|
|
|
|
and later ratification of the 18th Amendment [the PROHIBITION AMENDMENT]. From
|
|
|
|
|
debates on the Floor of the Congress to the inner sanctums of Gremlin power,
|
|
|
|
|
Francis Hennessy chronicles out the impediments, headaches, and legal
|
|
|
|
|
difficulties the sponsors of the 18th Amendment had in 1917 trying to force
|
|
|
|
|
Prohibition on us all, by virtue of the fact that the United States
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution is a hybrid composite blend of NATIONAL and FEDERAL power, and
|
|
|
|
|
therefore requires different procedures to effectuate modifications, based on
|
|
|
|
|
the nature of the right being modified. This was one of the legal arguments
|
|
|
|
|
considered by the Supreme Court when the underlying legality of the 18th
|
|
|
|
|
Amendment itself came under attack [see THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION CASES, 253
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. 350 (1920)]. Because the nature of the right that the Congress was about
|
|
|
|
|
to deprive American Citizens of [the right to eat or drink anything they feel
|
|
|
|
|
like] was of a NATIONAL nature, the proposed 18th Amendment was worded in such
|
|
|
|
|
a way as to circumvent the Constitution's ARTICLE 5 CONVENTION requirement by
|
|
|
|
|
subtly commanding the States to first enact Prohibition legislation (see
|
|
|
|
|
Section 2 of the 18th Amendment). Yes, Gremlins are well-oiled experts at both
|
|
|
|
|
political circumvention, as well as running Citizens into the ground. A
|
|
|
|
|
devilishly brilliant MODUS OPERANDI that if not understood now, will be
|
|
|
|
|
understood in no uncertain terms when, during the impending CONSTITUTIONAL
|
|
|
|
|
CONVENTION that is close to being called, Gremlins using slick Parliamentary
|
|
|
|
|
devices divert the floor proceedings away from the BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
|
|
|
|
|
over to discussing an entire new Constitution altogether -- THEIR Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
All of a sudden, folks who thought they had the situation under control by
|
|
|
|
|
having State Legislatures self-restrict the content being discussed at that
|
|
|
|
|
Convention to consider only the proposed BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, will see
|
|
|
|
|
then that they were outsmarted by imps, as they will also be outsmarted by
|
|
|
|
|
either Mikhail Gorbachev or his successors, who have a few ideas of their own
|
|
|
|
|
on how to control Gremlins in Washington.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[574]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>As a point of beginning, contracts are entered into by the acceptance of
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[575]============================================================= But this
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
District of <span class="GPE" title="GPE">Columbia</span> and Federal Territories, and other Federal Enclaves.
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
=============================================================[575]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>And so it is the explicit rejection of juristic benefits that will sever the
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
adhesive reciprocal liability of King's Equity Jurisdiction that attaches
|
|
|
|
|
itself invisibly to everyone else.</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>So getting rid of your National Citizenship, while very important, is only a
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
<p>[576]============================================================= In a limited
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
if the atrophied remnants of the <span class="PERSON" title="PERSON">Rockefeller</span> Cartel are unsuccessful in
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
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
|
2023-04-28 08:18:41 -04:00
|
|
|
<span class="PERSON" title="PERSON">Rockefeller</span> Nest have already given this idea some thought; see an interview
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
with imp Robert Hutchins in THE CENTER MAGAZINE, ["What the World Needs Now is
|
|
|
|
|
Citizens"], page 23 (January/February, 1971). The Gremlin drive for World
|
|
|
|
|
Citizenship has been in gestation for some time; see EDUCATION FOR WORLD
|
|
|
|
|
CITIZENSHIP by William George Can [Stanford University Press, Stanford,
|
|
|
|
|
California (1928)]. Under the classical contours of INTERNATIONAL LAW, only
|
|
|
|
|
political jurisdictions were subjects accountable to it, and individuals were
|
|
|
|
|
simply not included; while the Nuremberg Trials changed all this on an AD HOC
|
|
|
|
|
basis, the status of people as being STRANGERS to INTERNATIONAL LAW continues
|
|
|
|
|
on down to the present day -- but when the adhesive Equity tentacles of World
|
|
|
|
|
Citizenship are nestled in place someday, the world's Gremlins will be ecstatic
|
|
|
|
|
on that grand impending day when an operation of the World Court reaches
|
|
|
|
|
through to individuals world wide, transparent to any prospectively beneficent
|
|
|
|
|
intervention on your behalf from any other jurisdiction [just like today when
|
|
|
|
|
your State will not intervene in any manner whatsoever on your behalf when
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Marshals come knocking on your door]. For a commentary on the
|
|
|
|
|
relational setting in effect between individuals and INTERNATIONAL LAW that is
|
|
|
|
|
neither critical nor justifying the enlargement of INTERNATIONAL LAW that took
|
|
|
|
|
place at Nuremberg, see THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER
|
|
|
|
|
INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ernst Schneedberger in 35 Georgetown Law Journal, 481
|
|
|
|
|
(1947). =============================================================[576]</p>
|
2023-05-03 17:06:31 -04:00
|
|
|
</div>
|
2023-04-27 21:33:38 -04:00
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
