textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/incon007.xml

<xml><p> I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
George Mercier</p>

<p> THE <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> CONTRACT
[Pages 386-434]</p>

<p>[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE CONTRACTS to an
electronic medium. For an explanation of the conventions used, please download
the file <ent type='ORG'>INCONHLP</ent>.ZIP for further illumination. Other background information as
well is contained in <ent type='ORG'>INCONHLP</ent>.ZIP. It is advisable to <ent type='GPE'>EXIT</ent> this file right now
and read the contents of <ent type='ORG'>INCONHLP</ent>.ZIP before proceeding with your study of this
file.]</p>

<p> ====================P R E V I E W=============== So getting rid of your
<ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>National</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent></ent>, 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 <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> Income Tax grab without leaving any lingering
illicit Equity trail behind you. [576]
====================P R E V I E W===============</p>

<p>Next, we turn now and discuss a layer of invisible contract that is rarely
addressed, thought of, or treated as the pure contract that it is really is:
<ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>National</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent></ent>. [506]</p>

<p>[506]============================================================= "<ent type='GPE'>The United</ent>
States chose to base its tax jurisdiction on <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> from the inception of
the Income Tax in 1913."
-<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> as a Jurisdictional Basis for Taxation:
Section 911 and the Foreign Source Income Experience
by <ent type='PERSON'>John Christie</ent>, 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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is
difficult because they are not all located in one single place; and there
exists no simple, explicit, and blunt statement or <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> ruling stating
so. Yet when everything is assembled there is a large collection of <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
dribblings originating from disorganized <ent type='ORG'>DICTA</ent> located in <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> Opinions,
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional enactments, and in Administrative <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent>, which when analyzed
collectively as a whole, form a revealing picture of the surprises that
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> are really in for.
=============================================================[506]</p>

<p>As a point of beginning, it is perhaps most easy to think of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> in
terms of joining a <ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent>: You sign up, pay dues, enjoy the benefits
offered by the <ent type='ORG'>House</ent>, you elect management, and you are exposed to liability to
be fined for no more than technical infractions to <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> Rules [without any
damages]. [507]</p>

<p>[507]============================================================= <ent type='GPE'>The United</ent>
States <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> once drew a parallel between <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> and membership in
an association so well, that it triggered my analogy to that of joining a
<ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent>:
"... 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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> is now more commonly employed,
however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one
living under a <ent type='NORP'>Republican</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, it was adopted by nearly all of the
States upon their separation from <ent type='GPE'>Great Britain</ent>, and was afterwards adopted in
the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION and in the Constitution of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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
<ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> relates <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent> is just a nice place to be
for lunch. =============================================================[507]</p>

<p>The procedure for entering into a <ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent> Membership contract differs
quite a bit from the <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, in the sense that while trying to
join a <ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent>, you first have to go to the Management, present
credentials, and then request Membership; whereas with the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>, everyone is
presumed automatically to be Members, and so now you have to argue your Case
that you are not a Member. [508]</p>

<p>[508]============================================================= This shift
of burden originates with a slice of <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> the King's Scribes once enacted:
"The following shall be nationals and <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States at
birth:
1)A person born in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, AND SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION
thereof;"
-Title 8, Section 1401 ["<ent type='ORG'>National</ent>ity and Naturalization"] Section 1401
then continues on with similar hooks planted into <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Indians</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Eskimos</ent>,
persons born outside <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, persons of unknown parentage, etc.
Notice the phrase AND SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION; not all individuals born in
<ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States are automatically <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, so not all individuals born in
<ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States fall under the house jurisdiction of the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> and his
adhesive tentacles of Equity Jurisdiction. An Attorney General once said that:
"... our Constitution, in speaking of NATURAL-BORN <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent>, 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
<ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>; 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 <ent type='ORG'>NATIVITY</ent> furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as
between the individual and the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s can dissolve the tie whenever they feel like it, a severance
not possible under the old <ent type='ORG'>Britannic</ent> rule of <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>s.]
-<ent type='PERSON'>Edward Bates</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Attorney General, in ["<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>"], 10
Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at 394, [W.H. &amp; O.H. Morrison, <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>
(1868)]. =============================================================[508]</p>

<p>But once we are beyond that initial point of entrance into the contract, then
nothing whatsoever changes in the contractual rights or duties involved when we
transfer ourselves from Membership in a <ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent> setting over to <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, as contracts govern both relationships.</p>

<p>Earlier, I mentioned that the 14th Amendment offers invisible benefits that
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> have been deemed by <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> to have accepted by their silence
(since anything but silence is very consistent with a person's wanting
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>), and so the 14th Amendment then and there creates a <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>. Yes, there are special benefits to be had from the 14th Amendment.
[509]</p>

<p>[509]============================================================= "Since the
14th Amendment makes one a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>. The latter obviously
includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a
political matter."
-<ent type='ORG'>MILLER</ent> BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340, at 345
(1954).
=============================================================[509]</p>

<p>So although the 14th Amendment creates benefits proprietary to <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>,
those are not the only <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> benefits that you need to concern yourself
with. Many Tax Protestors and <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> are aware of the 14th Amendment story,
and accordingly counsel their students to file NOTICES OF BREACH OF CONTRACT
and the like, and other hybrid unilateral declarations of <ent type='ORG'>RECESSION</ent>, in an
attempt to remove themselves as persons attached to the 14th Amendment. Those
students are then taught, quite erroneously, that since <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>MILLER</ent> BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND,
[510]</p>

<p>[510]============================================================= 347 U.S.
340, at 345 (1954).
=============================================================[510]</p>

<p>stands for the proposition that States derive their taxing and regulatory
jurisdiction from the 14th Amendment -- a particularly stupid conclusion to
arrive at since such a statement means that prior to the 14th Amendment there
were no State taxes or regulatory jurisdictions; and that is a factually
defective point of beginning to commence any legal analysis. [511]</p>

<p>[511]============================================================== For
example, some states required that auctioneers possess licenses in the early
1800's, long before the 14th Amendment ever made its appearance. <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph Story</ent>
mentions this in III Commentaries on the Constitution, at page 483, ["Powers of
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> - Taxes"], (<ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent>, 1833). This little regulatory jurisdiction
existed long before either <ent type='EVENT'>the Civil War</ent> 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>

<p>This view of legal liability propagated by Protestors is baneful, and
replicates the <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI of <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> 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. <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> has their attention. [512]</p>

<p>[512]============================================================= When some
folks emphasize the value to you of <ent type='EVENT'>PREVENTION</ent>, what they are also saying is
that they realize that it is beneficial for folks to occasionally look up and
ahead once in a while; and out of such a vision into the future, unpleasant
circumstances can be deflected from making their appearance (the avoidance of a
negative), as well as great and fabulous circumstances can and will come to
pass (by planning for a positive). These reasons explain why an occasional
glimpse into one's own future is very much an instrument for intellectual
conquest and has such an alluring aura of mystique about it -- generating an
atmosphere of success that intrigues INTELLECTUALS so much -- who go for all
they can grab. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s 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."
-<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Baruch</ent> in <ent type='PERSON'>Baruch</ent>: My Own Story,
at 248 [<ent type='PERSON'>Henry Holt</ent> and Company, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1957)]. On the
following pages in this book [which is his autobiography], <ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Baruch</ent> 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. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> Bernard
<ent type='PERSON'>Baruch</ent>, a looter EXTRAORDINAIRE, perhaps one of the greatest <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> 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."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Baruch</ent>, 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
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Baruch</ent>
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>

<p>Then <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> continues on (also quite technically correct), that all of their
behavior down here should be so organized as to be "justifiable" before Father
at the Last Day; this too is correct, as Father will be soliciting our feelings
at the Last Day. But just one tiny problem surfaces for the world's <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s 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 <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
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
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> 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
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s 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>

<p>[513]============================================================= The way to
correctly read <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> 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>

<p>But the conclusions those Tax Protestors draw, that termination of the adhesive
King's Equity Jurisdiction that the 14th Amendment attaches is the only thing
they need concern themselves with, is incorrect. 14th Amendment pleading,
standing alone by itself, doesn't vitiate anyone's state or federal Income Tax
liability -- it never has, and it never will. The legal argument I hear many
folks throw at <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>, 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>; and for very
good reasons: Because all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States are acceptants of that
profile of juristic benefits that the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is offering, and these benefits are
offered by the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or PREAMBLE
classification status. And so correlatively, since those juristic benefits are
accepted by all <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or
so-called PREAMBLE jurisdictional origin of the classification of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
(distinctions that <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Protestors like to make and argue),
these distinctions mean absolutely nothing in important areas involving Tax and
Military Conscription reciprocity expectations the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> maintains on his
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>. [514]</p>

<p>[514]============================================================= The extent
to which <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent> should be restrained in the placement of
tortious covenants within adhesive contracts heavily skewed towards <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>
like <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, has been an article of discussion since the founding days of
the Republic:
"How in a <ent type='NORP'>Republican</ent> regime, is the supremacy of the private,
self-regarding sphere in the life of each <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> to be reconciled with the
obligation of the People at large to perform the public-regarding duties of
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>? It is interesting that [James] <ent type='PERSON'>Wilson</ent> did not propose to solve
this problem by blinking at the magnitude of the apparent dilemma. More vividly
even than <ent type='PERSON'>Locke</ent> himself, <ent type='PERSON'>Wilson</ent> 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
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Stephen Conrad</ent> discussing the views of one of our Founding Fathers,
in <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> AND COMMON SENSE IN <ent type='PERSON'>JAMES WILSON</ent>'S REPUBLICAN THEORY, 8 Supreme
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> Review at 383 [University of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> Press, <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> (1984)].
=============================================================[514]</p>

<p>There is no single place I can point folks to and say "Here, <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, are your
benefits." [515]</p>

<p>[515]============================================================= The same
frustrations and headaches that I have gone through trying to get at the very
bottom of just what those specific benefits are that the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is offering to
his <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, is the same frustration [if FRUSTRATION is the word] that others
have experienced in the past -- because the definition of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
and the correlative concise presentation of the benefits of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, simply does not exist. In a previous day and era, an Attorney
General of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States once expressed similar reservations:
"Who is a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>? What constitutes a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>. 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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. 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
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. Eighty years of practical enjoyment of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, 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."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Edward Bates</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Attorney General ["<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>"], in 10
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 382 at 383 [W.H. &amp; O.H. Morrison, <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>
(1868)].
The reason why I have had such headaches getting to the very bottom of
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is because the King's boy's claim up tight and refuse to talk about
this subject matter. A Deputy <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Attorney in <ent type='ORG'>the Department</ent> of
Justice in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> once turned me off but quick when I asked for a simple
answer to a simple question: What are the benefits you give to <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>? When I once had a conversation with a <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 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
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> think in this area was once penned by the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent>:
"The <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> who fails to pay his taxes or to abide by the law
safeguarding the integrity of elections deals a dangerous blow to his country."
-<ent type='ORG'>PEREZ</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
benefits [as well they should know the location of benefits because <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> benefits, and the Judge
very quickly terminated the conversation. Those benefits of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> are all
listed and neatly presented to <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> in that <ent type='ORG'>BENCH</ent> BOOK of theirs;
this is important material for <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> to know since the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> deems it
extremely important that Judges feel justified and comfortable CRACKING
Protestors under the <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>; 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 <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room, 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 <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> will become very well acquainted with at the Last Day].
=============================================================[515]</p>

<p>Even listings of benefits in the dicta of <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> rulings are fractured
and incomplete. [516]</p>

<p>[516]============================================================= For example,
in <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> VS. <ent type='ORG'>MATHESON</ent> [532 F.2nd 809 (1976)], <ent type='ORG'>the Second Circuit</ent>
mentioned that some of those benefits received by a Mrs. Burns that were
attributable to her <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> were the issuance of her
<ent type='ORG'>Passport</ent>, the issuance of a license on her yacht by <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States Coast
Guard, and the benefit of standing assistance offered by an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> foreign
diplomatic consular office, since she had registered as a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> with the
<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Mission [although such registration is not necessary to trigger
assistance of diplomatic consular offices when requested]. See <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>
VS. <ent type='ORG'>MATHESON</ent>, 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>

<p>And the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> is largely the same. [517]</p>

<p>[517]============================================================= There is no
statute existing anywhere that presents a composite blended profile of all
benefits inuring to <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States. When searching through
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional 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 <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> GUIDE TO <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent> RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the
Judiciary, <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Senate, 94th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, Second Session (October, 1970),
which largely discusses those Clauses in the Constitution that restrain
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Tortfeasance</ent> (which although such restrainments are benefits in a
sense, the restrainment of the King's own prospective <ent type='GPE'>Tortfeasance</ent> is not the
character of benefits whose acceptance by <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> enables expectations of
reciprocity to operate on in the formation of juristic contracts)].
=============================================================[517]</p>

<p>Some of the juristic benefits that the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is offering to his <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>
originate in the Constitution, where these benefits are inferred by <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
Judges from certain wording and phrases in that Majestic Document; [518]</p>

<p>[518]============================================================= For certain
limited purposes, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> 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>

<p>other benefits the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is offering find their home nestled in his pile of <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent>,
other benefits are located in still another layer of administrative <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> come alive and make a great deal of sense. [519]</p>

<p>[519]============================================================= For example,
one of the judicially defined benefits of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is the right to
sue and be sued in <ent type='ORG'>Federal and</ent> State <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States:
"<ent type='PERSON'>George Bird</ent>... [having]... fulfilled the conditions which, under law
enacted by <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, entitle him to all the rights, privileges, [benefits,] and
immunities of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>. He is a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, and entitled,
equally with all other <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, 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
<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States actions affecting his legal rights with respect to property, and
to make [commercial] contracts [I will discuss this later]..."
-BIRD VS. TERRY, 129 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 472, at 477 (1903). With the right to sue
and be sued in <ent type='ORG'>Federal and</ent> State <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s being a benefit to <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, now the
following cryptic words in the Civil Rights statutes [giving Blacks <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
benefits that only <ent type='ORG'>Whites</ent> enjoyed before <ent type='EVENT'>the Civil War</ent>], now come alive with
meaning:
"Equal Just under the Law:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States shall have
the same right in every State and <ent type='GPE'>Territory</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>..."
-Title 42, Section 1981 ["Civil Rights"] (1870). Notice how the use of
the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room as an instrument of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, 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, <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is a
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>: 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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> status which is in fact the
very juristic contract that the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> use to CRACK Protestors with.
...The benefit of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> allowing those PERSONS to sue in <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s
once surfaced in <ent type='ORG'>HAMMERSTEIN</ent> VS. LYNE as a jurisdictional question, since one
of the statutes in Title 28 confers jurisdiction to <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> District <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s to
hear diversity cases involving <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> in different States:
"In order to give jurisdiction to the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, the
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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."
-<ent type='ORG'>HAMMERSTEIN</ent> VS. LYNE, 200 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 165, at 169 (1912).
=============================================================[519]</p>

<p>Some benefits of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> are proprietary and the distribution of those
benefits are limited to identifiable groups, for example, such as the elective
franchise. [520]</p>

<p>[520]============================================================= See
<ent type='ORG'>ENFRANCHISEMENT</ent> AND <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> by Edward J. Pierce [Roberts Brothers, Boston
(1896) {<ent type='ORG'>Harvard University</ent>, WIDENER LIBRARY, <ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Massachusetts</ent>}]. Even
many of the covenant terms of the <ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> and the <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> are identical. For example, <ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent>s rarely admit people into
membership positions unless that person is of age, so either all <ent type='ORG'>Country Club</ent>
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. <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> does differ; there was once a time in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States
when a large body of <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> were denied the benefit of elective franchise
rights, back before Women's Sufferrage matured:
"Again, women and minors are <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of the [various States], and also
of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States; but they are not electors, nor are they eligible to
office, either in those States or in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Caleb Cushing</ent>, Attorney General of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, ["Chickasaw
Constitution"] in 8 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 300, at 302, [R. Farnham,
<ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> (1858)]. Yes, the elective franchise, together with the right to
hold government offices, is deemed to be one of the many benefits inuring to
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, even though not all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> universally enjoy such benefits.
=============================================================[520]</p>

<p>Some other benefits inuring to <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States are, in general,
the protection of <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Marshals. [521]</p>

<p>[521]============================================================= When I read
about this benefit in a <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Judge
once disputed this with me in part, stating that <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Marshals owe no
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> any protective duty specifically [meaning that if the Marshals default
in protecting <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, then the Marshals have no reciprocal liability inuring
in return to <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> in favor of Breach of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> statutes on <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> and of
<ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>.
=============================================================[521]</p>

<p>Yes, all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> accept the protectorate benefits offered by <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States
Marshal Service. [522]</p>

<p>[522]============================================================= "The people
of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States resident within any State are subject to two <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>s;
one State, and the other <ent type='ORG'>National</ent>; but there needs be no conflict between the
two... It is the natural consequence of a <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, which owes allegiance to
two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> cannot
complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. 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."
-<ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 550 (1875). And so the
<ent type='ORG'>King</ent> needs some bouncers to justify his claim of protecting <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>.
=============================================================[522]</p>

<p>And unlike your local <ent type='ORG'>Police Department</ent>, when you call up the U.S. Marshals and
request their security assistance, generally they will not bark, snap, or snort
at you for doing so. [523]</p>

<p>[523]============================================================= To this
extent, <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Marshals are somewhat like the old <ent type='ORG'>Roman Centurions</ent>, who
protected <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> from murder and other dangers originating from attack
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s:
"... the ruling power at <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, whether <ent type='NORP'>Republican</ent> or imperial, granted,
from time to time, to communities and to individuals in the conquered East, the
Title of ROMAN, and the rights of <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>.
"A striking example of this <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> naturalization, of its controlling
authority as a political law, and of its beneficent power to protect a
persecuted <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>, may be found in the case of <ent type='PERSON'>Saint Paul</ent>, as it is
graphically reported in the ACTS OF THE <ent type='PERSON'>APOSTLES</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, being at <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>, 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 <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> troops, and taken
into a fort for security. [<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>] first explained, both to the <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> officer and
to his own countrymen, who were clamoring against him, his local status and
municipal relations; that he was... of <ent type='GPE'>Tarsus</ent>, a natural born <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>, of no
mean city, and that he had been brought up in <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>, in the strictest
manner, according to the law and faith of his fathers. But this did not appease
the angry crowd, who were proceeding with great violence to kill him. And then:
"the Chief Captain [of the <ent type='NORP'>Jews</ent>] commanded that he be brought into the
castle, and bade that he should be EXAMINED BY SCOURGING, that is, tortured to
enforce confession.
"And as they bound him with thongs, <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> 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?' [<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>] said yea; and
the Chief Captain said, 'With a great sum obtained I THIS FREEDOM.' And <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>
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 [<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>] was a ROMAN, and because [<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>] had BOUND HIM."
"Thus <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, under circumstances of great danger and obloquy, asserted
his immunity, as "a <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> unCondemned," from ignominious constraint and cruel
punishment, a constraint and punishment against which, as a mere provincial
subject of <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, he had no legal protection. And thus the <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> officers
instantly, and with fear, obeyed the law of their country and respected the
sacred franchise of the <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>.
"<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>, as we know by this record, was a natural born <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Tarsus</ent>,
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 <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent>
we learn from other historical sources. Caesar granted to the people of <ent type='GPE'>Tarsus</ent>
(for some good service done, probably for taking his side in the war which
resulted in the establishment of the <ent type='ORG'>Empire</ent>) the title of <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent>, and the
freedom of <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>. And, considering the chronology of events, this
grant must have been older than <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>; and therefore he truly said 'I WAS FREE
BORN' - a free <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, and as such exempt by law from degrading
punishment.
"And this immunity did not fill the measure of his rights as a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>.
As a <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent>, it was his right to be tried by <ent type='ORG'>the Supreme Authority</ent>, at the
Capital of the <ent type='ORG'>Empire</ent>. And when he claimed that right, and appealed from the
jurisdiction of the provincial governor to the Emperor of <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent>, his appeal was
instantly allowed, and he was remitted to 'Caesar's judgment'."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Edward Bates</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Attorney General, in ["<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>"], 10
Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at 392, [W.H. &amp; O.H. Morrison, <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>
(1868)]. =============================================================[523]</p>

<p><ent type='GPE'>The United</ent> States Marshals today will make inquiries and ask probing questions
to uncover the reasons why you believe your security is being impaired, as they
do want to get to the bottom of the threatening situation, in order to
terminate whatever it is that is giving you grounds for concern. On any serious
inquiry they will normally send out a Marshal immediately to see you, and they
will even put you up in a hotel if deemed provident under the circumstances; so
yes, the security benefits offered by the U.S. Marshals are more than
legitimate. But no one knows anything about the protectorate benefits being
offered by the U.S. Marshals. Due to the <ent type='ORG'>HOLLYWOODIZATION</ent> 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>

<p>[524]============================================================= Other
benefits offered to <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> by the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> [and <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> know
this, so we should too] is financial assistance to <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> returning
from foreign countries. In Title 42, Section 1312, the Secretary of State is
authorized to provide temporary assistance to <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> and to dependents of
those <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, if they have returned to <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States in a state of
destitution resulting from war, threat of war, invasion, or some other crisis
some <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> pulled off somewhere. Another benefit offered to <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>
is the protection of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Embassy for assistance, they have always sent out someone
immediately. In Title 22, Section 1731 ["Protection of Naturalized <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>
Abroad"], the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> has decreed that PERSONS who have become naturalized
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States is under a specific duty to
first inquire of foreign governments and then offer assistance whenever an
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> is incarcerated abroad. See:
-<ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>Edward Borehard</ent>, Thesis [<ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> University, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>
(1914)], discussing the diplomatic protection of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> abroad;
refers to <ent type='ORG'>the AMERICAN JOURNAL</ent> OF INTER<ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> LAW for July, 1913.
-<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Department Publication, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent>
IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY LANDING FORCES [Second Edition, <ent type='ORG'>GPO</ent> (October 5, 1912)]
{<ent type='ORG'>Harvard University</ent>, WIDENER LIBRARY, <ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Massachusetts</ent>}, contains a
chronological listing of the occasions in which the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> has taken action
on behalf of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> up to 1912.
=============================================================[524]</p>

<p>As for the 14th Amendment, the reason why the 14th Amendment as a stand-alone
line of Status defense is patently frivolous is because all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> accept
benefits that the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is offering, and the classification by Tax Protestors of
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> into different categories, when benefits are being accepted by all
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> regardless of classification, is baneful. [525]</p>

<p>[525]============================================================= The word
CITIZEN appears four times in the 14th Amendment; some are in reference to
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, and others are in reference to <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of the
several States. There is a <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> Clause in the 14th Amendment pertaining
to the benefits [a RIGHT is also frequently a benefit] enjoyed by <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of
the States in relationship to the benefits enjoyed by <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of other States.
Called the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, this Clause has generated a large
volume of <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> Cases. See:
-THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> IN THE SEVERAL STATES, 1
Michigan Law Review 286 (1902);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Roger Howell</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> - THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF STATE
<ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> [<ent type='ORG'>John Hopkins Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Baltimore</ent> (1918)];
-Arnold J. <ent type='PERSON'>Lien</ent> in PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> [<ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent>
University Press, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1913)].
=============================================================[525]</p>

<p>Claiming that you are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a PREAMBLE CITIZEN with a
special reciprocity exempt status to avoid that irritating QUID PRO QUO
("something for something") payment of an unreasonable enscrewment oriented
Income Tax, is foolishness, and you are not entitled to prevail under any
circumstances before a <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Judge. [526]</p>

<p>[526]============================================================= Another line
of foolishness some folks propagate is that, just somehow, there is a
relationship in effect between Social Security and legal liability for the
<ent type='ORG'>National</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States has been successfully drafting <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> into
military service in <ent type='EVENT'>World War</ent> I, long before FDR's <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Cartel sponsors
in <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> City presented the wealth transfer grab of Social Security to
<ent type='GPE'>America</ent> through their imp nominees in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> in the 1930's; just like the
<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> accept above, one of them is "the
protection of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States Marshals." Since the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is risking the
physical security of his bouncers to protect you [yes, and unlike your local
<ent type='ORG'>Police Department</ent>, 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 <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> asking in return for the male <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>ry to risk
their physical security to protect the King's kingdom?
"The very conception of a just <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> and its duty to the <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>
includes the reciprocal obligation of the <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is first offering to you the
protectorate services of his bouncers. The reciprocal and contractual nature of
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is recognized in <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> as such. When debates on the proposed
14th Amendment transpired in the Senate, Senator <ent type='PERSON'>Trumbull</ent> stated his
understanding that:
"This <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>... has certainly some power to protect its own
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal
rights."
-<ent type='ORG'>CONGRESSIONAL</ent> GLOBE, 39th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, 1st Session, at page 1757 (1866).
=============================================================[526]</p>

<p>The reason why self-proclaimed PREAMBLE <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> and COMMON LAW <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent>, so
called, are properly burdened with the heavy QUID PRO QUO reciprocity of the
Income Tax is that all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> accept and enjoy the protectorate benefits
previously discussed that the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is offering, so all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> accept <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
benefits. Yes, <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> accept those
other <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> benefits as well, and so all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> are operating under the
King's Equity Jurisdiction of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, and are appropriate objects
for the assertion of a regulatory and taxation environment over, through
contract terms. [527].</p>

<p>[527]============================================================= This is not
exactly the type of a talk a Tax Protestor wants to hear, but there are many
folks operating on Protestor caliber who arrive at similar defective
conclusions of law that their philosophy is beckoning to hear.
=============================================================[527]</p>

<p>I would advise you to terminate your reliance on information originating from
people who lace excessive priority attention on the 14th Amendment <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
question, as their stand-alone arguments are without any merit whatsoever for
purposes of detaching yourself away from <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Taxation liability. [528]</p>

<p>[528]============================================================= "<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> for the
promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual, as
well as their collective rights. In the formation of a <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, the people
may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, when so formed,
may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the
protection of the rights of its <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> and the people within its
jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> to afford
protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose."
-<ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
=============================================================[528]</p>

<p>Above, I listed some of the benefits that all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States
enjoy; and this is important since <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> always view things from a
"What benefit has this fellow accepted?" attitude. [529]</p>

<p>[529]============================================================= "Income
taxes are a recognized method of distributing the burdens of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>,
favored because requiring contributions from those who realize current
pecuniary benefits under the protection of the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, and because the tax
may be proportioned to their ability to pay."
-<ent type='PERSON'>SHAFFER</ent> VS. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 51 (1919).
=============================================================[529]</p>

<p>But just where does the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> and the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> get off with the idea that
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, all by itself, attaches liability to Title 26? Nowhere in Title 26
is there any concise discussion about how <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> are those Persons identified
in Section 7203 ("Willful Failure to File") as being one of "all persons who
are required to file..." [530]</p>

<p>[530]============================================================= Although
there are 115 Sections of <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> where the root word CITIZEN appears in Title 26,
when considered as a whole they only inferentially suggest that the <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States"];
-Section 861 ["Income from sources within <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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 ["<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> or residents of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States living
abroad"];
-Section 932 ["<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of possessions of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States"];
-Section 933 ["Income from sources within <ent type='GPE'>Puerto Rico</ent>"];
-Section 1302 ["Definition of averagable income"];
-Section 1444 ["Withholding on <ent type='GPE'>Virgin Islands</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States"];
-Section 2107 ["<ent type='EVENT'>Expatriation</ent> to avoid tax"];
-Section 2208 ["Certain residents of possessions considered <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>
of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States"];
-Section 3121(e) ["State, <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States, and <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>"];
-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>

<p>So just where do <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> get the idea that <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> are PERSONS under
contract, suitable for a smooth <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> taxation shake down? [531]</p>

<p>[531]============================================================= For purposes
of collecting an ESTATE TAX, the statutes in Title 26 are blunt and clear that
<ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> must pay:
"A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of every
decedent who is a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> or resident of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States."
-Title 26, Section 2001 ["Imposition and Rate of Tax"].
=============================================================[531]</p>

<p>The answer lies by probing a level deeper into the King's statutes, into an
area <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> and Tax Protestors do not seem to be pursuing that much: Into the
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, which operate as junior statutes. [532]</p>

<p>[532]============================================================= The Code is
divided into 50 titles or PARTS, which do not always correlate to statutory
Titles. For example, Title 26 <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> CODE pertains to TAXATION, and the
corresponding Part of <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> that also pertains to TAXATION is Volume 26; however,
Title 50 <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> CODE deals with WAR AND <ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> DEFENSE, while <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> Part
50 deals with WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES.
=============================================================[532]</p>

<p>The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is a codification of the general and permanent
rules published in the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Register by <ent type='ORG'>the Executive Department</ent> and by
agencies of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States. The Code is very powerful indeed (remember to
always think like a <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the Code</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Regulations
(like it's father, the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Register) are required to be judicially noticed.
[533]</p>

<p>[533]============================================================= 44 <ent type='ORG'>United</ent>
States Code 1507.
=============================================================[533]</p>

<p>And <ent type='ORG'>the Code</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Regulations is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of the text of
the original documents. [534]</p>

<p>[534]============================================================= 44 <ent type='ORG'>United</ent>
States Code 1510.
=============================================================[534]</p>

<p>This <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> is republished once each year, so the following quotations, extracted
from the 1985 edition, may have been altered in future editions. With that in
mind, consider the following words from the <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>:</p>

<p>"In general, all <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, wherever resident, and
all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
States...
"Every person born or naturalized in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States and subject to
its jurisdiction is a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>." [535]</p>

<p>[535]============================================================= 26 <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>
1.0-1(b) and 1.0-1(c); (1985).
=============================================================[535]</p>

<p>So you see for <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> IN GENERAL, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> have already quietly taken
Judicial Notice of the fact that your <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is an invisible contract to
pay Income Taxes -- but what if you are not a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> GENERALLY speaking
[meaning, like everyone else, by their silence they have accepted <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
benefits]. By having vacated the factual record of any benefits having been
accepted, by striping the factual record of any QUID PRO QUO of equivalence
exchanged, that factual setting is no longer GENERAL and ordinary, now it is
SPECIAL and extraordinary, where if the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> makes any revenue collection
attempt, you have him worked into an immoral position. Yes, <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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>

<p>[536]============================================================= What we view
as <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> to other parties, by asking
the question: Should <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> be able to contract out to others their required
reciprocal services? Under the concept of inalienable duties [IN<ent type='ORG'>ALIENABLE</ent>
meaning that they cannot be transferred], <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> requires certain actions
of its <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> and forbids the transfer of these duties to others. For
example, calls for Voters, Jury Service, and <ent type='ORG'>Military Enlistment</ent> are based on
the invisible contract attachment of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, and are, at the present time,
inalienable. VOTERS: In some foreign countries, like <ent type='GPE'>Australia</ent>, voting
liability cannot be transferred to others -- but is mandatory under fines [see
H. Emy in THE POLITICS OF <ent type='NORP'>AUSTRALIAN</ent> DEMOCRACY: FUNDAMENTALS IN <ent type='ORG'>DISPUTE</ent>, at
page 596 et seq. (2nd Edition, 1978)]. In a sense, <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> has set a price
for not voting; so theoretically, by inverse reasoning, <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> not to
vote and paying someone else to vote on your behalf]. SOLDIERS AND <ent type='NORP'>JURORS</ent>: The
arguments for selling jury duty is slightly different because the higher
standards necessarily exclude many <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> from serving, but even the
qualified sale of a call to serve on a jury is appropriate for private
negotiation. Military enlistment in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States was once up for sale,
i.e., the draft was an <ent type='ORG'>ALIENABLE</ent> [transferable] duty. During <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States
Civil War, draftees for both the <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> and the <ent type='LOC'>South</ent> could buy their way out of
the draft, or buy a substitute; so the net effect was a military infantry
consisting of a volunteer army financed by wealthy draftees instead of
<ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s. While soldiers may have ended up being paid the opportunity cost of
enlistment, the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is planning its military activity was not required
to take these opportunity costs into account. The reason why this interesting
system broke down is because in the <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent>, several municipalities and States
intervened by appropriating money to enable destitute folks to buy their way
out and then began to pay bounties to enlistees. In the <ent type='LOC'>South</ent>, the purchase of
substitutes was heavily criticized and was abolished soon after it was begun,
as the howling of UNFAIRNESS ascended into <ent type='ORG'>Legislature</ent>s [see E. Murdock in
<ent type='ORG'>PATRIOTISM LIMITED</ent>: 1862-1854: THE CIVIL WAR DRAFT AND THE BOUNTY SYSTEM
(1967)]. See generally INALIENABILITY AND THE THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
["Inalienability and <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>"], 85 <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> Law Review 931, at 961 (1985).
=============================================================[536]</p>

<p>The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is also another source of identifying handouts
and benefits offered to <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>. [537]</p>

<p>[537]============================================================= I have
decided to list each of the PARTS of the 1985 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,
since in this way a quick glimpse starts to uncover the wide-ranging extent of
impressive <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Benefits that <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> have had all neatly tied up in
a bundle and handed to them in that <ent type='ORG'>BENCH</ent> BOOK of theirs:
-Part 1: General Provisions;
-Part 2: General Provisions;
-Part 3: The President -- Proclamations, Executive Orders;
-Part 4: <ent type='ORG'>General Accounting Office</ent>;
-Part 5: <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Administrative Personnel;
-Part 6: [Reserved];
-Part 7: Agriculture -- price supports, inspections, counseling
benefits;
-Part 8: Aliens and <ent type='ORG'>National</ent>ity [<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>];
-Part 9: <ent type='ORG'>Animal and Animal</ent> Products, Plant and Health inspections;
-Part 10: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
-Part 11: <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Elections;
-Part 12: Banks/Banking -- FDIC, Import-Export Bank and other handouts
to looters;
-Part 13: Business Credit &amp; Assistance -- SBA, Economic Development
Administration;
-Part 14: <ent type='ORG'>FAA</ent>, Aviation, Department of Transportation;
-Part 15: <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> and Foreign Trade;
-Part 16: <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Trade Commission -- Regulatory intervention on
behalf of consumers;
-Part 17: Commodities and Securities Exchanges -- Regulatory
intervention;
-Part 18: Conservation of Power and Water Resources -- <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy;
-Part 19: Customs, Duties -- <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States Customs Service;
-Part 20: <ent type='ORG'>Food and</ent> Drug -- <ent type='ORG'>FDA</ent> and related inspections;
-Part 21: Employee's Benefits -- <ent type='ORG'>Railroad Retirement Board</ent>, Office of
Workman's Compensation;
-Part 22: Foreign Relations -- <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States International Development
Cooperation Agency and related pipelines to looters;
-Part 23: Highways -- <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Highway Administration;
-Part 24: <ent type='ORG'>Housing and Urban Development</ent>;
-Part 25: <ent type='NORP'>Indians</ent> -- Bureau of <ent type='NORP'>Indian</ent> Affairs; grants and counseling;
-Part 26: <ent type='ORG'>Internal Revenue</ent>;
-Part 27: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- regulatory intervention;
-Part 28: Judicial Administration -- <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Prisons (concentration
camps);
-Part 29: Department of Labor -- grants and handouts;
-Part 30: Mineral Resources -- Mine Safety regulations -- Inspections;
-Part 31: Money and Finance -- <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent>;
-Part 32: <ent type='ORG'>National</ent> Defense -- <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> administration;
-Part 33: <ent type='ORG'>Marine Navigation</ent> &amp; Navigable Waters;
-Part 34: Education -- Grants to colleges, bilingual education,
vocational training;
-Part 35: Panama Canal;
-Part 36: Parks, Forests, and <ent type='ORG'>Public Lands</ent>;
-Part 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights;
-Part 38: Pensions, Bonuses, Veteran's benefits -- Veteran's
Administration;
-Part 39: <ent type='ORG'>Postal Service</ent>;
-Part 40: Environmental Protection regulatory matters;
-Part 41: Public <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>s and Property Management;
-Part 42: Public Health -- Health care grants, <ent type='ORG'>Hospital</ent> enrichment;
-Part 43: Public Land and <ent type='ORG'>Interior</ent>s -- Secretary of the <ent type='ORG'>Interior</ent>,
related infrastructure;
-Part 44: <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 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 -- <ent type='ORG'>FCC</ent> regulatory intervention;
-Part 48: <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Acquisition Regulatory System -- <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
Procurement;
-Part 49: Transportation;
-Part 50: Wildlife and Fisheries -- Department of the <ent type='ORG'>Interior</ent> --
fishing, hunting in <ent type='ORG'>National</ent> Forests, wildlife management.
=============================================================[537]</p>

<p>And the Judicial Notice, taken quietly IN CAMERA, that the <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
is the contract being operated on, is never pronounced publicly in an open
courtroom forum. Does that last sentence I quoted from the <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent> about how every
person born or naturalized in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States as a matter of birthright, who
might not be subject to the total jurisdiction of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>.
[538]</p>

<p>[538]============================================================= "... the
phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" relates to time of birth, and one not
owing allegiance at birth cannot become a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> save by subsequent
naturalization, individually or collectively. The words do not mean merely
geographical location, but 'completely subject to the political jurisdiction'."
-<ent type='ORG'>ELK</ent> VS. WILINS, 112 U.S. 94, at 102 (1884).
=============================================================[538]</p>

<p>Who are those individuals? For starters, they are those Individuals who don't
accept any benefits or handouts from the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>. [[539]</p>

<p>[539]============================================================= The most
predominate ways that an individual can become subject to the jurisdiction of
<ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States is by:
1.Violating a law the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is authorized to prosecute
(counterfeiting, bank robbery, treason, etc.);
2.Be employed by the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>;
3.Apply for its privileges, or accept its benefits; See generally:
-John H. Hughes in <ent type='ORG'>THE AMERICAN</ent> CITIZEN -- HIS RIGHTS AND DUTIES
[Pudney &amp; Russell, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1857)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Luella Gettys</ent> in THE LAW OF <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> IN THE <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>
[University of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> Press, <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> (1934)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Albert Brill</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>TEN LECTURES</ent> ON <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> [Ascendancy Foundation,
<ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1938)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>David Josiah Brewer</ent> in YALE LECTURES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
<ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> -- OBLIGATIONS OF <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> [C. Scribner's Sons, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1907)];
-Imp Charles Beard in AMERICAN <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> [MacMillian, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>
(1921)];
-Editors, <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> "Rights and Duties of an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>"
[<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Heritage Foundation, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1948)];
-Nathan S. Shaler in <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> "The <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> -- A Study of the
Individual and the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>" [A.S. Barnes &amp; Company, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1904)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Melvin Risa</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> "Theories on <ent type='ORG'>the Obligations</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>
to the State," Thesis, [University of <ent type='GPE'>Pennsylvania</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Philadelphia</ent> (1921)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Ansaldo Ceba</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> "Rights, Duties, and Privileges of
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>" [Paine &amp; Burgess, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1845)].
=============================================================[539]</p>

<p>Despite the fact that I say a few isolated nice things about <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>
(with the applicability of my favorable comments being restricted to just a few
limited grievance factual settings <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> preside over), I am unable to
recall any <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Case that correctly talks about <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> as the pure, raw
contract that it very much is; yet it's all there in <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Statutes. [540]</p>

<p>[540]============================================================= Yes,
benefits are the key to lock yourself into state and federal taxation webs:
"... it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the
defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities
within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its
laws."
-HANSEN VS. DENCKLA, 357 U.S. 235, at 253 (1957); [A state taxation
jurisdiction question Case].
=============================================================[540]</p>

<p>Why then does the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> not correctly address <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> as the
contract that it really is? I don't know why, precisely; I could conjecture
that they do not want to publish an exemplary Case, explaining in the context
of a specific factual setting, how an Individual can get himself out of the
contract containing taxation reciprocity covenants. But I don't really care,
either; whatever information the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Judiciary is deficient in elucidating
regarding identifying <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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>

<p>"An old principle, laid down from the earliest ages of <ent type='NORP'>British</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> withholds its protection, that very moment
allegiance ceases." [541]</p>

<p>[541]============================================================= George A.
<ent type='ORG'>Smith</ent>, from a discourse delivered in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>, on
November 29, 1857; 6 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 84, at 85 (<ent type='GPE'>London</ent>, 1859).
=============================================================[541]</p>

<p>Yes, <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is very much a contract, and <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> generally think in
contract terms when dealing with a Tax or Draft Protestor. [542]</p>

<p>[542]============================================================= I am not
aware of any <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> statute anywhere that comes right out in the open and
explicitly correlates the benefits of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States shall have
the same right in every State and <ent type='GPE'>Territory</ent> 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
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> District <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s
for hearing PROTESTING grievances arising out of Title 26; for example, see the
jurisdictional arguments in:
-SNYDER VS. <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>, 596 F.Supp. 240 (1984);
-CAMERON VS. <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>, 593 F.Supp 1540 (1984) [appeal published in 773
F.2nd 126 (1985)];
-YOUNG VS. <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>, 596 F.Supp. 141 (1984). Title 26 was deliberately
designed by its draftsmen in <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> to convey only that thin, tiny, minimum
sliver of jurisdiction to <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> District <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
District <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> jurisdiction to either abate or remedy the naked Torts or
contractual errors of <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> termites. Tax Protestors might want to emulate the
<ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> when dealing with a Title 26 related
grievance, and invoke the 16th Amendment as a source of jurisdiction for their
District <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>dom, which <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> quietly do [nowhere in the 16th
Amendment do the words JURISDICTION, <ent type='ORG'>DISTRICT COURT</ent>, or <ent type='ORG'>CONVEY</ent> appear anywhere,
but pesky little deficiency impediments like that are not about to stop <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
Judges]. =============================================================[542]</p>

<p><ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is probably the single most important contract that you need to
come to grips with, as <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, a large amount
of the friction relating to your confrontations with <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> will evaporate
overnight -- but your <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> contract is not the only exclusive contract
you need to concern yourself with; and be mindful that <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, 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>

<p>[543]============================================================= Your right
to walk away from the <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, any time you feel like it, is
absolute [see 9 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 356 ["Right of <ent type='EVENT'>Expatriation</ent>"]
(1859)], and you don't need to follow <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Statutes on <ent type='EVENT'>Expatriation</ent> (the
<ent type='ORG'>King</ent> wants all pesky little tax avoidance oriented expatriators to physically
leave <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, and then surrender their <ent type='ORG'>Passport</ent> to a foreign
consular office [meaning that you will be prevented from re-entering <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
States]; see Title 26, Section 2107 and the <ent type='EVENT'>Expatriation</ent> statutes in the King's
Title 8 <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent>). Meanwhile, the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States] destroys the quality of absolute
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>. 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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>s were maintained for the benefit of rulers and not for
the people. Sovereigns were everything; subjects were nothing."
-<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>man <ent type='PERSON'>Norman Judd</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Illinois</ent> on the Floor of the <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> of
Representatives, <ent type='ORG'>CONGRESSIONAL</ent> RECORD, 40th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, 2nd Session, page 7
(December 2, 1867). Just as pig Sovereigns in the Dark Ages demanded that
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> could not walk away from allegiance to his kingdom for any reason, so
too by corollary, should <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> start to deem the acceptance of <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Buildings
where they all went to work synchronously.
=============================================================[543]</p>

<p>If that is your objective, then you have to effectuate a pure severance of
yourself away from the King's Equity Jurisdiction, and not just a partial
severance. No, you don't get to selectively pick and choose just what <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
benefits you want and don't want. This <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is one of the larger slices
that constitutes the Title 26 liability pie, and once <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> have
quietly taken Judicial Notice of your <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, they generally then and
there stop looking for other contracts to nail on you, when ruling over civil
Income Tax grievances. [544]</p>

<p>[544]============================================================= If in fact
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is the dominate invisible contract that <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> are using as
BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE justification to adhesively hold the <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> of Title 26 to
folks -- then there necessarily rises to our attention another question. In
1939, <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT, designed to waive the
benefits inuring to <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Employees of a long-standing doctrine in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
States <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> that prohibits the taxation of <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> instrumentalities
by the several States, and VICE-VERSA -- called the INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
DOCTRINE.
"What limitations does the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Constitution impose upon <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, are questions
often considered here. [Cases deleted].
"The Constitution contemplates a national <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> free to use its
delegated powers; also state <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>s 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States may
employ for exercising their delegated powers; <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States may not tax
instrumentalities which a State may employ in the discharge of her essential
governmental duties -- that is, those duties which the <ent type='NORP'>Framers</ent> intended each
member of the Union would assume in order adequately to function under the form
of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> guaranteed by the Constitution."
-HELVERING VS. <ent type='ORG'>THERRELL</ent>, 303 U.S. 218, at 222 (1937). The Constitution
nowhere states that the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> is barred from taxing State Employees, or that
the States are barred from taxing <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Employees; yet the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> held
in COLLECTOR VS. DAY that the salary of a State Officer is immune from <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
income taxation:
"That the taxing power of the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is nevertheless
subject to an implied restriction when applied to State instrumentalities was
first decided in COLLECTOR VS. DAY, 11 <ent type='PERSON'>Wallace</ent> 113, where the salary of a state
officer, a probate judge, was held to be immune from <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> income tax. The
question there presented was not one of interference with a granted power in a
field in which the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is supreme, but a limitation by
implication upon the granted <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> power to tax."
-HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 414 (1937). So even though
<ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Employees cannot be taxed under this immunity doctrine, the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>
enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT to waive the immunity its employees would
otherwise enjoy; The <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> wanted to make sure that their help was paying
the freight like everyone else:
"<ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Employees... too, should contribute to the support o their
State and local <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>s to the same extent as private Employees...
Employees of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>s receive all the benefits of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> which their
fellow <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> do, and consequently they should also bear their fair share of
its costs."
-<ent type='ORG'>SENATE REPORT</ent> #112 ["Public Salary Tax Act"], 76th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, First
Session, at 4 (February, 1939). And perhaps the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Employees. In this respect,
it might be said to be discriminatory against the States. The proposed
legislation does permit the States to tax <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Salaries."
-<ent type='ORG'>SENATE REPORT</ent> #112 ["Public Salary Tax Act"], 76th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, First
Session, at 8 (February, 1939). After it was enacted, this PUBLIC SALARY TAX
ACT read that:
"<ent type='GPE'>The United</ent> States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for
personal service as an office or employee of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States..."
-Title 4, Section 111 ["Public Salary Tax Act"] (revised September,
1966). Tax Protestors reading this statute from the perspective that only
<ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Employees, and no more. But where did the
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> initially become so disabled from taxing State employees?
"The Constitution contains no express limitation on the power of either
a State or the national <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> to tax the other, or its instrumentalities.
The doctrine that there is an implied limitation stems from <ent type='ORG'>MCCULLOCH</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> has to justify his juristic banking
creations. I would like to see a Protestor try and argue the
unConstitutionality of the <ent type='ORG'>Fed</ent> based on the full panoply of its sources of
jurisdictional fuel: The BORROWING POWER to contract for debts, the WAR POWERS
to defend <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> correctly rule to be so down to the present day: That the
<ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Reserve System, <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s and all, is in fact Constitutional.] QUESTION:
So, if <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is the contract operated on by <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>, then why will
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> simply not refer over to the <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> contract as overruling
justification to tax <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>al Employees? The Answer lies in the fact that
<ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> is an implied contract created and structured largely by statutory
devices; as an implied contract [meaning not expressly negotiated and
individually written down], <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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, <ent type='ORG'>Federal and</ent> State instrumentalities are
pre-emptively disabled from even asking for any taxation reciprocity back in
return from each other -- even though <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> juristic benefits were accepted
by a state employee in COLLECTOR VS. DAY, and an implied taxation contract was
in effect. Remember that the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> is operating on a limited profiled slice
of multiple jurisdictional assignments; the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> is pre-emptively disabled
from pulling off many things in the BILL OF RIGHTS that requires either a
Commercial <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> or individually negotiated contract consent to overrule.
<ent type='ORG'>The Corpus</ent> of the Constitution also pre-emptively disables the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> 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. <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>, 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. <ent type='PERSON'>GORE</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> as THE
justifying taxation contract, and ignore Immunity Doctrines? Yes, there are:
"... respondents, though Employees of the <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> Port <ent type='ORG'>Authority</ent>, are
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States; the tax levied upon their incomes from the
<ent type='ORG'>Authority</ent> is the same as that paid by other <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> receiving equal net
incomes; and payment of this non-discriminatory income tax by respondents
cannot impair or defeat in whole or in part the governmental operations of the
State of <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>. A <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> who receives his income from a State, owes the
same obligation to <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States as other <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> who draw their salaries
from private sources or <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States and pay <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> income taxes."
-HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 424 [Justice Black
concurring] (1937). The same difficulty in assigning values to competing
differentials in contract priority, that some <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> will have to come to
grips with the strong relevance of national <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent>, 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>

<p>=============================================================[544]</p>

<p>Your successful severance of liability away from the administrative mandates of
Title 26 requires a thorough decontamination of yourself away from the contract
of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> and all Commercial contracts. Yes, you can be an alien from some
foreign jurisdiction, you can be a <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Native</ent> who never left <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> or set
foot in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, and still have a liability to produce administrative
conformance with Title 26. [545]</p>

<p>[545]============================================================= Aliens from
foreign political jurisdictions, who do not reside in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States and
accept no political or protectorate benefits from <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, are still
very much liable to be bound by Title 26, if they experience any Commercial
enrichment over here. <ent type='ORG'>See EMILY</ent> DE GANAY VS. LEDERER, 250 U.S. 376 (1919). [A
<ent type='NORP'>French</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> resident very much owes equity participation income
taxes to <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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. <ent type='ORG'>TAIT</ent>, 265 U.S. 47 (1923)
[non-resident aliens who participate in <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> are subject to the
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Income Tax and <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> residing abroad are liable to pay the Income
Tax]. The requirement for <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> who live abroad and, seemingly, do
not enjoy any benefits of an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> origin, to pay Income Taxes has irritated
a lot of folks -- see THE FOREIGN EARNED INCOME ACT OF 1978: NON-BENEFITS FOR
<ent type='ORG'>NONRESIDENTS</ent>, Editor's Note, 13 <ent type='ORG'>Cornell International</ent> Law Journal 105, at 107
(1980) -- but latent overseas benefits are actually being offered and accepted
by <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
States a specific duty to intervene on your behalf whenever <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Reserve Notes].
=============================================================[545]</p>

<p>The idea of using the King's Equity Jurisdiction of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> a the point of
adhesion to tax individuals goes far back into antiquity. [546]</p>

<p>[546]============================================================= The
jurisdictional basis of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> to tax is one of the oldest juristic
Principles that there is in law. See <ent type='PERSON'>Edwin Seligman</ent>, in ESSAYS ON TAXATION
["Double Taxation"], page 111 [MacMillian Company, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1928); 9th
Edition].</p>

<p>=============================================================[546]</p>

<p>In the old days of 1913, our Fathers came right out in the open and declared
for all to see that <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> were taxable objects. [547]</p>

<p>[547]============================================================= "... that
there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire
net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year
to every <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, whether residing at home or abroad..."
-<ent type='ORG'>THE REVENUE ACT</ent> OF 1913, chapter 16, Section IIA (1913).
=============================================================[547]</p>

<p>The decision that was made in 1913 to lay the tax on the attachment of the
King's Equity Jurisdiction of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> was made apparently intuitively and
without much debate. [548]</p>

<p>[548]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>Surrey</ent>
reviews this in his article entitled CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TAXATION OF
CORPORATE FOREIGN INCOME, 56 <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> Law Review 815, at 817 (1956).
=============================================================[548]</p>

<p>The purpose of broadening the number of objects subject to federal taxation,
away from exclusively constituting only participants in King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, over
to the larger group of <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>ry, was declared to be performed only with the
noblest of intentions, [549]</p>

<p>[549]============================================================= "Its purpose
was to raise revenue on the basis of each Citizen's ability to pay as opposed
to the past practice of taxing the individual on the basis of consumption."
-See HOUSE REPORT NUMBER 5, 63rd <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, First Session, 1 (1913).
=============================================================[549]</p>

<p>but the true objective then is the same objective which sustains the
continuance of the Income Tax down to the present time: To perfect <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent>
enscrewment. [550]</p>

<p>[550]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s
typically operate by mildly asking for just one more turn of the screws;
information propagated around <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in 1909 (when the proposed 16th
Amendment was passed by the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> and sent to the States), and thence
propagated around the States, was that the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s even one tiny
bit:
[Speaking in the context of a Celestial Principle]:
"The old fable which <ent type='PERSON'>Aesop</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Ash</ent> tree. <ent type='GPE'>The Ash</ent> 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
<ent type='PERSON'>Ash</ent>, but he also hewed down the <ent type='ORG'>Oaks</ent> and the <ent type='LOC'>Cedars</ent> and the great and mighty
Monarchs of the forest who had surrendered in their pride, the rights of the
humble <ent type='PERSON'>Ash</ent>. An old Oak was heard to complain to a neighboring Cedar; "If we had
not given away the rights of the <ent type='PERSON'>Ash</ent> 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."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson</ent> F. <ent type='ORG'>Whitney</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent> on April
9, 1885; 26 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 194, at 202 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1886)]. The fablest
referred to, <ent type='ORG'>AESOP</ent>, wrote many Fables with an instructional purpose running
through them. <ent type='ORG'>AESOP</ent> is said to have lived about 620 to 560 B.C., and once had a
relationship with <ent type='PERSON'>Croesus</ent>. A <ent type='NORP'>Latin</ent> translation of 100 FABULAE AEOPICAE by
<ent type='PERSON'>Renutius</ent> was published in <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s 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>

<p>Our Fathers fell for that "ability to pay" reasoning then, just like most folks
today continue to fall for that same line today. [551]</p>

<p>[551]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>Pathetic</ent> was
the caliber of judgment that fell for this little lie:
"For years there has been an overwhelming sentiment in this country in
favor of the income tax. The justice of such a tax is so self-evident that few,
if any, have been heard in opposition to its enactment."
-<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>man <ent type='PERSON'>Pepper</ent>, from <ent type='GPE'>Iowa</ent>, in the <ent type='ORG'>CONGRESSIONAL</ent> RECORD for
January 30, 1913, at page 5252.
=============================================================[551]</p>

<p>Let us examine the Judicial Perspective on federal taxation under the
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> by way of a Case study. One such ruling touching on the
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> involves COOK VS. <ent type='ORG'>TAIT</ent>, [552]</p>

<p>[552]============================================================= 265 U.S. 47
(1924). =============================================================[552]</p>

<p>where the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> ruled that income received by a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
States while living in <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> is taxable due to the benefits received while
outside <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> then listed those benefits that
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> carried with them no matter what their geographical situs
was. [553]</p>

<p>[553]============================================================= Many
<ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> will be quite familiar with the following widely published words from
a <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> ruling called HALE VS. <ent type='ORG'>HENKEL</ent>, 201 U.S. 43 (1915), which
discusses the difference in rights and duties between <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent>s and
Individuals:
"The individual... owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing
therefrom..."
-HALE VS. <ent type='ORG'>HENKEL</ent>, id., at 74. Not once to this day have I ever seen a
correct discussion of what HALE VS. <ent type='ORG'>HENKEL</ent> really means: Because it does not
purport at all to say that Individuals [human beings] are somehow exempt from
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> taxes that <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent>s are required to pay because Individuals are
made of flesh and bones, and therefore, somehow exempt from duties. Notice how
the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUALS</ent> without such juristic
accoutrements [or "liberated"]; the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUALS</ent> (or NATURAL PERSONS, as lawyers would
call them). If you do accept those juristic benefits, then you very much owe
the money, regardless of whether or not you are a human Individual (NATURAL
PERSONS) or a <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent> (an ARTIFICIAL PERSON). I once saw a 7203 WILLFUL
FAILURE TO FILE prosecution conviction appeal in <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> where the criminal
defendant argued that he was exempt from Income Tax Liability because he was an
"absolute individual," and not a <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent>. 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. <ent type='ORG'>HENKEL</ent>, Tax Protestors are
correct by noting that <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent>s are very unique creatures in the Law; they
are created by <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent>, and whatever <ent type='ORG'>the Juristic Institution</ent>
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 <ent type='GPE'>Rhode Island</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Rhode Island</ent> 212, at
220 (1909). As distinguished from <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent>s, 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 <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent>s to Individuals, but
Individuals take upon themselves the taxable status of <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent>s whenever
juristic benefits, offered conditionally, have been accepted; under such a
juristic environment, such an <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent> 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>

<p>In another Case in 1968, <ent type='ORG'>the First Circuit</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>Appeal</ent>s ruled that <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Rexach</ent> owed <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> income taxes by reason of his <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>.
[554]</p>

<p>[554]============================================================= FELIX REXACH
VS. <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>, 390 F.2nd 631 (1968).
=============================================================[554]</p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Rexach</ent></ent> was a native born <ent type='NORP'>Puerto Rican</ent>, who acquired statutory <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> by virtue of the Jones Act of 1917. [555]</p>

<p>[555]============================================================= Title 48,
Section 731, et seq.
=============================================================[555]</p>

<p>In 1944, <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> left <ent type='GPE'>Puerto Rico</ent> and became a resident of the Dominican
Republic, where he remained resident until 1961. However, in 1958 <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent>
executed a written renunciation of his <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> before a <ent type='ORG'>United</ent>
States consulate official in <ent type='GPE'>the Dominican Republic</ent>, pursuant to the
Immigration and <ent type='ORG'>National</ent>ity Act of 1952. [556]</p>

<p>[556]============================================================= Title 8,
Section 1481(c).
=============================================================[556]</p>

<p>His renouncement of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> was accepted without any frictional
hassles by <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, and a written Certificate of Loss of <ent type='ORG'>National</ent>ity
was approved by <ent type='ORG'>the Department</ent> of State. On July 26th of 1958, his desired
severance away from <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> was perfected as <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> was decreed to
be a <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>the Dominican Republic</ent>. [557]</p>

<p>[557]============================================================= "Thereafter,
[<ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent>] naturally suffered certain losses of status and benefits as a
consequence of being declared a non-resident alien of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States."
-REXACH, id., at 631. See how <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> are just fixated to view
questions from a BENEFITS perspective; yes BENEFITS are <ent type='ORG'>the Center</ent> of Gravity
in the minds of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> -- that central axis upon which adhesive
attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction have their organic point of formation
into contracts.
=============================================================[557]</p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> was no ordinary fellow, as he busied himself on a large scale by
contracting activities in <ent type='GPE'>the Dominican Republic</ent>, contracts obtained by
associating with its ruling dictator, <ent type='PERSON'>Trujillo</ent>. [558]</p>

<p>[558]============================================================= REXACH, id.,
at 631. =============================================================[558]</p>

<p>But fortunes soon turned adverse for <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> when the Dictator he was milking was
assassinated in 1961. <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> suddenly decided that <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> was now
desirable, and so in 1962 he applied for reinstatement of his <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> by applying for a <ent type='ORG'>Passport</ent>; claiming that his 1958 renunciation was
involuntary and had been compelled against his will by reason of physical
threats and economic pressures. <ent type='GPE'>The United</ent> States Consul denied his
application, and on administrative appeal, Felix's testimony was accepted,
reversing the local Consul, so his Loss of <ent type='ORG'>National</ent> Certificate was cancelled.</p>

<p>However, now things turn into an interesting direction, because <ent type='ORG'>the Department</ent>
of State, aware of Felix's financial resources, notified the <ent type='ORG'>Internal Revenue</ent>
Service that <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> was now an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> again; and so now termites in
the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> came out of the woodwork. [559]</p>

<p>[559]============================================================= My
characterization of <ent type='ORG'>the Internal Revenue Service</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the Direct</ent> IN
PERSONAM Taxation grab of an Income Tax structurally designed by <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s to
accomplish their objectives of maximum enscrewment damages, <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, 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 <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>. I
think the Constitution guarantees to them the same rights that other groups of
good <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> have..."
-UNITED PUBLIC WORKS VS. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, at 111 [dissenting
opinion] (1948).
=============================================================[559]</p>

<p>And so deficiency assessments were thrown at <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> for income earned in the
four intermittent years between his renunciation and his reinstatement. <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent>
ignored the deficiency assessments, and so <ent type='ORG'>Internal Revenue</ent> termites then threw
liens on property <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> owned, followed by foreclosure actions. <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> countered
against the foreclosures by throwing Petitions for Summary Judgements of
Foreclosure Dismissal at the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>.</p>

<p>In his legal arguments seeking to deflect the foreclosure, <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> reasoned that,
in effect, the reciprocal benefits of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> obligation language in COOK
VS. <ent type='ORG'>TAIT</ent> [560]</p>

<p>[560]============================================================= 265 U.S. 47
(1924). =============================================================[560]</p>

<p>overruled the unpleasant covenant terms his special statutory <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> how called for: The preclusion of <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> from claiming, as a matter of
statutory law, that he ever ceased to be a <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> argued
that since <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States had owned him no protection benefits during his
four year hiatus of alien, that therefore no reciprocal tax was owing in return
to <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States. <ent type='ORG'>The First Circuit</ent> disagreed, and countered by ruling
that:</p>

<p>"We cannot agree that the reciprocal obligations are mutual, at least
in the sense that [the] taxpayer contends." [561]</p>

<p>[561]============================================================= REXACH, id.,
at 632. =============================================================[561]</p>

<p>So yes, that QUID PRO QUO of reciprocity that I have been talking about all
along does have to be there, but the failure of <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> to present a proper
factual setting to the Judicial was fatal on his part <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> reentered the
stream of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> under contract, and the terms of his contract called for
the irrelevancy of his alien status, since his loss of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> was
originally tax avoidance motivated. <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> admitted that he never really ceased
to be an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> -- 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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> [and lying to get it back] to secure self enrichment and
economic advantage, according to <ent type='ORG'>the First Circuit</ent>, is continued liability for
<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States taxes. The obligation to pay taxes is thus clearly applicable
although the <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> who has temporarily abandoned <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, for
purposes of pursuing Commercial enrichment, receives no reciprocal benefits
from the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. In conclusion, most noteworthy is the last line in <ent type='ORG'>Rexach</ent>,
as <ent type='ORG'>the First Circuit</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Internal Revenue</ent> taxes, the factual elements necessary to so rule
were not present here:</p>

<p>"The hypothetical [factual setting where a person rejects benefits
timely and then does not return into a King's Equity relational status with the
<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States at a future time] suggested by taxpayer during oral argument
involved aspects of estoppel on the part of the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. Whatever may be the
merit of such cases, that element is not present here." [562]</p>

<p>[562]============================================================= REXACH, id.,
at 632. =============================================================[562]</p>

<p>Well, George, that <ent type='ORG'>DICTA</ent> was interesting, but could we see a Case where an
Individual rejects all benefits timely, and then a <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> vitiated his
taxing liability? No, sorry you cannot; [563]</p>

<p>[563]============================================================= There is a
line of Cases in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> touching on a <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
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
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, nor is there any explicit indication that <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is a
contract. To have folks think in terms of contract when addressing <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>,
would result in some folks eventually figuring out that the underlying indicia
that create commercial contracts might also create political contracts where
<ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent> 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
<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, where benefits are exchanged. And so folks, very properly, would
then start to examine the passing scene for evidence that <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> ruling
managing not to let the cat out of the bag while talking about <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>,
would the Naturalization Case of <ent type='GPE'>ANGELICA</ent> SCHNEIDER VS. DEAN RUSK [377 U.S 163
(1964)]. =============================================================[563]</p>

<p>such a published ruling so favorable to us folks out here in the countryside
does not exist, and will never exist -- as I have been saying all along, Cases
presented to <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent>. [564]</p>

<p>[564]============================================================= A <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
Judge in <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent> told an acquaintance of mine that the reason why he was not
going to issue out any written ruling on a <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>/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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> as justification to
damage people -- by deferring such questions over to "the political departments
of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>"; yet twist the factual setting around slightly to create
different philosophical incentives, and <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> 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>

<p>Those <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> Cases are of interest to us as good <ent type='ORG'>TOUCHSTONES</ent> indicia of
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> liability and of benefit acceptance in general, but they do not
meet the Refiner's Fire threshold requirement of just what happens when
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> simple waive and reject all political benefits, that Model Case that
so many folks are looking for. [565]</p>

<p>[565]============================================================= In ancient
times, the test for purity of <ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent> was performed with a smooth black stone,
called a <ent type='ORG'>Touchstone</ent>. When rubbed across the <ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent>, the <ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent> produced a streak or
mark on the surface of the <ent type='ORG'>Touchstone</ent>. The goldsmith would then match this mark
with a chart he had showing different graded colors. The mark left on the
<ent type='ORG'>Touchstone</ent> was redder in color as the amount of copper or other alloys
increased, and was yellower as the percentage of <ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent> increased. This process
showed the purity of the <ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent> within reasonable limits. The <ent type='ORG'>Touchstone</ent> method
for testing the quality of <ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent> was quick and fairly accurate for most common
purposes; but the goldsmith who, for some special reason, needed more precise
information on the <ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent> used a process that involved fire. And by running the
<ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent> through the much more intense Refiner's Fire, extremely accurate (as
accurate went in those days) measurements of the <ent type='ORG'>Gold</ent> content could then be
determined. However, the Refiner's Fire process took a lot of additional time,
and didn't really tell the goldsmith anything that he didn't already know. In
similar ways, I would suggest that <ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent> inactivity (because you are
"waiting" for the Model Case to come down from on High) is improvident, and
such a Model Case will not tell you anything you don't already know.
=============================================================[565]</p>

<p>What happens to <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> who reject the King's benefits? They become <ent type='PERSON'>Denizens</ent>.
[566]</p>

<p>[566]============================================================= In old
English Common Law, <ent type='ORG'>DENIZEN</ent>S had no political rights, i.e., they could not vote
or hold office. So by mutuality they also owed no <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>-like capitation tax
to the Crown. Although <ent type='PERSON'>Denizens</ent> had occupancy jurisdiction to stay within a
<ent type='ORG'>King</ent>dom, the only taxes the Crown was able to get out of them was limited to
the extent that the <ent type='PERSON'>Denizen</ent> participated in <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>. See generally, James
Kettner, <ent type='ORG'>THE DEVELOPMENT</ent> OF AMERICAN <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> 1608-1870 [University of <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent>
Carolina Press, <ent type='ORG'>Chapel Hill</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> Carolina (1976)]. That I am aware of, the
word <ent type='ORG'>DENIZEN</ent> appears 21 times in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> between 1952
[in ON LEE VS. <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>, 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Denizen</ent> 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 ["<ent type='PERSON'>Denizen</ent>"], Fifth Edition, [<ent type='ORG'>West Publishing</ent>,
St. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>] and adds that an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> judicial definition of <ent type='PERSON'>Denizen</ent> has changed
somewhat from its historical English counterpart. What <ent type='ORG'>DENIZEN</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Denizens</ent> are entitled, as I take it, to all sorts of commercial
privileges, which our natural-born subject can claim."
-MARRYAT VS. <ent type='ORG'>WILSON</ent>, a <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> case (1799). Yes, <ent type='PERSON'>Denizens</ent> do not enjoy
political franchise rights [nor can they hold elective <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> office], but
they do hold occupancy jurisdiction, and they do enjoy Commercial benefits
created by the State, and so <ent type='PERSON'>Denizens</ent> were only taxed to the extent they
participated in <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>. Back before <ent type='EVENT'>the Civil War</ent> days, Blacks were not
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, as only White folks could be <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> before the
RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS made their appearance. An Attorney General once spoke
on how colored persons are not ALIENS and not <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent>, yet they are something
-- but what are they? They are <ent type='ORG'>DENIZEN</ent>S, as <ent type='PERSON'>Denizens</ent> hold occupancy
jurisdiction, but do not enjoy any juristic benefit originating from <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
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
<ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>, in the highest sense of the word -- that is, one who enjoys in the
fullest manner all the JURA CIVITATIS under the Constitution of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
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 <ent type='PERSON'>Denizens</ent>... How far a political STATUS may be acquired is a different
question, but his civil STATUS is that of a complete <ent type='PERSON'>Denizens</ent>hip."
-Hugh S. Legare, Attorney General of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, in
["Pre-Emption Rights of Colored Persons"], 4 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
147, at 147 (March, 1843). Here in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States of 1985, PERSONS
participating in that closed private domain of King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Denizen</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>.
=============================================================[566]</p>

<p>Why are <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States now burdened down with such an incredible
<ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> Income Tax Machine, so smoothly eating away at our substance the way
it does? The answer lies by the acceptance of protectorate benefits the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is
offering. [567]</p>

<p>[567]============================================================= Even if you
want the protectorate benefits the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is offering, at a minimum it is
improvident to remain silent on his manipulative use of his administration of
this contract by <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s. Today in 1985, our <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is busy with talk of
negotiating construction suspension agreements with a foreign adversary --
<ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>; called the STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS (<ent type='ORG'>SALT</ent>). The <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>DETENTE</ent>. The reason
why this is of significance is because a war with <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> is on the horizon -- a
war to be presented to us as a surprise from the world's <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s; 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 <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s working for the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> of
<ent type='GPE'>England</ent> once pulled off the identical same pre-war measure; but we should not
really be surprised, as <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> finds it unnecessary to change, alter, or
modify his <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> official quarters to the
<ent type='NORP'>British</ent> proposal of a year's suspension of battleship construction. The
President of the <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> Naval League has declared <ent type='PERSON'>Winston Churchill</ent>'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 <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>y'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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States.] The following
year, in 1914, the visible public movements of <ent type='EVENT'>World War</ent> I began to surface
with numerous <ent type='NORP'>German</ent> offenses made throughout Europe. While <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s had been
hard at work running the defense structure of <ent type='GPE'>Great Britain</ent> into the ground (of
which hardware construction suspensions are one such visible manifestation of
termite management) &gt;and which is taking place in <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States today&lt;, her
impending adversary, <ent type='NORP'>German</ent>y, 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 <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s 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. <ent type='PERSON'>Mark</ent> my words this day in 1985: The more that
glowing statements are made about missile treaties and arms reduction
agreements between <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> 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, <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s never change a successful <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI, -- and they deem
lulling you to sleep to be very important. ...<ent type='ORG'>This Second</ent> Estate is very much
adversarial in nature, and all of the rules applicable to deception used by
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s in war will be found incorporated by <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s 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 -- <ent type='GPE'>baah</ent>.
=============================================================[567]</p>

<p>The correct origin of the <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> problem (if <ent type='ORG'>PROBLEM</ent> is the word) lies
back in the 1700's, not with <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> and his filthy little <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Karl Marx</ent>,
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 <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> just too much jurisdiction: [568]</p>

<p>[568]============================================================= See
generally: <ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Bailyn</ent> in the IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF <ent type='ORG'>THE AMERICAN</ent> REVOLUTION
["Sovereignty"], at page 198, et seq. [<ent type='ORG'>The Belknap Press</ent> of the Harvard
University Press, <ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent> (1967)]. <ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Bailyn</ent> went back into the 1770's
and uncovered some 400 pamphlets on all sorts of writings that he reviewed --
treatises on political theory, essays on history, political arguments, sermons,
correspondence, poems and other literary devices. They were all expressions of
the kind of society the <ent type='NORP'>Framers</ent> lived in, and were exemplary of the
intellectual thought then permeating the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
Revolution. =============================================================[568]</p>

<p>No explicit and blunt restrainments were made against the circulation of paper
currency media; no provision for the Bill of Rights restrainments to operate
irrespective of impending technology that otherwise alters factual settings not
originally contemplated when the Bill of Rights was drafted; [569]</p>

<p>[569]============================================================= <ent type='PERSON'>Ben Franklin</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> necessary
for us, and there is no form of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, but what may be a blessing to the
people if well administered; ..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Ben Franklin</ent> in 5 DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, James Madison, Editor, at page 554 [J.P. Lippincott &amp; Company,
<ent type='GPE'>Philadelphia</ent> (1863)].
=============================================================[569]</p>

<p>and then the <ent type='NORP'>Framers</ent> gave the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> the blank check to nail <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> to the wall
as taxable objects, a situation that did not exist with the ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION:</p>

<p>"Both the States and <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States existed before the Constitution.
The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by
substituting a national <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, acting, with ample power, directly on the
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>, instead of the confederate <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, which acted with powers,
greatly restricted, only upon the States." [570]</p>

<p>[570]============================================================= IN RE DEBS,
158 U.S. 573, at 578 (1894).
=============================================================[570]</p>

<p>Notice how the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> now operates with AMPLE POWER DIRECTLY ON THE
<ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent>, which <ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>National</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent></ent> did not exist under the ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION. Our Founding Fathers wanted a <ent type='ORG'>National</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, and so now we
have got their largesse. [571]</p>

<p>[571]============================================================= "Experience
has made the fact known to the people of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States that they required a
national <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> for national purposes. The separate <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>s 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 <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of the
<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, and
defined its powers by a constitution, which they adapted as its fundamental
law, made its rule of action."
-<ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 549 (1875).
=============================================================[571]</p>

<p>QUESTION: How does someone get rid of his <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> without packing
their bags and leaving <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States physically, as the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> would like his
little subjects to do? [572]</p>

<p>[572]============================================================= For
commentary on loss of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> for any one of several reasons, see:
-Lawrence Abramson in <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> LOSS OF <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> LAW AFTER
TERRAZAS: DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW, 16 <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> University
Journal of International Law and Politics 29 (1984);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Terry Reicher</ent> in A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
AGAINST THE <ent type='ORG'>IMPOSITION</ent> OF INVOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION AND A TAXPAYER'S RIGHT TO
DISCLAIM <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> in 15 <ent type='ORG'>Vanderbuilt Journal</ent> of Transnational Law 123
(Winter, 1982). When money is at stake, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> have noted that all of a
sudden the traditional allure of possessing <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> now suddenly
takes upon itself an unattractive dimension:
"... since <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is considered by most to be a
prized status, it is usually the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> which claims that the <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>United</ent>
States <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>."
-<ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> VS. <ent type='ORG'>MATHESON</ent>, 532 F.2nd 809, at 811 (1976). The only
reason why folks want out of the reciprocal taxation demands of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is
because the cost of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s are demanding through their
juristic enrichment instrumentality, the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>. Rather than snickering at
ex-Protestors who wised up a little, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> would be smart to start to
create remedies negating the unlawful use of the <ent type='ORG'>Legislature</ent> by looters and
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s [of which dormant and forgotten Clauses now exist in the
Constitution], which is the true seminal point of origin as to why the
<ent type='LOC'>Countryside</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Brian Blum</ent>, 59 St. John's
Law Review 1 (Fall, 1984); and it is this very POINT OF FORMATION in <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
Law that needs to be correctly understood and handled, so that the contract can
be annulled properly.]
=============================================================[572]</p>

<p>ANSWER: The same way one gets rid of any other contract. [573]</p>

<p>[573]============================================================= Yes, such a
simple solution as that to remedy taxation ailments, and many folks will not
associate any significance to it. Sometimes the most profound circumstances in
life are not understood for what they really mean, as folks frequently fail to
correlate previous events that have already occurred as harbinger models that
foreshadow future events yet to make their appearance. ... For example,
previous circumstances, seemingly innocent, that once transpired in Downtown
<ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent> in 1969 regarding the construction of the <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent> pyramid office tower will one day be replicated synchronously all
across <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States. <ent type='PERSON'>John Beckett</ent>, President of <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent>,
wanted to build a 55-story high-rise on Montgomery Street to house the offices
of <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent>. The announcement of the plans for the tower immediately
generated a heavy controversy locally; this was the <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent> era where <ent type='LOC'>Bay area</ent>
protesting was in vogue. After making preliminary inquiries to <ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent>
planning and zoning officials, the building was downsized to 48 stories.
Numerous environmental groups (such as THE ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP), neighborhood
associations (such as the TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS ASSOCIATION), and other
assorted individuals (such as activist <ent type='PERSON'>Alvin Daskin</ent>) 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 <ent type='ORG'>THE AMERICAN</ent> INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS), otherwise
normally passive, also entered into this arena to throw their opposition
invectives at the proposed <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> Tower. Public interest attorneys (like
<ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> A. <ent type='PERSON'>Gunnufsen</ent>) filed lawsuits, attempting to seek judicial restraining
orders halting the construction on technical grounds relating to procedures
used by <ent type='GPE'>the City</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent> to transfer a public street to <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent>.
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 <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph Alioto</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> President <ent type='PERSON'>John Beckett</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s, and even the
entire world, will one day be very well acquainted with, but for very different
objectives: Because next time around, building a high-rise will not be the
objective.
For many years the <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> State <ent type='ORG'>Legislature</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Sacramento</ent> had
encouraged insurance companies to locate home offices in <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent>'s status as the financial
center of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>John Beckett</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> still needed a SITE PERMIT,
which would permit ground to be broken and construction thereby to commence.
Time was running out, but <ent type='PERSON'>John Beckett</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Appeal</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent>.
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 <ent type='PERSON'>John Beckett</ent>
was playing his cards with an ace tucked up his sleeves, because when he had
hired Dinwiddie Construction <ent type='ORG'>Corporation</ent> to be the contractor on the building,
he had given them very special instructions. That long awaited December day
arrived when <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> decided it was ready to pick up the SITE PERMIT and
start construction on the <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Joe</ent>
-- why, he "... just couldn't possibly have <ent type='PERSON'>nutin</ent>' 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 <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> 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: <ent type='PERSON'>John Krizek</ent> [manager of <ent type='ORG'>Public Relations</ent> for <ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent>] in
PUBLIC RELATIONS <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> ["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 <ent type='ORG'>the SAN FRANCISCO EXPRESS</ent> supplied the details herein, through
the HISTORY ROOM ["<ent type='ORG'>Transamerica</ent> File"] of the <ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Corporate President like John
Beckett pulling off something quick and clever to get the upper hand over
adversaries, next time, a <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> General will be supervising the logistics.
Instead of heavy construction equipment being sneaked into urban areas and then
pulled out into the open quickly, next time heavy <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> tanks, personnel
carriers, and attack support equipment will come forth one day out of their
hiding places to roll down <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> streets to grab the police barracks and
nearby <ent type='ORG'>Army</ent> Base. Next time, instead of a handful of environmental activists
left scratching their heads, puzzled as to how <ent type='PERSON'>John Beckett</ent> pulled off that
instant appearance of construction equipment -- next time all <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s 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
<ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent>. Just like major media news correspondents -- those pathetic
little idiots -- expressing amazement on how well organized the <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent>
<ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent>ese were in their take-over of <ent type='GPE'>Saigon</ent> in April of 1975, folks who
actually rely on the caliber of such baneful judgement (like news
correspondents who were amazed that professional <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s 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 <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s 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 <ent type='PERSON'>Joe</ent> SixPack messes up, I respond with
patience and instructional counseling. In contrast these <ent type='PERSON'>Joe</ent> SixPacks do not
represent themselves as being professionals, so <ent type='PERSON'>Joe</ent> SixPacks are not held to
the more stringent standards that <ent type='ORG'>Journalists and</ent> Lawyers seeking financial
compensation for their errors are held to.] The instant appearance of
construction crews that <ent type='PERSON'>John Beckett</ent> pulled off was not even considered as a
factual possibility by this opponents; just like <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> opposition in the
<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> States [alleged tough cookie right-wing CONSERVATIVES self-perceiving
themselves as being pretty sharp politically] are not even considering the
factual possibility that <ent type='PERSON'>Mikhail Gorbachev</ent>'s superiors have already had planned
out long ago similar <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> domestic instant appearance circumstances in
extended and considerable detail. They fully intend to clean out the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s
in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, as they have been setup [meaning provoked] to do under
attractive <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>RECESSION</ent> 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
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>s: Get rid of those benefits and stop snickering at <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is not entitled to prevail due to multiple <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent>
deficiencies of some type, the tax prosecution defendants finds himself exactly
where <ent type='PERSON'>John Beckett</ent>'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>

<p>But lawyers throwing technical arguments at <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> in Tax and Draft
Protesting cases have never bothered to see <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is wrong, until such time as the latent high
powered juristic velocity instrument of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is identified for what it
really is: A contract. [574]</p>

<p>[574]============================================================= Many
commentators have noted that the relational status of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> to the
<ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> today is quite similar to the relational status experienced
by SUBJECTS in the old monarchial days of the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>s of <ent type='GPE'>England</ent>. Even though
contemporary <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s are now called <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent>, many lost rights, benefits,
protections, together with unfairly skewed reciprocal duties and liabilities
that characterize the subparity relationship of old <ent type='ORG'>Britannic</ent> SUBJECTS, are in
effect today -- hence as well my characterization of <ent type='ORG'>the Executive Branch</ent> of
<ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States as a KING.</p>

<p>One writer who elucidates very well on this status declension of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s from
being <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> holding the upper hand, down to SUBJECTS doing what they are
told and paying what they are told to pay, is Francis X. <ent type='ORG'>Hennessy</ent> in his book
about the 18th Amendment entitled <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> OR SUBJECT? Even though <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s
are still called <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent> today in name [an initially impressive but
meaningless characterization substantively] the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>ly status that the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
Revolution of 1776 once created for us all [as the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> noted in
GEORGE VS. <ent type='ORG'>BRAILSFORD</ent>] has been reversed back to the Crown again, through the
devilish maneuverings of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s. Back in the early <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Colonial days the
political factions in <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> were split into <ent type='ORG'>WHIGS</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>TORIES</ent> -- and knowledge
of the philosophical distinction between the two is being withheld from
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> high school history books here in the 1980's for a very good reason:
<ent type='NORP'>TORIES</ent> were sympathetic with the <ent type='NORP'>Aristocratic</ent> Class who simply had to have the
masses controllable and their pockets reachable for some looting; <ent type='NORP'>Tories</ent> do not
want a nation of <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENS</ent>, they want fleeceable SUBJECTS. Today, <ent type='NORP'>Tory</ent>
<ent type='NORP'>Aristocrats</ent> are filthy little creatures who want to use <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent>
to transfer money from your pockets to theirs. Where with the 18th Amendment,
<ent type='NORP'>Tories</ent> wanted to use the guns of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> to create <ent type='GPE'>PROHIBITION</ent>, 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> families had been sponsoring the WOMAN'S
<ent type='ORG'>CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE LEAGUE</ent> and other nominees using deceptive names, to
plaster the countryside with the noble and lofty sounding objectives of ridding
drunks from our society -- while all along the sponsors of <ent type='GPE'>PROHIBITION</ent> 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 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> families
smuggle cocaine and marijuana instead of bourbon. Today, a <ent type='NORP'>Tory</ent> sympathizer is
a jealous person who wants to be sure that everyone else is paying their taxes;
a <ent type='NORP'>Tory</ent> sympathizer is someone who is content with the STATUS QUO as it has been
brought to its present position by <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, and has no desire to return to our
Father's quiescent STATUS QUO ANTE. A <ent type='NORP'>Tory</ent> sympathizer is a little dupe who
feels good about going off to a foreign country to fight a war -- because the
President says its <ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent>ic to do so. Yes, a <ent type='NORP'>Tory</ent> sympathizer plays into the
hands of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s by giving them what they want -- as <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s want the
contemporary STATUS QUO, the foreign wars, and BLACK MARKETS they have created.
"Whenever <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> exists, even <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> limited to those powers
thought by its <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> who grant them. When the
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. 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 [<ent type='NORP'>Aristocratic</ent>] class, it is of material
advantage [to them] that <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> should be the State and the people its
SUBJECTS. When a man is born or educated as a member of this [<ent type='NORP'>Aristocratic</ent>]
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 <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>."
-Francis X. <ent type='ORG'>Hennessy</ent> in CITIZEN OR SUBJECT? ["The Exiled <ent type='NORP'>Tory</ent> About To
Return"], at 235 [E.P. Dutton, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1923)]. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s want such a KING TO
SUBJECT relational status in effect specifically for purposes of conquest and
furthering their own proprietary enrichment through taxation enstripment.
Francis <ent type='ORG'>Hennessy</ent>, an attorney and member of the <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> State Bar, goes into
highly detailed factual recital of the circumstances surrounding the proposal
and later ratification of the 18th Amendment [the <ent type='GPE'>PROHIBITION</ent> AMENDMENT]. From
debates on the Floor of the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> to the inner sanctums of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> power,
Francis <ent type='ORG'>Hennessy</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States
Constitution is a hybrid composite blend of <ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> when the underlying legality of the 18th
Amendment itself came under attack [see THE <ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> <ent type='GPE'>PROHIBITION</ent> CASES, 253
U.S. 350 (1920)]. Because the nature of the right that the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> was about
to deprive <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> of [the right to eat or drink anything they feel
like] was of a <ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> 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, <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s are well-oiled experts at both
political circumvention, as well as running <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> into the ground. A
devilishly brilliant <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> 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, <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s using slick Parliamentary
devices divert the floor proceedings away from <ent type='ORG'>the BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT</ent>
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 <ent type='ORG'>Legislature</ent>s self-restrict the content being discussed at that
<ent type='EVENT'>Convention</ent> to consider only the proposed <ent type='ORG'>BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT</ent>, will see
then that they were outsmarted by imps, as they will also be outsmarted by
either <ent type='PERSON'>Mikhail Gorbachev</ent> or his successors, who have a few ideas of their own
on how to control <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>.
=============================================================[574]</p>

<p>As a point of beginning, contracts are entered into by the acceptance of
benefits, and they are terminated by the explicit disavowal rejecting benefits
[as I will explain later in the next section on <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Reserve Notes]. And
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is one of the most important contracts the Judiciary takes Notice
of for purposes of perfecting taxation enstripment. [575]</p>

<p>[575]============================================================= But this
great revenue contract of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is also the greatest weakness the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>
has, due to the dual stratified nature of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent> being
layered into State and <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> slabs. Because of this STATE TO FEDERAL satrapic
relational setting, the <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> and State <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> are sourced
from different jurisdictional origins, and are separate and distinct legal
relationships. The weakness of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> surfaces by reason of the fact that
our <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> is without and wanting jurisdiction to tax State <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> [the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>
acquires the requisite jurisdiction by consent, obtainable through several
channels]. Yes, there are numerous technical grounds for beating the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent>, 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 <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> deficiency or <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>
Opinion somewhere]. The remedy to these legal impediments (of which there are
quite a few), are more and more corrective slices of <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> being thrown into an
organic Title 26. The very fact that some <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> off in the 1990's enacts a
statute declaring that State <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> are PERSONS adhered to Title 26,
automatically admits in inference that all previous income taxation dollars
collected by the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> were illicitly looted -- absent express contracts.
...Eventually, this letter will filter down and circulate throughout the
corridors of prosecution officialdom [as the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> does have his ears close to
the ground]; and if there is any <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> attorney out there who can show me
where the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> has the jurisdiction -- either Case Law or Statutory
pronouncements -- to tax State <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>ADHESION</ent> covenant therein. The King's <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Jurisdiction is
necessarily limited to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
States <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> -- meaning limited to <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Employees, residents of the
District of <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Territories, and other <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Enclaves.
QUESTION: Is that closed private domain of King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> a <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Enclave?
Is the acceptance of <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> protectorate benefits the creation of a situation
specific AD HOC <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> benefits from off of the record,
work the <ent type='ORG'>King</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> -- 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>

<p>And so it is the explicit rejection of juristic benefits that will sever the
adhesive reciprocal liability of King's Equity Jurisdiction that attaches
itself invisibly to everyone else.</p>

<p>So getting rid of your <ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>National</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent></ent>, 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 <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> Income Tax grab
without leaving any lingering illicit Equity trail behind you. [576]</p>

<p>[576]============================================================= In a limited
sense today, the relationship of the world's political jurisdictions to the
<ent type='ORG'>United</ent> Nations is somewhat structurally similar to the pre-1787 relationship in
effect between the various <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> State political jurisdictions and the
CONFEDERACY in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>. 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 <ent type='ORG'>National</ent> <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> back then that could enable
the national <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
Nations -- today <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> Nations has no power to tax, makes financial
contribution requests to member Nations, and there is no World <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>.
With that modeling scenario in mind, consider the following: <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is
known up and down the corridors of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> power world wide as being a very
interesting adhesive source of Object Jurisdiction to loot. For example, even
if the atrophied remnants of the <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Cartel are unsuccessful in
convincing <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s to hand over their national Sovereignty to some world
<ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institution</ent> like <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> Nations, then one of the ways that the ONE
WORLDERS could largely accomplish their <ent type='ORG'>Grand Objectives</ent> of global conquest
through global <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, is to stop trying to get the various national
<ent type='ORG'>Sovereignties</ent> 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 <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>. In bypassing individual regional
political jurisdictions this way [<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> are free to enter into
contracts with <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> Nations, or any other political jurisdiction in the
world], income taxes and the like can be collected from its <ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent> in
reciprocating exchange for some benefits that will be created; and with World
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> in place, handy regulatory jurisdictions, licensing, and other
favorite <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> enscrewment tools can be erected. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s in the
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Nest have already given this idea some thought; see an interview
with imp <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Hutchins</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>THE CENTER MAGAZINE</ent>, ["What the World Needs Now is
<ent type='GPE'>Citizens</ent>"], page 23 (January/February, 1971). The <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> drive for World
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> has been in gestation for some time; see EDUCATION FOR WORLD
<ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>William George Can</ent> [<ent type='ORG'>Stanford University Press</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Stanford</ent>,
<ent type='GPE'>California</ent> (1928)]. Under the classical contours of INTER<ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> LAW, only
political jurisdictions were subjects accountable to it, and individuals were
simply not included; while <ent type='ORG'>the Nuremberg Trials</ent> changed all this on an AD HOC
basis, the status of people as being STRANGERS to INTER<ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> LAW continues
on down to the present day -- but when the adhesive Equity tentacles of World
<ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> are nestled in place someday, the world's <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s will be ecstatic
on that grand impending day when an operation of the World <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> 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
<ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Marshals come knocking on your door]. For a commentary on the
relational setting in effect between individuals and INTER<ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> LAW that is
neither critical nor justifying the enlargement of INTER<ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> LAW that took
place at <ent type='GPE'>Nuremberg</ent>, see THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent> UNDER
INTER<ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL</ent> LAW by <ent type='PERSON'>Ernst Schneedberger</ent> in 35 Georgetown Law Journal, 481
(1947). =============================================================[576]</p>

</xml>