textfiles-politics/conspiracyTextFilesRegEx/incon007.txt

<conspiracyFile>I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
George Mercier
THE CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT
[Pages 386-434]
[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE CONTRACTS to an
electronic medium. For an explanation of the conventions used, please download
the file INCONHLP.ZIP for further illumination. Other background information as
well is contained in INCONHLP.ZIP. It is advisable to EXIT this file right now
and read the contents of INCONHLP.ZIP before proceeding with your study of this
file.]
<div>P R E V I E W<div> So getting rid of your
National Citizenship, while very important, is only a first step, and there are
numerous other invisible contracts that you need to concern yourselves with, if
you are to leave the Bolshevik Income Tax grab without leaving any lingering
illicit Equity trail behind you. [576]
<div>P R E V I E W<div>
Next, we turn now and discuss a layer of invisible contract that is rarely
addressed, thought of, or treated as the pure contract that it is really is:
National Citizenship. [506]
[506]<div> "The United
States chose to base its tax jurisdiction on Citizenship from the inception of
the Income Tax in 1913."
-	Citizenship as a Jurisdictional Basis for Taxation:
Section 911 and the Foreign Source Income Experience
by John Christie, 8 Brooklyn Journal of International Law
109, at 109 (1982). Such a seemingly easy STATEMENT for someone
to make, yet pulling together all of the relevant factors on Citizenship is
difficult because they are not all located in one single place; and there
exists no simple, explicit, and blunt statement or Supreme Court ruling stating
so. Yet when everything is assembled there is a large collection of Federal
dribblings originating from disorganized DICTA located in Court Opinions,
Congressional enactments, and in Administrative LEX, which when analyzed
collectively as a whole, form a revealing picture of the surprises that
Citizens are really in for.
<div>[506]
As a point of beginning, it is perhaps most easy to think of Citizenship in
terms of joining a Country Club: You sign up, pay dues, enjoy the benefits
offered by the House, you elect management, and you are exposed to liability to
be fined for no more than technical infractions to House Rules [without any
damages]. [507]
[507]<div> The United
States Supreme Court once drew a parallel between CITIZENSHIP and membership in
an association so well, that it triggered my analogy to that of joining a
Country Club:
"... Each of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation
formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its
protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection reciprocal
obligations. The one is a compensation or the other; allegiance for protection
and protection for allegiance.
"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this
membership. The object is to designate by title the person and the relation he
bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant" and
"citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to
depend upon the form of the Government. Citizen is now more commonly employed,
however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one
living under a Republican Government, it was adopted by nearly all of the
States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in
the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION and in the Constitution of the United States.
When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of
a nation, and nothing more."
-	MINOR VS. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 161, at 166 (1874). Here in MINOR, the
Supreme Court relates Citizenship to an association; while I have chosen
COUNTRY CLUB due to the easier relational image created by voluntarily joining
an institution that offers special and unique benefits available to members
only. Some of those special benefits offered are very important to some members
(I have many stories to tell of business deals and business introductions made
on golf courses), while to others, the Country Club is just a nice place to be
for lunch. <div>[507]
The procedure for entering into a Country Club Membership contract differs
quite a bit from the Citizenship Contract, in the sense that while trying to
join a Country Club, you first have to go to the Management, present
credentials, and then request Membership; whereas with the King, everyone is
presumed automatically to be Members, and so now you have to argue your Case
that you are not a Member. [508]
[508]<div> This shift
of burden originates with a slice of LEX the King's Scribes once enacted:
"The following shall be nationals and Citizens of the United States at
birth:
1)	A person born in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION
thereof;"
-	Title 8, Section 1401 ["Nationality and Naturalization"] Section 1401
then continues on with similar hooks planted into American Indians, Eskimos,
persons born outside the United States, persons of unknown parentage, etc.
Notice the phrase AND SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION; not all individuals born in
the United States are automatically Citizens, so not all individuals born in
the United States fall under the house jurisdiction of the King and his
adhesive tentacles of Equity Jurisdiction. An Attorney General once said that:
"... our Constitution, in speaking of NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, uses no
affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the
universal Principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society,
that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as
individuals, are NATURAL members of the body politic.
"If this be a true Principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that
every person born in the Country is, at the moment of birth, PRIMA FACIE a
Citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving
some great disenfranchisement strong enough to override the "NATURAL-BORN"
right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and
comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or other accidental
circumstance.
"That NATIVITY furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as
between the individual and the Government, is a historical and political truth
so old and so universally accepted that it is needless to prove it by
authority...
"In every civilized Country, the individual is BORN to duties and
rights, the duty of allegiance and the right to protection; and these are
correlative obligations, the one the price of the other, and they constitute
the all-sufficient bond of union between individual and his Country; and the
Country he is born in is, PRIMA FACIE, his Country. In most countries the old
law was broadly laid down that this natural connection between the individual
and his native country was perpetual; at least, that the tie was indissoluble
by the act of the subject alone...
"But that law of the perpetuity of allegiance is now changed..."
[meaning Americans can dissolve the tie whenever they feel like it, a severance
not possible under the old Britannic rule of Kings.]
-	Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in ["Citizenship"], 10
Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at 394, [W.H. &amp; O.H. Morrison, Washington
(1868)]. <div>[508]
But once we are beyond that initial point of entrance into the contract, then
nothing whatsoever changes in the contractual rights or duties involved when we
transfer ourselves from Membership in a Country Club setting over to American
Citizenship, as contracts govern both relationships.
Earlier, I mentioned that the 14th Amendment offers invisible benefits that
Citizens have been deemed by Federal Judges to have accepted by their silence
(since anything but silence is very consistent with a person's wanting
Citizenship), and so the 14th Amendment then and there creates a Citizenship
Contract. Yes, there are special benefits to be had from the 14th Amendment.
[509]
[509]<div> "Since the
14th Amendment makes one a Citizen of the state where ever he resides, the fact
of residence creates universally recognized reciprocal duties of protection by
the state and of allegiance and support by the Citizen. The latter obviously
includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a
political matter."
-	MILLER BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340, at 345
(1954).
<div>[509]
So although the 14th Amendment creates benefits proprietary to Citizenship,
those are not the only Citizenship benefits that you need to concern yourself
with. Many Tax Protestors and Patriots are aware of the 14th Amendment story,
and accordingly counsel their students to file NOTICES OF BREACH OF CONTRACT
and the like, and other hybrid unilateral declarations of RECESSION, in an
attempt to remove themselves as persons attached to the 14th Amendment. Those
students are then taught, quite erroneously, that since the United States
derives its taxing power from the 14th Amendment, therefore, once an Individual
has severed his relationship from the 14th Amendment, the student no longer
need concern himself with any federal Income Tax liability, or any state tax
liability. These folks preach the theory that MILLER BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND,
[510]
[510]<div> 347 U.S.
340, at 345 (1954).
<div>[510]
stands for the proposition that States derive their taxing and regulatory
jurisdiction from the 14th Amendment -- a particularly stupid conclusion to
arrive at since such a statement means that prior to the 14th Amendment there
were no State taxes or regulatory jurisdictions; and that is a factually
defective point of beginning to commence any legal analysis. [511]
[511]<div> For
example, some states required that auctioneers possess licenses in the early
1800's, long before the 14th Amendment ever made its appearance. Joseph Story
mentions this in III Commentaries on the Constitution, at page 483, ["Powers of
Congress - Taxes"], (Cambridge, 1833). This little regulatory jurisdiction
existed long before either the Civil War or any of the so called Reconstruction
Amendments [the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments] made their appearance; and
since the States did not need the 14th Amendment then to enact regulatory
jurisdictions, the States do not need the 14th Amendment to enact regulatory
jurisdictions, and your relational status to the 14th Amendment is irrelevant
in determining your attachment to regulatory jurisdictions.
<div>[511]
This view of legal liability propagated by Protestors is baneful, and
replicates the MODUS OPERANDI of Lucifer when he propagates to his students
many things which are technically accurate of and by themselves, but then he
teaches expansive conclusions which are defective. Lucifer counsels his
followers to get ready to justify their actions at the Last Day, an alluring
preventative move that intellectuals find brilliant and intriguing background
advice; so now Lucifer has their attention. [512]
[512]<div> When some
folks emphasize the value to you of PREVENTION, what they are also saying is
that they realize that it is beneficial for folks to occasionally look up and
ahead once in a while; and out of such a vision into the future, unpleasant
circumstances can be deflected from making their appearance (the avoidance of a
negative), as well as great and fabulous circumstances can and will come to
pass (by planning for a positive). These reasons explain why an occasional
glimpse into one's own future is very much an instrument for intellectual
conquest and has such an alluring aura of mystique about it -- generating an
atmosphere of success that intrigues INTELLECTUALS so much -- who go for all
they can grab. Gremlins have taken cognizance of this high-powered look ahead
instrument (also called PLANNING), and have experienced impressive benefits
from it:
"As I have already pointed out, the true speculator is one who observes
the future and acts before it occurs. Like a surgeon, he must be able to search
through a mass of complex and contradictory details to [get to] the significant
facts. Then, still like the surgeon, he must be able to operate coldly,
clearly, and skillfully on the basis of the facts before him.
"What makes this task of fact finding so difficult is that in the stock
market the facts of any situation come to us through a curtain of human
emotions. What drives the prices of stocks up or down is not impersonal
economic forces or changing events but the human reactions to these happenings.
The constant problem of the speculator or analyst is how to disentangle the
cold, hard economic facts from the rather warm feelings of the people dealing
with these facts.
"Few things are more difficult to do. The main obstacle lies in
disentangling ourselves from our own emotions."
-	Gremlin Bernard Baruch in Baruch: My Own Story,
at 248 [Henry Holt and Company, New York (1957)]. On the
following pages in this book [which is his autobiography], Bernard Baruch gives
two stores from his business dealings exemplifying why and how he deemed it so
extremely important to approach the task of fact finding free of emotions --
and the reason is because often the facts that are the answers to what we are
searching for are not found where we thought they might be, and when the
answers arrived they were not presented to us under circumstances that we
thought we would be expecting. Since our emotions color our judgment
constantly, merely controlling emotions until after we have been steeped with
an enlarged basis of factual knowledge to exercise judgment on, then escalates
dramatically the caliber of judgment that can be exercised. Gremlin Bernard
Baruch, a looter EXTRAORDINAIRE, perhaps one of the greatest American business
speculators of all time -- who started from scratch and would up controlling at
one time a significant percentage supply of the world's silver -- concluded his
second business example with some advice presented in the form of a STATEMENT:
"Experts will step in where even fools fear to tread."
-	Bernard Baruch, id., at page 253 Why will experts step in where fools
fear to tread? The answer lies in examining what characteristic separates the
expert from the fool: Simple lack of factual knowledge, acquired in part
experientially, which is often corrected in the future. Tax and Highway
Contract Protestors searching for that elusive SILVER BULLET out there will
find it -- of all places -- resting with themselves; and they will also find,
in an unexpected place, an institution functioning as an accessory instrument
offering them assistance to accomplish the most NOBLE and GREAT objectives that
the mind can imagine -- an ecclesiastical institution that has always been
there during your life, but whose potential beneficial significance was tossed
aside and ignored due to overruling emotional intervention. Yes, OVERCOMING
YOUR OWN EMOTIONS is a difficult task as high-powered imp Bernard Baruch
related so well to a setting involving the intense pursuit of commercial
enrichment. Where there are difficult tasks, there also lies impressive
benefits not otherwise obtainable; Celestial benefits whose reception then
requires a forward glimpse into the future, now. Those Celestial Benefits will
be acquired then through the correlative requisite behavioral changes made at
the present time -- beneficial changes that cannot be made if that alluring
look ahead glimpse into the future that INTELLECTUALS and imps appreciate the
value of such much, was not made at the present time. When we make that look
ahead glimpse into the future, we ask ourselves a QUESTION: Do I really want to
leave this Estate without replacement Covenants?
<div>[512]
Then Lucifer continues on (also quite technically correct), that all of their
behavior down here should be so organized as to be "justifiable" before Father
at the Last Day; this too is correct, as Father will be soliciting our feelings
at the Last Day. But just one tiny problem surfaces for the world's Gremlins to
consider as they dance the jig in ecstacy over the prospects of being able to
get away with murder, mischief, and mayhem down here: An invisible Contract
that Father extracted out of us all before we came down here. So yes, although
you can "justify" your acts to Father if you want to, that justification is not
relevant to Father in his judgment decision making. Only the terms of the
Contract will be of interest to Father; and back in the First Estate, everyone
was once on their knees before Father, uttering from their own tongues, in a
Heavenly angelic language we all spoke then, the terms of the Contract we all
would later be judged by. So, yes, you will be given the opportunity to justify
your abominations before Father if you want to, but your justifications
sounding in Tort are not going to be taken into consideration by Father and you
Gremlins out there are damaging and deceiving yourselves. And in a very similar
way, many Tax Protestors are coaching their followers to concern themselves
with the 14th Amendment -- a very accurate and correct statement, of and by
itself. [513]
[513]<div> The way to
correctly read Supreme Court rulings on 14th Amendment taxation questions is to
keep an eye on what the 14th Amendment did in the area of restraining
reciprocity expectations political jurisdictions created when throwing benefits
at folks. The 14th Amendment prohibited double taxation, and no more. DOUBLE
TAXATION is the layering of a plurality of taxes on the same economic asset or
legal right by competing jurisdictions. In some factual settings, the
jurisdiction to tax an economic asset actually belongs to several states, but
should be conceded to only one State for the exercise of taxation jurisdiction.
See JURISDICTION TO TAX UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT in Notes, 25 Georgetown
Law Journal 448 (1937).
<div>[513]
But the conclusions those Tax Protestors draw, that termination of the adhesive
King's Equity Jurisdiction that the 14th Amendment attaches is the only thing
they need concern themselves with, is incorrect. 14th Amendment pleading,
standing alone by itself, doesn't vitiate anyone's state or federal Income Tax
liability -- it never has, and it never will. The legal argument I hear many
folks throw at Federal Judges, that they are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a
PREAMBLE CITIZEN, and not a 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN, is patently stupid, and
carries no weight, merit, or attractiveness before Federal Judges; and for very
good reasons: Because all Citizens of the United States are acceptants of that
profile of juristic benefits that the King is offering, and these benefits are
offered by the King regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or PREAMBLE
classification status. And so correlatively, since those juristic benefits are
accepted by all United States Citizens regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or
so-called PREAMBLE jurisdictional origin of the classification of Citizenship
(distinctions that Citizenship Contract Protestors like to make and argue),
these distinctions mean absolutely nothing in important areas involving Tax and
Military Conscription reciprocity expectations the King maintains on his
Citizens. [514]
[514]<div> The extent
to which Juristic Institutions should be restrained in the placement of
tortious covenants within adhesive contracts heavily skewed towards Government
like Citizenship, has been an article of discussion since the founding days of
the Republic:
"How in a Republican regime, is the supremacy of the private,
self-regarding sphere in the life of each Citizen to be reconciled with the
obligation of the People at large to perform the public-regarding duties of
Citizenship? It is interesting that [James] Wilson did not propose to solve
this problem by blinking at the magnitude of the apparent dilemma. More vividly
even than Locke himself, Wilson stated his liberal creed that "domestic
society," that is, the private social life of each individual, must be deemed
intrinsically superior in dignity to all public matters, including Law and
Government."
-	Stephen Conrad discussing the views of one of our Founding Fathers,
in CITIZENSHIP AND COMMON SENSE IN JAMES WILSON'S REPUBLICAN THEORY, 8 Supreme
Court Review at 383 [University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1984)].
<div>[514]
There is no single place I can point folks to and say "Here, Citizens, are your
benefits." [515]
[515]<div> The same
frustrations and headaches that I have gone through trying to get at the very
bottom of just what those specific benefits are that the King is offering to
his Citizens, is the same frustration [if FRUSTRATION is the word] that others
have experienced in the past -- because the definition of American Citizenship
and the correlative concise presentation of the benefits of American
Citizenship, simply does not exist. In a previous day and era, an Attorney
General of the United States once expressed similar reservations:
"Who is a Citizen? What constitutes a Citizen of the United States? I
have often been pained by the fruitless search in our law books and the records
of the courts, for a clear and satisfactory definition of the phrase CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES. I find no such definition, no authoritative establishment of
the meaning of the phrase, neither by a course of judicial decisions in our
courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches
of our political Government. For aught I see to the contrary, the subject is
now as little understood in its details and elements, and the question as open
to arguments and speculative criticism, as it was at the beginning of the
Government. Eighty years of practical enjoyment of Citizenship, under the
Constitution, have not sufficed to teach us either the exact meaning of the
word, or the constituent elements of the thing we prize so highly."
-	Edward Bates, United States Attorney General ["Citizenship"], in 10
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 382 at 383 [W.H. &amp; O.H. Morrison, Washington
(1868)].
The reason why I have had such headaches getting to the very bottom of
Citizenship is because the King's boy's claim up tight and refuse to talk about
this subject matter. A Deputy United States Attorney in the Department of
Justice in Washington once turned me off but quick when I asked for a simple
answer to a simple question: What are the benefits you give to American
Citizens? When I once had a conversation with a Federal Judge, he went through
muscular distortions in his face when I asked him the same simple question.
They know exactly what we are up to, and they are not about to assist or
facilitate our depriving them of revenue; a good snortation representing how
Federal Judges think in this area was once penned by the Supreme Court:
"The Citizen who fails to pay his taxes or to abide by the law
safeguarding the integrity of elections deals a dangerous blow to his country."
-	PEREZ VS. BROWNELL, 356 U.S. 44, at 92 (1958).
Moments earlier in that conversation I had with the Judge, the Judge
was friendly and spoke very knowledgeably about the location of Citizenship
benefits [as well they should know the location of benefits because Federal
Judges are steeped in benefit justification in those seminars of theirs], but
now the atmosphere quickly chilled when I presented him with an explicit
inquiry on the specific identification of Citizenship benefits, and the Judge
very quickly terminated the conversation. Those benefits of Citizenship are all
listed and neatly presented to Federal Judges in that BENCH BOOK of theirs;
this is important material for Federal Judges to know since the King deems it
extremely important that Judges feel justified and comfortable CRACKING
Protestors under the Citizenship Contract; and this is also the real meaning
behind an occasional blurb emanating down from the bench that "you've accepted
a benefit [snort!]." What few words the Judge is saying is a fractured piece
of the total contract pie, as contracts are properly in effect whenever
benefits offered conditionally [offered with a hook in them] were accepted by
you; so the Judge's short blurb about accepting benefits is a reference to the
fact that you are patently BLACK AND WHITE wrong -- caught in the very act of
contract defilement. But just because the Judge remains silent on the existence
of the retained expectations of reciprocity that the King holds, and that a
contract is in effect, does not annul the existence of the contract. Very
rarely in life in any setting such as science, business, the law, or commerce,
does anyone ever go into prolixitous elucidations when explaining error or
justifying something. But the juristic contract is there, the explanation [or
here in a Courtroom, the snortation] is optional, and the fact that the
contract is invisible to you does not vitiate your liability when the contract
comes up for review [a feature of Nature every single person who ever lived on
the face of the Earth will become very well acquainted with at the Last Day].
<div>[515]
Even listings of benefits in the dicta of Supreme Court rulings are fractured
and incomplete. [516]
[516]<div> For example,
in UNITED STATES VS. MATHESON [532 F.2nd 809 (1976)], the Second Circuit
mentioned that some of those benefits received by a Mrs. Burns that were
attributable to her United States Citizenship were the issuance of her
Passport, the issuance of a license on her yacht by the United States Coast
Guard, and the benefit of standing assistance offered by an American foreign
diplomatic consular office, since she had registered as a Citizen with the
United States Mission [although such registration is not necessary to trigger
assistance of diplomatic consular offices when requested]. See UNITED STATES
VS. MATHESON, id., at 819. Remember that the Law is always justified, and the
acceptance of benefits, however flaky those benefits are in substance, do
correctly justify the King's retention of expectations of financial
reciprocity. <div>[516]
And the Congress is largely the same. [517]
[517]<div> There is no
statute existing anywhere that presents a composite blended profile of all
benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States. When searching through
Congressional documents at just a Committee Hearing level, for perhaps some
small list of benefits that may have slipped out here or there, the only
discussion of benefits was characterizes as RIGHTS, and then treated as a
unitary subject [see CITIZENS GUIDE TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the
Judiciary, United States Senate, 94th Congress, Second Session (October, 1970),
which largely discusses those Clauses in the Constitution that restrain
Government Tortfeasance (which although such restrainments are benefits in a
sense, the restrainment of the King's own prospective Tortfeasance is not the
character of benefits whose acceptance by Citizens enables expectations of
reciprocity to operate on in the formation of juristic contracts)].
<div>[517]
Some of the juristic benefits that the King is offering to his Citizens
originate in the Constitution, where these benefits are inferred by Federal
Judges from certain wording and phrases in that Majestic Document; [518]
[518]<div> For certain
limited purposes, Federal Judges view the Constitution in its aggregate as
being a collection of senior statutes, differing only from ordinary statutes in
the sense that the Constitutions's pronouncements are more tactically difficult
to enact and repeal.
<div>[518]
other benefits the King is offering find their home nestled in his pile of LEX,
other benefits are located in still another layer of administrative LEX called
the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS; and still other benefits do not explicitly
appear anywhere in the King's statutes, but are defined in a wide ranging
multiplicity of court rulings. When we posses that factual knowledge contained
in those court rulings, then the cryptic phrases appearing in some offbeat
slice of LEX come alive and make a great deal of sense. [519]
[519]<div> For example,
one of the judicially defined benefits of American Citizenship is the right to
sue and be sued in Federal and State Courts in the United States:
"George Bird... [having]... fulfilled the conditions which, under law
enacted by Congress, entitle him to all the rights, privileges, [benefits,] and
immunities of Citizenship. He is a Citizen of the United States, and entitled,
equally with all other Citizens, to make lawful use of his own property, and to
prosecute and defend in the courts of this state and in the courts of the
United States actions affecting his legal rights with respect to property, and
to make [commercial] contracts [I will discuss this later]..."
-	BIRD VS. TERRY, 129 Federal 472, at 477 (1903). With the right to sue
and be sued in Federal and State Courts being a benefit to Citizens, now the
following cryptic words in the Civil Rights statutes [giving Blacks Citizenship
benefits that only Whites enjoyed before the Civil War], now come alive with
meaning:
"Equal Just under the Law:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts [I
will discuss this very important benefit later], TO SUE, BE PARTIES, GIVE
EVIDENCE, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the
security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white Citizens..."
-	Title 42, Section 1981 ["Civil Rights"] (1870). Notice how the use of
the Courtroom as an instrument of Government to sue someone with is deemed to
be a benefit -- and yes, it is a benefit; the absence of which would place a
lot of Protestors out of business. But the King offers out his benefit with
latent hooks of reciprocity adhesively attached thereto; just like fish
thinking that they have finished their evening meal by swallowing that
attractive piece of meat over there, unknown to the fish is the fact that an
invisible hook awaits whoever goes after that bait. So now let us continue on
with Section 1981: Having defined some benefits, now the King's Scribes plant
the hook of reciprocity for those who swallow and accept the King's benefits:
"[those Blacks, now turned Citizens, as just mentioned above]... shall
be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions
of every kind, and no other."
-	The balance of Title 42, Section 1981. Yes, Citizenship is a
Contract: Juristic benefits are offered with latent hooks of reciprocity lying
in wait for those who have silently accepted the King's benefits. And Tax and
Draft Protestors will continue to loose, and will continue to snicker at the
wrong people [hard working Judges] in total error, when the fact of the matter
is that it is their boosting of their Citizenship status which is in fact the
very juristic contract that the Federal Judges use to CRACK Protestors with.
...The benefit of Citizenship allowing those PERSONS to sue in Federal Courts
once surfaced in HAMMERSTEIN VS. LYNE as a jurisdictional question, since one
of the statutes in Title 28 confers jurisdiction to Federal District Courts to
hear diversity cases involving CITIZENS in different States:
"In order to give jurisdiction to the Courts of the United States, the
Citizenship of the party must be founded on a change of domicile and permanent
residence in the State to which he may have removed from another State. Mere
residence is PRIMA FACIE evidence of such change, although, when it is
explained and shown to have been for temporary purposes, the presumption is
destroyed."
-	HAMMERSTEIN VS. LYNE, 200 Federal 165, at 169 (1912).
<div>[519]
Some benefits of Citizenship are proprietary and the distribution of those
benefits are limited to identifiable groups, for example, such as the elective
franchise. [520]
[520]<div> See
ENFRANCHISEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP by Edward J. Pierce [Roberts Brothers, Boston
(1896) {Harvard University, WIDENER LIBRARY, Cambridge, Massachusetts}]. Even
many of the covenant terms of the Country Club Contract and the Citizenship
Contract are identical. For example, Country Clubs rarely admit people into
membership positions unless that person is of age, so either all Country Club
Members are generally assumed to have the elective franchise to turn over house
management, or some type of junior Membership is created for young dependent
offspring. Citizenship does differ; there was once a time in the United States
when a large body of Citizens were denied the benefit of elective franchise
rights, back before Women's Sufferrage matured:
"Again, women and minors are Citizens of the [various States], and also
of the United States; but they are not electors, nor are they eligible to
office, either in those States or in the United States."
-	Caleb Cushing, Attorney General of the United States, ["Chickasaw
Constitution"] in 8 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 300, at 302, [R. Farnham,
Washington (1858)]. Yes, the elective franchise, together with the right to
hold government offices, is deemed to be one of the many benefits inuring to
Citizens, even though not all Citizens universally enjoy such benefits.
<div>[520]
Some other benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States are, in general,
the protection of United States Marshals. [521]
[521]<div> When I read
about this benefit in a Supreme Court Case, my mind was reading it if it were,
or could possibly be converted into, a specific duty on the part of the
Marshals -- which is the way the wording was written; later a Federal Judge
once disputed this with me in part, stating that United States Marshals owe no
American any protective duty specifically [meaning that if the Marshals default
in protecting Citizens, then the Marshals have no reciprocal liability inuring
in return to Citizens in favor of Breach of Contract damages or perhaps
negligence on their part; this means that if you request the Marshals' services
and the Marshals mess up for some reason, then you are without recourse to sue
them for damages]. In reading all of the Federal statutes on Citizenship and of
the United States Marshals, there is no exact statute anywhere which binds the
Marshal, or otherwise creates such a duty, to specifically protect you, yet
their protectorate services are deemed to be a benefit by Federal Judges.
<div>[521]
Yes, all Citizens accept the protectorate benefits offered by the United States
Marshal Service. [522]
[522]<div> "The people
of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments;
one State, and the other National; but there needs be no conflict between the
two... It is the natural consequence of a Citizenship, which owes allegiance to
two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The Citizen cannot
complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of
Government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within
their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for
disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each with
its own jurisdiction."
-	UNITED STATES VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 550 (1875). And so the
King needs some bouncers to justify his claim of protecting Citizens.
<div>[522]
And unlike your local Police Department, when you call up the U.S. Marshals and
request their security assistance, generally they will not bark, snap, or snort
at you for doing so. [523]
[523]<div> To this
extent, United States Marshals are somewhat like the old Roman Centurions, who
protected Roman Citizens from murder and other dangers originating from attack
Gremlins:
"... the ruling power at Rome, whether Republican or imperial, granted,
from time to time, to communities and to individuals in the conquered East, the
Title of ROMAN, and the rights of Roman Citizens.
"A striking example of this Roman naturalization, of its controlling
authority as a political law, and of its beneficent power to protect a
persecuted Citizen, may be found in the case of Saint Paul, as it is
graphically reported in the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Paul, being at Jerusalem, was
in great peril of his life from his countrymen... who accused him of crimes
against their own law and faith, and were about to put him to death by mob
violence, when he was rescued by the commander of the Roman troops, and taken
into a fort for security. [Paul] first explained, both to the Roman officer and
to his own countrymen, who were clamoring against him, his local status and
municipal relations; that he was... of Tarsus, a natural born Citizen, of no
mean city, and that he had been brought up in Jerusalem, in the strictest
manner, according to the law and faith of his fathers. But this did not appease
the angry crowd, who were proceeding with great violence to kill him. And then:
"the Chief Captain [of the Jews] commanded that he be brought into the
castle, and bade that he should be EXAMINED BY SCOURGING, that is, tortured to
enforce confession.
"And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the Centurion that
stood by, 'Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is A ROMAN AND
UnConDEMNED?' When the Centurion heard THAT, he went out and told the Chief
Captain, saying, take heed what thou doest, FOR THIS MAN IS A ROMAN. Then the
Chief Captain came and said, 'Tell me, art thou a ROMAN?' [Paul] said yea; and
the Chief Captain said, 'With a great sum obtained I THIS FREEDOM.' And Paul
said, 'But I was FREE BORN.' Then straightaway THEY departed from him which
should have examined him. And the Chief Captain also was afraid, after he knew
that [Paul] was a ROMAN, and because [Paul] had BOUND HIM."
"Thus Paul, under circumstances of great danger and obloquy, asserted
his immunity, as "a Roman unCondemned," from ignominious constraint and cruel
punishment, a constraint and punishment against which, as a mere provincial
subject of Rome, he had no legal protection. And thus the Roman officers
instantly, and with fear, obeyed the law of their country and respected the
sacred franchise of the Roman Citizen.
"Paul, as we know by this record, was a natural born Citizen of Tarsus,
and as such, no doubt, had the municipal freedom of that city; but that would
not have protected him against the throngs and the lash. How he became a Roman
we learn from other historical sources. Caesar granted to the people of Tarsus
(for some good service done, probably for taking his side in the war which
resulted in the establishment of the Empire) the title of Roman, and the
freedom of Roman Citizens. And, considering the chronology of events, this
grant must have been older than Paul; and therefore he truly said 'I WAS FREE
BORN' - a free Citizen of Rome, and as such exempt by law from degrading
punishment.
"And this immunity did not fill the measure of his rights as a Citizen.
As a Roman, it was his right to be tried by the Supreme Authority, at the
Capital of the Empire. And when he claimed that right, and appealed from the
jurisdiction of the provincial governor to the Emperor of Rome, his appeal was
instantly allowed, and he was remitted to 'Caesar's judgment'."
-	Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in ["Citizenship"], 10
Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at 392, [W.H. &amp; O.H. Morrison, Washington
(1868)]. <div>[523]
The United States Marshals today will make inquiries and ask probing questions
to uncover the reasons why you believe your security is being impaired, as they
do want to get to the bottom of the threatening situation, in order to
terminate whatever it is that is giving you grounds for concern. On any serious
inquiry they will normally send out a Marshal immediately to see you, and they
will even put you up in a hotel if deemed provident under the circumstances; so
yes, the security benefits offered by the U.S. Marshals are more than
legitimate. But no one knows anything about the protectorate benefits being
offered by the U.S. Marshals. Due to the HOLLYWOODIZATION of cops and robbers
television shows, people have been conditioned to think in terms of calling up
their local police department for security assistance, and have also been
conditioned to expect a tough rebuffment when asking for bodyguard services --
when all along it was the dormant and ignored U.S. Marshals that have been
schooled, trained and are expecting your pleas for limited assistance. [524]
[524]<div> Other
benefits offered to American Citizens by the King [and Federal Judges know
this, so we should too] is financial assistance to American Citizens returning
from foreign countries. In Title 42, Section 1312, the Secretary of State is
authorized to provide temporary assistance to Citizens and to dependents of
those Citizens, if they have returned to the United States in a state of
destitution resulting from war, threat of war, invasion, or some other crisis
some Gremlin pulled off somewhere. Another benefit offered to American Citizens
is the protection of the United States Government when travelling abroad; this
service is provided through foreign diplomatic consular offices. Our family has
businesses in other parts of the globe, and whenever we have made phone calls
to the American Embassy for assistance, they have always sent out someone
immediately. In Title 22, Section 1731 ["Protection of Naturalized Citizens
Abroad"], the King has decreed that PERSONS who have become naturalized
Citizens are entitled to this same benefit of protection assistance in foreign
lands, both for themselves and their property while over there. In Title 22,
Section 1732, the President of the United States is under a specific duty to
first inquire of foreign governments and then offer assistance whenever an
American is incarcerated abroad. See:
-	CITIZENSHIP by Edward Borehard, Thesis [Columbia University, New York
(1914)], discussing the diplomatic protection of American Citizens abroad;
refers to the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW for July, 1913.
-	United States Department Publication, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT CITIZENS
IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY LANDING FORCES [Second Edition, GPO (October 5, 1912)]
{Harvard University, WIDENER LIBRARY, Cambridge, Massachusetts}, contains a
chronological listing of the occasions in which the Government has taken action
on behalf of American Citizens up to 1912.
<div>[524]
As for the 14th Amendment, the reason why the 14th Amendment as a stand-alone
line of Status defense is patently frivolous is because all Citizens accept
benefits that the King is offering, and the classification by Tax Protestors of
Citizens into different categories, when benefits are being accepted by all
Citizens regardless of classification, is baneful. [525]
[525]<div> The word
CITIZEN appears four times in the 14th Amendment; some are in reference to
Citizens of the United States, and others are in reference to Citizens of the
several States. There is a Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment pertaining
to the benefits [a RIGHT is also frequently a benefit] enjoyed by Citizens of
the States in relationship to the benefits enjoyed by Citizens of other States.
Called the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, this Clause has generated a large
volume of Court Cases. See:
-	THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, 1
Michigan Law Review 286 (1902);
-	Roger Howell in CITIZENSHIP - THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF STATE
CITIZENSHIP [John Hopkins Press, Baltimore (1918)];
-	Arnold J. Lien in PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS [Columbia
University Press, New York (1913)].
<div>[525]
Claiming that you are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a PREAMBLE CITIZEN with a
special reciprocity exempt status to avoid that irritating QUID PRO QUO
("something for something") payment of an unreasonable enscrewment oriented
Income Tax, is foolishness, and you are not entitled to prevail under any
circumstances before a Federal Judge. [526]
[526]<div> Another line
of foolishness some folks propagate is that, just somehow, there is a
relationship in effect between Social Security and legal liability for the
National Military Draft. In propagating this line, these people suggest the
view that Draft Protestors are burning the wrong card, that is, that Draft
Resisters should be burning their Social Security Card. This line of reasoning
is defective, as the United States has been successfully drafting Citizens into
military service in World War I, long before FDR's Rockefeller Cartel sponsors
in New York City presented the wealth transfer grab of Social Security to
America through their imp nominees in Washington in the 1930's; just like the
United States had been successfully collecting taxes on Income during the Civil
War, before the 14th or 16th Amendments ever made their appearance. See the
SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245 U.S. 366 (1917), for rulings on Draft Protestors in
World War I. And speaking of the draft, there is nothing immoral about the
draft, either. Reason: There is a very reasonable and even QUID PRO QUO
exchange of reciprocity going on that the Draft Protestors don't see. If you
examine the benefits American Citizens accept above, one of them is "the
protection of the United States Marshals." Since the King is risking the
physical security of his bouncers to protect you [yes, and unlike your local
Police Department, the Marshals will not snort at you when you request their
security benefits], then would someone please explain to me what is
unreasonable about the King asking in return for the male Citizenry to risk
their physical security to protect the King's kingdom?
"The very conception of a just Government and its duty to the Citizen
includes the reciprocal obligation of the Citizen to render military service in
case of need and the right to compel it."
-	SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245 U.S. 366, at 378 (1917). The reason why
the obligation is reciprocal is because the King is first offering to you the
protectorate services of his bouncers. The reciprocal and contractual nature of
Citizenship is recognized in Congress as such. When debates on the proposed
14th Amendment transpired in the Senate, Senator Trumbull stated his
understanding that:
"This Government... has certainly some power to protect its own
Citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal
rights."
-	CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, at page 1757 (1866).
<div>[526]
The reason why self-proclaimed PREAMBLE CITIZENS and COMMON LAW CITIZENS, so
called, are properly burdened with the heavy QUID PRO QUO reciprocity of the
Income Tax is that all Citizens accept and enjoy the protectorate benefits
previously discussed that the King is offering, so all Citizens accept Federal
benefits. Yes, Citizens under the 14th Amendment have additional contracts in
effect (stemming from the additional benefits that the 14th Amendment offers),
that they need to concern themselves with -- but all Citizens accept those
other Federal benefits as well, and so all Citizens are operating under the
King's Equity Jurisdiction of the United States, and are appropriate objects
for the assertion of a regulatory and taxation environment over, through
contract terms. [527].
[527]<div> 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.
<div>[527]
I would advise you to terminate your reliance on information originating from
people who lace excessive priority attention on the 14th Amendment Citizenship
question, as their stand-alone arguments are without any merit whatsoever for
purposes of detaching yourself away from Federal Taxation liability. [528]
[528]<div> "Citizens
are members of the political community to which they belong. They are the
people who compose the community, and who, in the associated capacity, have
established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a Government for the
promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual, as
well as their collective rights. In the formation of a Government, the people
may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The Government, when so formed,
may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the
protection of the rights of its Citizens and the people within its
jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a Government to afford
protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose."
-	UNITED STATES VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
<div>[528]
Above, I listed some of the benefits that all Citizens of the United States
enjoy; and this is important since Federal Judges always view things from a
"What benefit has this fellow accepted?" attitude. [529]
[529]<div> "Income
taxes are a recognized method of distributing the burdens of Government,
favored because requiring contributions from those who realize current
pecuniary benefits under the protection of the Government, and because the tax
may be proportioned to their ability to pay."
-	SHAFFER VS. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 51 (1919).
<div>[529]
But just where does the King and the Federal Judges get off with the idea that
Citizenship, all by itself, attaches liability to Title 26? Nowhere in Title 26
is there any concise discussion about how Citizens are those Persons identified
in Section 7203 ("Willful Failure to File") as being one of "all persons who
are required to file..." [530]
[530]<div> Although
there are 115 Sections of LEX where the root word CITIZEN appears in Title 26,
when considered as a whole they only inferentially suggest that the CITIZENSHIP
CONTRACT is the primary center of gravity for federal taxation liability
attachment purposes. For example, some of these are:
-	Section 63 ["Taxable Income Defined"];
-	Section 303 ["Distributions in redemption of stock to pay death
taxes"];
-	Section 407 ["Certain employees of domestic subsidiaries engaged in
business outside the United States"];
-	Section 861 ["Income from sources within the United States"];
-	Section 864 ["Definitions"];
-	Section 871 ["Tax on nonresident alien individuals"];
-	Section 872 ["Gross Income"];
-	Section 883 ["Exclusions from gross income"];
-	Section 906 ["Nonresident alien individuals and foreign
corporations"];
-	Section 911 ["Citizens or residents of the United States living
abroad"];
-	Section 932 ["Citizens of possessions of the United States"];
-	Section 933 ["Income from sources within Puerto Rico"];
-	Section 1302 ["Definition of averagable income"];
-	Section 1444 ["Withholding on Virgin Islands source income"];
-	Section 1491 ["Imposition of tax"];
-	Section 2002 ["Liability for payment"];
-	Section 2037 ["Transfers taking effect at death"];
-	Section 2039 ["Annuities"];
-	Section 2045 ["Prior interests"];
-	Section 2053 ["Expenses, indebtedness, and taxes"];
-	Section 2101 ["Tax imposed"];
-	Section 2104 ["Property within the United States"];
-	Section 2107 ["Expatriation to avoid tax"];
-	Section 2208 ["Certain residents of possessions considered Citizens
of the United States"];
-	Section 3121(e) ["State, United States, and Citizens"];
-	Section 6854 ["Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax"];
-	Section 7325 ["Personal property valued at $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"].
<div>[530]
So just where do Federal Judges get the idea that Citizens are PERSONS under
contract, suitable for a smooth Federal taxation shake down? [531]
[531]<div> For purposes
of collecting an ESTATE TAX, the statutes in Title 26 are blunt and clear that
CITIZENS must pay:
"A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of every
decedent who is a Citizen or resident of the United States."
-	Title 26, Section 2001 ["Imposition and Rate of Tax"].
<div>[531]
The answer lies by probing a level deeper into the King's statutes, into an
area Patriots and Tax Protestors do not seem to be pursuing that much: Into the
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, which operate as junior statutes. [532]
[532]<div> The Code is
divided into 50 titles or PARTS, which do not always correlate to statutory
Titles. For example, Title 26 UNITED STATES CODE pertains to TAXATION, and the
corresponding Part of CFR that also pertains to TAXATION is Volume 26; however,
Title 50 UNITED STATES CODE deals with WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, while CFR Part
50 deals with WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES.
<div>[532]
The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is a codification of the general and permanent
rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive Department and by
agencies of the United States. The Code is very powerful indeed (remember to
always think like a Federal Judge momentarily for analytical purposes, so you
don't react like a surprised clown when dragged into their courtroom on a
grievance with someone), and the contents of the Code of Federal Regulations
(like it's father, the Federal Register) are required to be judicially noticed.
[533]
[533]<div> 44 United
States Code 1507.
<div>[533]
And the Code of Federal Regulations is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of the text of
the original documents. [534]
[534]<div> 44 United
States Code 1510.
<div>[534]
This CFR is republished once each year, so the following quotations, extracted
from the 1985 edition, may have been altered in future editions. With that in
mind, consider the following words from the CFR:
"In general, all Citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United
States...
"Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
its jurisdiction is a Citizen." [535]
[535]<div> 26 CFR
1.0-1(b) and 1.0-1(c); (1985).
<div>[535]
So you see for Citizens IN GENERAL, Federal Judges have already quietly taken
Judicial Notice of the fact that your Citizenship is an invisible contract to
pay Income Taxes -- but what if you are not a Citizen GENERALLY speaking
[meaning, like everyone else, by their silence they have accepted Citizenship
benefits]. By having vacated the factual record of any benefits having been
accepted, by striping the factual record of any QUID PRO QUO of equivalence
exchanged, that factual setting is no longer GENERAL and ordinary, now it is
SPECIAL and extraordinary, where if the King makes any revenue collection
attempt, you have him worked into an immoral position. Yes, Citizenship is a
contract in the classical sense, since benefits offered conditionally were
accepted, and where expectations of reciprocity were retained by the benefit
contributor -- it's all there. [536]
[536]<div> What we view
as Citizenship DUTIES are, when view from the King's perspective, his
expectations of reciprocity. A private commentator once expressed some ideas
regarding the "sale" of the duties of Citizenship to other parties, by asking
the question: Should Citizens be able to contract out to others their required
reciprocal services? Under the concept of inalienable duties [INALIENABLE
meaning that they cannot be transferred], Government requires certain actions
of its Citizens and forbids the transfer of these duties to others. For
example, calls for Voters, Jury Service, and Military Enlistment are based on
the invisible contract attachment of Citizenship, and are, at the present time,
inalienable. VOTERS: In some foreign countries, like Australia, voting
liability cannot be transferred to others -- but is mandatory under fines [see
H. Emy in THE POLITICS OF AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY: FUNDAMENTALS IN DISPUTE, at
page 596 et seq. (2nd Edition, 1978)]. In a sense, Government has set a price
for not voting; so theoretically, by inverse reasoning, Citizens should also be
able to set a price and buy their way out of not voting by selling their right
to others [there is not a lot of difference between paying Government not to
vote and paying someone else to vote on your behalf]. SOLDIERS AND JURORS: The
arguments for selling jury duty is slightly different because the higher
standards necessarily exclude many Citizens from serving, but even the
qualified sale of a call to serve on a jury is appropriate for private
negotiation. Military enlistment in the United States was once up for sale,
i.e., the draft was an ALIENABLE [transferable] duty. During the United States
Civil War, draftees for both the North and the South could buy their way out of
the draft, or buy a substitute; so the net effect was a military infantry
consisting of a volunteer army financed by wealthy draftees instead of
Taxpayers. While soldiers may have ended up being paid the opportunity cost of
enlistment, the Government is planning its military activity was not required
to take these opportunity costs into account. The reason why this interesting
system broke down is because in the North, several municipalities and States
intervened by appropriating money to enable destitute folks to buy their way
out and then began to pay bounties to enlistees. In the South, the purchase of
substitutes was heavily criticized and was abolished soon after it was begun,
as the howling of UNFAIRNESS ascended into Legislatures [see E. Murdock in
PATRIOTISM LIMITED: 1862-1854: THE CIVIL WAR DRAFT AND THE BOUNTY SYSTEM
(1967)]. See generally INALIENABILITY AND THE THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
["Inalienability and Citizenship"], 85 Columbia Law Review 931, at 961 (1985).
<div>[536]
The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is also another source of identifying handouts
and benefits offered to Citizens. [537]
[537]<div> I have
decided to list each of the PARTS of the 1985 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,
since in this way a quick glimpse starts to uncover the wide-ranging extent of
impressive Federal Benefits that Federal Judges have had all neatly tied up in
a bundle and handed to them in that BENCH BOOK of theirs:
-	Part 1: General Provisions;
-	Part 2: General Provisions;
-	Part 3: The President -- Proclamations, Executive Orders;
-	Part 4: General Accounting Office;
-	Part 5: Federal Administrative Personnel;
-	Part 6: [Reserved];
-	Part 7: Agriculture -- price supports, inspections, counseling
benefits;
-	Part 8: Aliens and Nationality [Citizenship];
-	Part 9: Animal and Animal Products, Plant and Health inspections;
-	Part 10: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
-	Part 11: Federal Elections;
-	Part 12: Banks/Banking -- FDIC, Import-Export Bank and other handouts
to looters;
-	Part 13: Business Credit &amp; Assistance -- SBA, Economic Development
Administration;
-	Part 14: FAA, Aviation, Department of Transportation;
-	Part 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade;
-	Part 16: Federal Trade Commission -- Regulatory intervention on
behalf of consumers;
-	Part 17: Commodities and Securities Exchanges -- Regulatory
intervention;
-	Part 18: Conservation of Power and Water Resources -- Federal
Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy;
-	Part 19: Customs, Duties -- United States Customs Service;
-	Part 20: Food and Drug -- FDA and related inspections;
-	Part 21: Employee's Benefits -- Railroad Retirement Board, Office of
Workman's Compensation;
-	Part 22: Foreign Relations -- United States International Development
Cooperation Agency and related pipelines to looters;
-	Part 23: Highways -- Federal Highway Administration;
-	Part 24: Housing and Urban Development;
-	Part 25: Indians -- Bureau of Indian Affairs; grants and counseling;
-	Part 26: Internal Revenue;
-	Part 27: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- regulatory intervention;
-	Part 28: Judicial Administration -- Federal Prisons (concentration
camps);
-	Part 29: Department of Labor -- grants and handouts;
-	Part 30: Mineral Resources -- Mine Safety regulations -- Inspections;
-	Part 31: Money and Finance -- Treasury;
-	Part 32: National Defense -- Contract administration;
-	Part 33: Marine Navigation &amp; Navigable Waters;
-	Part 34: Education -- Grants to colleges, bilingual education,
vocational training;
-	Part 35: Panama Canal;
-	Part 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Lands;
-	Part 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights;
-	Part 38: Pensions, Bonuses, Veteran's benefits -- Veteran's
Administration;
-	Part 39: Postal Service;
-	Part 40: Environmental Protection regulatory matters;
-	Part 41: Public Contracts and Property Management;
-	Part 42: Public Health -- Health care grants, Hospital enrichment;
-	Part 43: Public Land and Interiors -- Secretary of the Interior,
related infrastructure;
-	Part 44: Federal Emergency Management Agency (a Gremlin's dream come
true);
-	Part 45: Public Welfare -- Office of Family Assistance and Child
Support;
-	Part 46: Shipping -- Coast Guard Services;
-	Part 47: Telecommunications -- FCC regulatory intervention;
-	Part 48: Federal Acquisition Regulatory System -- Federal
Procurement;
-	Part 49: Transportation;
-	Part 50: Wildlife and Fisheries -- Department of the Interior --
fishing, hunting in National Forests, wildlife management.
<div>[537]
And the Judicial Notice, taken quietly IN CAMERA, that the Citizenship Contract
is the contract being operated on, is never pronounced publicly in an open
courtroom forum. Does that last sentence I quoted from the CFR about how every
person born or naturalized in the United States seem familiar to you? It
should, because it comes straight out of the 14th Amendment, with only one word
being changed. And read it carefully, as there is admitted a class of
individuals, here residing in the United States as a matter of birthright, who
might not be subject to the total jurisdiction of the United States Government.
[538]
[538]<div> "... the
phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" relates to time of birth, and one not
owing allegiance at birth cannot become a Citizen save by subsequent
naturalization, individually or collectively. The words do not mean merely
geographical location, but 'completely subject to the political jurisdiction'."
-	ELK VS. WILINS, 112 U.S. 94, at 102 (1884).
<div>[538]
Who are those individuals? For starters, they are those Individuals who don't
accept any benefits or handouts from the King. [[539]
[539]<div> The most
predominate ways that an individual can become subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States is by:
1.	Violating a law the Government is authorized to prosecute
(counterfeiting, bank robbery, treason, etc.);
2.	Be employed by the Federal Government;
3.	Apply for its privileges, or accept its benefits; See generally:
-	John H. Hughes in THE AMERICAN CITIZEN -- HIS RIGHTS AND DUTIES
[Pudney &amp; Russell, New York (1857)];
-	Luella Gettys in THE LAW OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES
[University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1934)];
-	Albert Brill in TEN LECTURES ON CITIZENSHIP [Ascendancy Foundation,
New York (1938)];
-	David Josiah Brewer in YALE LECTURES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
CITIZENSHIP -- OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENS [C. Scribner's Sons, New York (1907)];
-	Imp Charles Beard in AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP [MacMillian, New York
(1921)];
-	Editors, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP "Rights and Duties of an American"
[American Heritage Foundation, New York (1948)];
-	Nathan S. Shaler in CITIZENSHIP "The Citizen -- A Study of the
Individual and the Government" [A.S. Barnes &amp; Company, New York (1904)];
-	Melvin Risa in CITIZENSHIP "Theories on the Obligations of Citizens
to the State," Thesis, [University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1921)];
-	Ansaldo Ceba in CITIZENSHIP "Rights, Duties, and Privileges of
Citizens" [Paine &amp; Burgess, New York (1845)].
<div>[539]
Despite the fact that I say a few isolated nice things about Federal Judges
(with the applicability of my favorable comments being restricted to just a few
limited grievance factual settings Federal Judges preside over), I am unable to
recall any Federal Case that correctly talks about Citizenship as the pure, raw
contract that it very much is; yet it's all there in Citizenship, all of the
indicia that composes a contract: Benefits offered, as well as their
acceptance, reciprocity expected back in return, and all this all written out
in advance in specific and blunt terms in Federal Statutes. [540]
[540]<div> 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].
<div>[540]
Why then does the Supreme Court not correctly address Citizenship as the
contract that it really is? I don't know why, precisely; I could conjecture
that they do not want to publish an exemplary Case, explaining in the context
of a specific factual setting, how an Individual can get himself out of the
contract containing taxation reciprocity covenants. But I don't really care,
either; whatever information the Federal Judiciary is deficient in elucidating
regarding identifying Citizenship as the invisible contract that it is, I can
get from other sources, even ecclesiastical sources, and then retrofit it
interstitially to uncover the real meaning of obscure Judicial reasoning:
"An old principle, laid down from the earliest ages of British
jurisprudence, from which we receive our national institutions, is that
allegiance is that ligament or thread which bonds the subject to the sovereign,
by an implied contract, owes, in turn, protection to the subject; and the very
moment that the Government withholds its protection, that very moment
allegiance ceases." [541]
[541]<div> George A.
Smith, from a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, on
November 29, 1857; 6 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 84, at 85 (London, 1859).
<div>[541]
Yes, Citizenship is very much a contract, and Federal Judges generally think in
contract terms when dealing with a Tax or Draft Protestor. [542]
[542]<div> I am not
aware of any Federal statute anywhere that comes right out in the open and
explicitly correlates the benefits of Citizenship with the reciprocal duties
and liabilities all participants in that contract encumber themselves with;
however, on a parallel tangent, but there is an interesting slice of LEX in the
Civil Rights Statutes which announces a similar theme of benefits and duties,
which I mentioned in two fragments:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to
sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws
and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by White
Citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes,
licenses, and exactions of every kind, and no other."
-	Title 42, Section 1981 ["Civil Rights"] (enacted May, 1870). Multiple
Tax Protestors have taken notice of this statute, and have used it to try and
argue that this Section 1981 conveys jurisdiction to Federal District Courts
for hearing PROTESTING grievances arising out of Title 26; for example, see the
jurisdictional arguments in:
-	SNYDER VS. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 240 (1984);
-	CAMERON VS. IRS, 593 F.Supp 1540 (1984) [appeal published in 773
F.2nd 126 (1985)];
-	YOUNG VS. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141 (1984). Title 26 was deliberately
designed by its draftsmen in Congress to convey only that thin, tiny, minimum
sliver of jurisdiction to Federal District Courts that was necessary to hear
grievances initiated by the King's Agents, seeking the enforcement of taxes,
penalties, assessments, injunctions, summonses, etc.; Title 26 does not offer,
and was not intended to offer, a good source of statutes invoking Federal
District Court jurisdiction to either abate or remedy the naked Torts or
contractual errors of IRS termites. Tax Protestors might want to emulate the
MODUS OPERANDI of Federal Judges when dealing with a Title 26 related
grievance, and invoke the 16th Amendment as a source of jurisdiction for their
District Court Kingdom, which Federal Judges quietly do [nowhere in the 16th
Amendment do the words JURISDICTION, DISTRICT COURT, or CONVEY appear anywhere,
but pesky little deficiency impediments like that are not about to stop Federal
Judges]. <div>[542]
Citizenship is probably the single most important contract that you need to
come to grips with, as Citizens are suitable objects to assert both a taxation
and regulation jurisdiction over, and properly so as a matter of Law; however,
we all have philosophical disagreements on some of the bitter terms this
particular Regulatory Jurisdiction contract calls for. With your severance of
the reciprocity liability that is associated with Citizenship, a large amount
of the friction relating to your confrontations with Government will evaporate
overnight -- but your Citizenship contract is not the only exclusive contract
you need to concern yourself with; and be mindful that Citizenship, or any
other type of political status, is not relevant or necessary in those types of
criminal prosecutions that are predicated on either Tort or special contract
(like Highways). So just where is the bottom line here to detach yourself away
from those adhesive statutes in Title 26? [543]
[543]<div> Your right
to walk away from the Citizenship Contract, any time you feel like it, is
absolute [see 9 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 356 ["Right of Expatriation"]
(1859)], and you don't need to follow Federal Statutes on Expatriation (the
King wants all pesky little tax avoidance oriented expatriators to physically
leave the United States, and then surrender their Passport to a foreign
consular office [meaning that you will be prevented from re-entering the United
States]; see Title 26, Section 2107 and the Expatriation statutes in the King's
Title 8 LEX). Meanwhile, the King has no right in his statutes to force the
unwanted acceptance of juristic benefits, and silence in his statutes on
administrative procedures to go through to explicitly disavow such benefits
does not vitiate or negate this standing right of rejection.
"There is a principle or theory in nations of Europe that if allowed to
be enforced [here in the United States] destroys the quality of absolute
American Citizenship. There is not a civilized nation that does not in some
form recognize the right of a person to change his domicile or expatriate
himself. The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is derived from the Dark Ages,
the time when Governments were maintained for the benefit of rulers and not for
the people. Sovereigns were everything; subjects were nothing."
-	Congressman Norman Judd of Illinois on the Floor of the House of
Representatives, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 40th Congress, 2nd Session, page 7
(December 2, 1867). Just as pig Sovereigns in the Dark Ages demanded that
Citizens could not walk away from allegiance to his kingdom for any reason, so
too by corollary, should Federal Judges start to deem the acceptance of Federal
benefits as being mandatory and non-waivable, then our reciprocation will be on
terms our Founding Fathers taught us so well: The kind of terms that leave a
lingering scent of nitrates in the air downwind from the Federal Buildings
where they all went to work synchronously.
<div>[543]
If that is your objective, then you have to effectuate a pure severance of
yourself away from the King's Equity Jurisdiction, and not just a partial
severance. No, you don't get to selectively pick and choose just what Federal
benefits you want and don't want. This Citizenship is one of the larger slices
that constitutes the Title 26 liability pie, and once Federal Judges have
quietly taken Judicial Notice of your Citizenship, they generally then and
there stop looking for other contracts to nail on you, when ruling over civil
Income Tax grievances. [544]
[544]<div> If in fact
Citizenship is the dominate invisible contract that Federal Judges are using as
BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE justification to adhesively hold the LEX of Title 26 to
folks -- then there necessarily rises to our attention another question. In
1939, Congress enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT, designed to waive the
benefits inuring to Federal Employees of a long-standing doctrine in the United
States Supreme Court that prohibits the taxation of Federal instrumentalities
by the several States, and VICE-VERSA -- called the INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
DOCTRINE.
"What limitations does the Federal Constitution impose upon the United
States in respect of taxing instrumentalities and agencies employed by a State
and, conversely, how far does it inhibit the States from taxing
instrumentalities and agencies utilized by the United States, are questions
often considered here. [Cases deleted].
"The Constitution contemplates a national Government free to use its
delegated powers; also state Governments capable of exercising their essential
reserved powers; both operate within the same territorial limits; consequently
the Constitution itself, either by word or necessary inference, makes adequate
provision for preventing conflict between them.
"Among the inferences which derive necessarily from the Constitution
are these: No State may tax appropriate means which the United States may
employ for exercising their delegated powers; the United States may not tax
instrumentalities which a State may employ in the discharge of her essential
governmental duties -- that is, those duties which the Framers intended each
member of the Union would assume in order adequately to function under the form
of Government guaranteed by the Constitution."
-	HELVERING VS. THERRELL, 303 U.S. 218, at 222 (1937). The Constitution
nowhere states that the Congress is barred from taxing State Employees, or that
the States are barred from taxing Federal Employees; yet the Supreme Court held
in COLLECTOR VS. DAY that the salary of a State Officer is immune from Federal
income taxation:
"That the taxing power of the Federal Government is nevertheless
subject to an implied restriction when applied to State instrumentalities was
first decided in COLLECTOR VS. DAY, 11 Wallace 113, where the salary of a state
officer, a probate judge, was held to be immune from Federal income tax. The
question there presented was not one of interference with a granted power in a
field in which the Federal Government is supreme, but a limitation by
implication upon the granted Federal power to tax."
-	HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 414 (1937). So even though
Federal Employees cannot be taxed under this immunity doctrine, the Congress
enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT to waive the immunity its employees would
otherwise enjoy; The Congress wanted to make sure that their help was paying
the freight like everyone else:
"Federal Employees... too, should contribute to the support o their
State and local Governments to the same extent as private Employees...
Employees of Governments receive all the benefits of Government which their
fellow Citizens do, and consequently they should also bear their fair share of
its costs."
-	SENATE REPORT #112 ["Public Salary Tax Act"], 76th Congress, First
Session, at 4 (February, 1939). And perhaps the Congress was also expecting
some reciprocity back in return from the States:
"The statute construed in COLLECTOR VS. DAY afforded no reciprocal
right to the States to tax the salaries of Federal Employees. In this respect,
it might be said to be discriminatory against the States. The proposed
legislation does permit the States to tax Federal Salaries."
-	SENATE REPORT #112 ["Public Salary Tax Act"], 76th Congress, First
Session, at 8 (February, 1939). After it was enacted, this PUBLIC SALARY TAX
ACT read that:
"The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for
personal service as an office or employee of the United States..."
-	Title 4, Section 111 ["Public Salary Tax Act"] (revised September,
1966). Tax Protestors reading this statute from the perspective that only
Federal Employees are PERSONS liable for the Title 26 tax are in error. This
Act only means that INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY is waived and that the States
can tax the salaries of Federal Employees, and no more. But where did the
Congress initially become so disabled from taxing State employees?
"The Constitution contains no express limitation on the power of either
a State or the national Government to tax the other, or its instrumentalities.
The doctrine that there is an implied limitation stems from MCCULLOCH VS.
MARYLAND [4 Wheat 316], in which it was held that a State tax laid specifically
upon the privilege of issuing bank notes, and in fact applicable alone to the
notes of national banks, was invalid since it impeded the national Government
in the exercise of its power to establish and maintain a bank, implied as an
incident to the borrowing, taxing, war, and other powers specifically granted
to the national Government by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution."
-	HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 (1937). [That's right,
you FEDERAL RESERVE PROTESTORS out there: Your arguments on the
unConstitutionality of the Federal Reserve System and its circulating notes,
based on the monetary disabilities present in Article 1, Sections 8 and 10,
even though factually correct of and by themselves, are only a very small part
of the larger jurisdictional pie our King has to justify his juristic banking
creations. I would like to see a Protestor try and argue the
unConstitutionality of the Fed based on the full panoply of its sources of
jurisdictional fuel: The BORROWING POWER to contract for debts, the WAR POWERS
to defend the United States, the TAXATION POWERS resident in Article 1, Section
8, and the regulation of COMMERCE POWER also in Article 1, Section 8, etc. You
Protestors can't do that as there are no countermanding arguments for some of
those sources of jurisdictional fuel, and so now the end result is exactly what
Federal Judges correctly rule to be so down to the present day: That the
Federal Reserve System, Gremlins and all, is in fact Constitutional.] QUESTION:
So, if Citizenship is the contract operated on by Federal Judges, then why will
Federal Judges simply not refer over to the Citizenship contract as overruling
justification to tax Governmental Employees? The Answer lies in the fact that
CITIZENSHIP is an implied contract created and structured largely by statutory
devices; as an implied contract [meaning not expressly negotiated and
individually written down], Citizenship can only fill the vacant contours that
are left open by other premier boundary line restrainments of a higher
priority. Here we have a fundamental intergovernmental immunity doctrine
related to that granddaddy itself: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Under this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE, Federal and State instrumentalities are
pre-emptively disabled from even asking for any taxation reciprocity back in
return from each other -- even though Federal juristic benefits were accepted
by a state employee in COLLECTOR VS. DAY, and an implied taxation contract was
in effect. Remember that the Congress is operating on a limited profiled slice
of multiple jurisdictional assignments; the Congress is pre-emptively disabled
from pulling off many things in the BILL OF RIGHTS that requires either a
Commercial Contract or individually negotiated contract consent to overrule.
The Corpus of the Constitution also pre-emptively disables the Congress from
asking for taxation reciprocity back in return for important Commercial
benefits accepted in Article 1, Section 9 ["No Tax or Duty shall be laid on
Articles exported from any State"], even though those articles destined for
foreign nations were very much the product of otherwise taxable INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. The right of taxation, where it does exist, is necessarily unlimited
in its nature:
"... the right of taxation, where it exists, is necessarily unlimited
in its nature."
-	MCCRAY VS. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, at 57 (1903). But as unlimited
as it is in some areas, the right of taxation does not exist everywhere; [EVANS
VS. GORE mentions the existence of a class of "... excepted subjects," 253 U.S.
245, at 261 (1920)] -- so not everyone to whom benefits are thrown at are
automatically liable for the reciprocating financial payments of taxation; in
some cases Government is pre-emptively barred from asking for benefit
reciprocity, and implied contracts take a back seat to overruling restrainments
such as INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. This Taxation Immunity Doctrine is
Judicially created, and Judges, as the individuals that they are, frequent do
possess views diverging from the expected conformal median. Question: Are there
some Judges who would like to merely cite national CITIZENSHIP as THE
justifying taxation contract, and ignore Immunity Doctrines? Yes, there are:
"... respondents, though Employees of the New York Port Authority, are
Citizens of the United States; the tax levied upon their incomes from the
Authority is the same as that paid by other Citizens receiving equal net
incomes; and payment of this non-discriminatory income tax by respondents
cannot impair or defeat in whole or in part the governmental operations of the
State of New York. A Citizen who receives his income from a State, owes the
same obligation to the United States as other Citizens who draw their salaries
from private sources or the United States and pay Federal income taxes."
-	HELVERING 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 Patriots will have to come to
grips with the strong relevance of national CITIZENSHIP for taxation purposes
when not otherwise disabled, but not quite strong enough to pierce this State
Employee immunity veil, is exemplary of the same judgment we all confront daily
while we too, just like the Supreme Court, apply the relevance of our Celestial
Covenants to a wide ranging array of factual settings that make their
appearance in our lives. And those factual settings also present to us a
competing confluence of incentives, to which we respond with differential
levels of perceived Covenant importance.
<div>[544]
Your successful severance of liability away from the administrative mandates of
Title 26 requires a thorough decontamination of yourself away from the contract
of Citizenship and all Commercial contracts. Yes, you can be an alien from some
foreign jurisdiction, you can be a Russian Native who never left Russia or set
foot in the United States, and still have a liability to produce administrative
conformance with Title 26. [545]
[545]<div> Aliens from
foreign political jurisdictions, who do not reside in the United States and
accept no political or protectorate benefits from the United States, are still
very much liable to be bound by Title 26, if they experience any Commercial
enrichment over here. See EMILY DE GANAY VS. LEDERER, 250 U.S. 376 (1919). [A
French Citizen and French resident very much owes equity participation income
taxes to the United States, because she experience Commercial enrichment over
here when she deals in debt instruments such as mortgages, corporate paper, and
securities.] See also similar reasoning in COOK VS. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1923)
[non-resident aliens who participate in American Commerce are subject to the
American Income Tax and Citizens residing abroad are liable to pay the Income
Tax]. The requirement for American Citizens who live abroad and, seemingly, do
not enjoy any benefits of an American origin, to pay Income Taxes has irritated
a lot of folks -- see THE FOREIGN EARNED INCOME ACT OF 1978: NON-BENEFITS FOR
NONRESIDENTS, Editor's Note, 13 Cornell International Law Journal 105, at 107
(1980) -- but latent overseas benefits are actually being offered and accepted
by American Citizens who travel over there [the benefit to call upon the local
diplomatic consular offices for protectorate assistance, and in Title 22,
Section 1732, there lies a statute which lays upon the President of the United
States a specific duty to intervene on your behalf whenever American Citizens
have been incarcerated by foreign jurisdictions. Although those benefits might
not seem worth such an extravagant percentage demanded of your income, year in
and year out without any letup or impending relief, the value of those benefits
to you is a business judgment you need to make, and is not a question that
should be entertained by a Federal Judge after you have decided to accept those
benefits -- benefits that are considered to have been accepted by your silence
[as I will discuss in the next section Federal Reserve Notes].
<div>[545]
The idea of using the King's Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship a the point of
adhesion to tax individuals goes far back into antiquity. [546]
[546]<div> The
jurisdictional basis of Citizenship to tax is one of the oldest juristic
Principles that there is in law. See Edwin Seligman, in ESSAYS ON TAXATION
["Double Taxation"], page 111 [MacMillian Company, New York (1928); 9th
Edition].
<div>[546]
In the old days of 1913, our Fathers came right out in the open and declared
for all to see that Citizens were taxable objects. [547]
[547]<div> "... that
there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire
net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year
to every Citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad..."
-	THE REVENUE ACT OF 1913, chapter 16, Section IIA (1913).
<div>[547]
The decision that was made in 1913 to lay the tax on the attachment of the
King's Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship was made apparently intuitively and
without much debate. [548]
[548]<div> Surrey
reviews this in his article entitled CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TAXATION OF
CORPORATE FOREIGN INCOME, 56 Columbia Law Review 815, at 817 (1956).
<div>[548]
The purpose of broadening the number of objects subject to federal taxation,
away from exclusively constituting only participants in King's Commerce, over
to the larger group of Citizenry, was declared to be performed only with the
noblest of intentions, [549]
[549]<div> "Its purpose
was to raise revenue on the basis of each Citizen's ability to pay as opposed
to the past practice of taxing the individual on the basis of consumption."
-	See HOUSE REPORT NUMBER 5, 63rd Congress, First Session, 1 (1913).
<div>[549]
but the true objective then is the same objective which sustains the
continuance of the Income Tax down to the present time: To perfect Bolshevik
enscrewment. [550]
[550]<div> Gremlins
typically operate by mildly asking for just one more turn of the screws;
information propagated around Congress in 1909 (when the proposed 16th
Amendment was passed by the Congress and sent to the States), and thence
propagated around the States, was that the American Income Tax during the Civil
War and in 1894 was only a tiny 3% to 7%, and it only affected the very rich,
so the passage of this technical little Amendment isn't anything you
legislators need to concern yourselves with. Our fathers back then fell for
that line, just as most folks would again fall for it all over again today,
never bothering to see the latent error in yielding to Gremlins even one tiny
bit:
[Speaking in the context of a Celestial Principle]:
"The old fable which Aesop tells of the woodsman who went into the
forest to get a handle for his axe describes accurately the position in which
we find ourselves. The woodsman went and consulted with the trees of the
forest, asking them to give him a handle for his axe. The other trees, the
stronger ones, arrogating [means to "claim as one's own"] to themselves
authority and ignoring the rights of others, thought that they could dispose of
the smaller trees as they pleased. The larger trees conferred together and
decided to the grant the woodsman's request, and so they gave to the woodsman
the Ash tree. The Ash soon fell; but the woodsman had no sooner fitted the
handle to his axe than he began upon the other trees. He did not stop with the
Ash, but he also hewed down the Oaks and the Cedars and the great and mighty
Monarchs of the forest who had surrendered in their pride, the rights of the
humble Ash. An old Oak was heard to complain to a neighboring Cedar; "If we had
not given away the rights of the Ash we might have stood forever; but we have
surrendered to the destroyer the rights of one, and now we are suffering from
the same evil ourselves."
-	Orson F. Whitney, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle on April
9, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at 202 [London (1886)]. The fablest
referred to, AESOP, wrote many Fables with an instructional purpose running
through them. AESOP is said to have lived about 620 to 560 B.C., and once had a
relationship with Croesus. A Latin translation of 100 FABULAE AEOPICAE by
Renutius was published in Rome in 1476, and has since been handed down the
line. And what Principle applies in a Celestial setting will always apply in a
worldly setting, as our Creator did not dispense or toss aside his Principles
when he governed the Creation of this planet architecturally; and the lesson is
clear: Those who compromise with Gremlins today will be sticking their
descendants with damages, just as we are now stuck with unreasonable levels of
taxation because our fathers once fell for lies and yielded the first step.
<div>[550]
Our Fathers fell for that "ability to pay" reasoning then, just like most folks
today continue to fall for that same line today. [551]
[551]<div> Pathetic was
the caliber of judgment that fell for this little lie:
"For years there has been an overwhelming sentiment in this country in
favor of the income tax. The justice of such a tax is so self-evident that few,
if any, have been heard in opposition to its enactment."
-	Congressman Pepper, from Iowa, in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for
January 30, 1913, at page 5252.
<div>[551]
Let us examine the Judicial Perspective on federal taxation under the
Citizenship Contract by way of a Case study. One such ruling touching on the
Citizenship Contract involves COOK VS. TAIT, [552]
[552]<div> 265 U.S. 47
(1924). <div>[552]
where the Supreme Court ruled that income received by a Citizen of the United
States while living in Mexico is taxable due to the benefits received while
outside the United States (the old acceptance of benefits story: When benefits
that were offered with an expectation of reciprocity back in return have been
accepted, there lies a contract and it now becomes immoral not to require a
mandatory exchange of reciprocity). The Court then listed those benefits that
American Citizens carried with them no matter what their geographical situs
was. [553]
[553]<div> Many
Patriots will be quite familiar with the following widely published words from
a Supreme Court ruling called HALE VS. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1915), which
discusses the difference in rights and duties between Corporations and
Individuals:
"The individual... owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing
therefrom..."
-	HALE VS. HENKEL, id., at 74. Not once to this day have I ever seen a
correct discussion of what HALE VS. HENKEL really means: Because it does not
purport at all to say that Individuals [human beings] are somehow exempt from
Government taxes that Corporations are required to pay because Individuals are
made of flesh and bones, and therefore, somehow exempt from duties. Notice how
the Supreme Court did not try to distinguish between PERSON clothed with
multiple layers of juristic accoutrements lending to their very appearance a
special and suggestive flavoring to it -- and INDIVIDUALS without such juristic
accoutrements [or "liberated"]; the Supreme Court was contrasting Corporate
entities and Individuals due to the JURISTIC PERSONALITY that benefit
acceptants clothe themselves with. Knowing what you know now about the
invisible contracts that are in effect whenever there has been an acceptance of
benefits, go back and read that line over again. Both Artificial and Natural
Persons either owe the money, or don't owe the money, based upon their
acceptance or nonacceptance of juristic benefits, and not based upon their
biological Status as human INDIVIDUALS (or NATURAL PERSONS, as lawyers would
call them). If you do accept those juristic benefits, then you very much owe
the money, regardless of whether or not you are a human Individual (NATURAL
PERSONS) or a Corporation (an ARTIFICIAL PERSON). I once saw a 7203 WILLFUL
FAILURE TO FILE prosecution conviction appeal in California where the criminal
defendant argued that he was exempt from Income Tax Liability because he was an
"absolute individual," and not a Corporation. When I saw this argument in this
appeal brief, I felt sorry for him, as I knew he would eventually be
incarcerated; as that biological Status argument of being a human "individual"
means nothing -- in fact, actually means less than nothing, as it operates
negatively against your credibility if there is a disputed element of law or
fact in a grey area that could have otherwise favored you. Many other folks
pushing law materials also propagate this fraudulent line (that Title 26 does
not apply to human individuals, somehow), and they should know better: Because
your natural biological Status as an "Individual" means absolutely nothing when
juristic benefits were accepted by you: That is the seminal point of the
formation of contracts in Nature, and contracts overrule NATURAL LAW RIGHTS
arguments; if you are having trouble understanding now the reason why contracts
ascend to the elevated level of priority in Nature like they do -- passing by
all of the lower arguments sounding in the Tort of fairness and unfairness --
then you will understand this Principle in no uncertain term at the Last Day.
[I would like to see Protestors try to snicker at Father at the Last Day, like
they snicker at Judges now]. In arguing HALE VS. HENKEL, Tax Protestors are
correct by noting that Corporations are very unique creatures in the Law; they
are created by Juristic Institutions, and whatever the Juristic Institution
created, it can modify, rearrange, and dissolve any time, in any manner, and
under any circumstances that it feels like. For example, such a differential in
rights surfaced in Rhode Island once, when some judges were discussing the
relationship in effect between the right of corporations [if RIGHT is the word]
to pick and choose their own state Residency situs:
"We do not think a foreign corporation can under any circumstances be
regarded as a RESIDENT of the state, in the absence of any legislation
recognizing it or giving it a STATUS as such. The proper seat or "residence" of
such a corporation is the State which created it and which continues it in
existence, otherwise the corporation might have its residence in a multitude of
jurisdictions. The residence of a corporation is created for it by an act of
law, and can not be changed by act of the corporation. A more permanent
residence than that of a domestic corporation in the State which created it can
hardly be conceived."
-	ATTORNEY GENERAL VS. POLICE COMMISSIONERS, 30 Rhode Island 212, at
220 (1909). As distinguished from Corporations, Individuals can very much pack
up and move to a new State -- whenever they feel like it; so yes, some
differences do exist in rights and duties from Corporations to Individuals, but
Individuals take upon themselves the taxable status of Corporations whenever
juristic benefits, offered conditionally, have been accepted; under such a
juristic environment, such an INDIVIDUAL is now a PERSON, and PERSONS, carrying
the special and suggestive juristic accoutrements around with them like they
do, are in no position to start arguing for rights or judicially created
exemptions. <div>[553]
In another Case in 1968, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Felix
Rexach owed American income taxes by reason of his United States Citizenship.
[554]
[554]<div> FELIX REXACH
VS. UNITED STATES, 390 F.2nd 631 (1968).
<div>[554]
Felix Rexach was a native born Puerto Rican, who acquired statutory American
Citizenship by virtue of the Jones Act of 1917. [555]
[555]<div> Title 48,
Section 731, et seq.
<div>[555]
In 1944, Felix left Puerto Rico and became a resident of the Dominican
Republic, where he remained resident until 1961. However, in 1958 Felix
executed a written renunciation of his American Citizenship before a United
States consulate official in the Dominican Republic, pursuant to the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. [556]
[556]<div> Title 8,
Section 1481(c).
<div>[556]
His renouncement of American Citizenship was accepted without any frictional
hassles by the United States, and a written Certificate of Loss of Nationality
was approved by the Department of State. On July 26th of 1958, his desired
severance away from American Citizenship was perfected as Felix was decreed to
be a Citizen of the Dominican Republic. [557]
[557]<div> "Thereafter,
[Felix] naturally suffered certain losses of status and benefits as a
consequence of being declared a non-resident alien of the United States."
-	REXACH, id., at 631. See how Federal Judges are just fixated to view
questions from a BENEFITS perspective; yes BENEFITS are the Center of Gravity
in the minds of Federal Judges -- that central axis upon which adhesive
attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction have their organic point of formation
into contracts.
<div>[557]
Felix was no ordinary fellow, as he busied himself on a large scale by
contracting activities in the Dominican Republic, contracts obtained by
associating with its ruling dictator, Trujillo. [558]
[558]<div> REXACH, id.,
at 631. <div>[558]
But fortunes soon turned adverse for Felix when the Dictator he was milking was
assassinated in 1961. Felix suddenly decided that American Citizenship was now
desirable, and so in 1962 he applied for reinstatement of his American
Citizenship by applying for a Passport; claiming that his 1958 renunciation was
involuntary and had been compelled against his will by reason of physical
threats and economic pressures. The United States Consul denied his
application, and on administrative appeal, Felix's testimony was accepted,
reversing the local Consul, so his Loss of National Certificate was cancelled.
However, now things turn into an interesting direction, because the Department
of State, aware of Felix's financial resources, notified the Internal Revenue
Service that Felix was now an American Citizen again; and so now termites in
the IRS came out of the woodwork. [559]
[559]<div> My
characterization of the Internal Revenue Service as being termites is an
assessment of the practical effect of those agents doing no more than trying to
get people to honor their juristic contracts with Royalty. With the Direct IN
PERSONAM Taxation grab of an Income Tax structurally designed by Gremlins to
accomplish their objectives of maximum enscrewment damages, IRS Agents are
caught in the middle of the cross fire, or as the vernacular of the day goes,
'stuck between a rock and a hard place'; on the one hand doing no more than the
prevention of defilement under invisible contracts, yet on the other hand they
are the visible persons responsible for so smoothly eating out the
Countryside's substance.
"There is nothing about federal and state employees as a class which
justifies depriving them or society of the benefits of their participation in
public affairs. They, like other Citizens, pay taxes and serve their country in
peace and in war. The taxes they pay and the wars in which they fight are
determined by the elected spokesman of all people. They come from the same
homes, communities, schools, churches, and colleges as do other Citizens. I
think the Constitution guarantees to them the same rights that other groups of
good Citizens have..."
-	UNITED PUBLIC WORKS VS. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, at 111 [dissenting
opinion] (1948).
<div>[559]
And so deficiency assessments were thrown at Felix for income earned in the
four intermittent years between his renunciation and his reinstatement. Felix
ignored the deficiency assessments, and so Internal Revenue termites then threw
liens on property Felix owned, followed by foreclosure actions. Felix countered
against the foreclosures by throwing Petitions for Summary Judgements of
Foreclosure Dismissal at the IRS.
In his legal arguments seeking to deflect the foreclosure, Felix reasoned that,
in effect, the reciprocal benefits of Citizenship obligation language in COOK
VS. TAIT [560]
[560]<div> 265 U.S. 47
(1924). <div>[560]
overruled the unpleasant covenant terms his special statutory Citizenship
Contract how called for: The preclusion of Felix from claiming, as a matter of
statutory law, that he ever ceased to be a United States Citizen. Felix argued
that since the United States had owned him no protection benefits during his
four year hiatus of alien, that therefore no reciprocal tax was owing in return
to the United States. The First Circuit disagreed, and countered by ruling
that:
"We cannot agree that the reciprocal obligations are mutual, at least
in the sense that [the] taxpayer contends." [561]
[561]<div> REXACH, id.,
at 632. <div>[561]
So yes, that QUID PRO QUO of reciprocity that I have been talking about all
along does have to be there, but the failure of Felix to present a proper
factual setting to the Judicial was fatal on his part Felix reentered the
stream of Citizenship under contract, and the terms of his contract called for
the irrelevancy of his alien status, since his loss of Citizenship was
originally tax avoidance motivated. Felix admitted that he never really ceased
to be an American Citizen -- and there lies the key to see why the First
Circuit correctly ruled the way they did. The price one pays for maneuvering
one's Citizenship [and lying to get it back] to secure self enrichment and
economic advantage, according to the First Circuit, is continued liability for
United States taxes. The obligation to pay taxes is thus clearly applicable
although the Taxpayer who has temporarily abandoned the United States, for
purposes of pursuing Commercial enrichment, receives no reciprocal benefits
from the Government. In conclusion, most noteworthy is the last line in Rexach,
as the First Circuit said that although there is a factual setting that could
be presented to them where the lack of reciprocal benefits would preclude the
assessment of Internal Revenue taxes, the factual elements necessary to so rule
were not present here:
"The hypothetical [factual setting where a person rejects benefits
timely and then does not return into a King's Equity relational status with the
United States at a future time] suggested by taxpayer during oral argument
involved aspects of estoppel on the part of the Government. Whatever may be the
merit of such cases, that element is not present here." [562]
[562]<div> REXACH, id.,
at 632. <div>[562]
Well, George, that DICTA was interesting, but could we see a Case where an
Individual rejects all benefits timely, and then a Federal Court vitiated his
taxing liability? No, sorry you cannot; [563]
[563]<div> There is a
line of Cases in the United States Supreme Court touching on a Citizenship
Naturalization question while occasionally mentioning taxation, but even in
those Cases, I am not aware of any explicit statement that exists which
specifically attaches reciprocal taxation liability for PERSONS holding
Citizenship, nor is there any explicit indication that Citizenship is a
contract. To have folks think in terms of contract when addressing Citizenship,
would result in some folks eventually figuring out that the underlying indicia
that create commercial contracts might also create political contracts where
Juristic Institutions are a party thereto; and so it would not be too long
before folks start figuring out that the seminal point in all commercial
contracts stand on that practical operation of Nature taking place called
CONSIDERATION, where benefits are exchanged. And so folks, very properly, would
then start to examine the passing scene for evidence that Citizens just might
have also exchanged some unseen benefits here or there -- and such an open
examination will very much uncover such an evidentiary array of juristic
benefits accepted in a state of silence. Exemplary of a Supreme Court ruling
managing not to let the cat out of the bag while talking about Citizenship,
would the Naturalization Case of ANGELICA SCHNEIDER VS. DEAN RUSK [377 U.S 163
(1964)]. <div>[563]
such a published ruling so favorable to us folks out here in the countryside
does not exist, and will never exist -- as I have been saying all along, Cases
presented to Federal Judges that come even close to pure Equity severance are
being sandbagged at low levels, and you will not even be getting a hearing
before the Supreme Court. [564]
[564]<div> A Federal
Judge in Texas told an acquaintance of mine that the reason why he was not
going to issue out any written ruling on a Citizenship/tax liability question
that was presented to him in a Case was because the Judge was afraid that such
an opinion "would threaten the entire tax system" [a literal quotation]. So
those are the kind of degenerate information sequestration terms Federal Judges
think in, as they go about their work trying to keep the lid clamped down tight
on knowledge propagation -- a pretty pathetic objective; and so now the
published ruling some folks are waiting for -- of a judicial ruling showing by
example, how step by step a person could terminate altogether his tax
liability; a ruling that would very much benefits others -- that ruling will
never make an appearance. Incidentally, notice how Federal Judges conveniently
refuse to get involved with addressing tough questions like whether or not the
claimed underlying authenticity of Constitutional Amendments are actually
fraudulent sources of jurisdiction when used by the King as justification to
damage people -- by deferring such questions over to "the political departments
of Government"; yet twist the factual setting around slightly to create
different philosophical incentives, and Federal Judges very quickly bend over
backwards to use such purely political concerns like aggregate revenue
questions as justification to once again avoid doing the right thing.
<div>[564]
Those Citizenship Cases are of interest to us as good TOUCHSTONES indicia of
Citizenship liability and of benefit acceptance in general, but they do not
meet the Refiner's Fire threshold requirement of just what happens when
Citizens simple waive and reject all political benefits, that Model Case that
so many folks are looking for. [565]
[565]<div> In ancient
times, the test for purity of Gold was performed with a smooth black stone,
called a Touchstone. When rubbed across the Gold, the Gold produced a streak or
mark on the surface of the Touchstone. The goldsmith would then match this mark
with a chart he had showing different graded colors. The mark left on the
Touchstone was redder in color as the amount of copper or other alloys
increased, and was yellower as the percentage of Gold increased. This process
showed the purity of the Gold within reasonable limits. The Touchstone method
for testing the quality of Gold was quick and fairly accurate for most common
purposes; but the goldsmith who, for some special reason, needed more precise
information on the Gold used a process that involved fire. And by running the
Gold through the much more intense Refiner's Fire, extremely accurate (as
accurate went in those days) measurements of the Gold content could then be
determined. However, the Refiner's Fire process took a lot of additional time,
and didn't really tell the goldsmith anything that he didn't already know. In
similar ways, I would suggest that Patriot inactivity (because you are
"waiting" for the Model Case to come down from on High) is improvident, and
such a Model Case will not tell you anything you don't already know.
<div>[565]
What happens to Citizens who reject the King's benefits? They become Denizens.
[566]
[566]<div> In old
English Common Law, DENIZENS had no political rights, i.e., they could not vote
or hold office. So by mutuality they also owed no Citizen-like capitation tax
to the Crown. Although Denizens had occupancy jurisdiction to stay within a
Kingdom, the only taxes the Crown was able to get out of them was limited to
the extent that the Denizen participated in Commerce. See generally, James
Kettner, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP 1608-1870 [University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (1976)]. That I am aware of, the
word DENIZEN appears 21 times in the United States Supreme Court between 1952
[in ON LEE VS. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 747] and 1812 [in FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE VS.
HUNTER'S LEASEE, 11 U.S. 603]. For example, it is mentioned in LUDECKE VS.
WATKINS [333 U.S. 160, at 161 (1947)], in the context of a quotation from Title
50, Section 21 ["Enemy Alien Act"]. BLACK'S FIFTH, in their style of poorly
written definitions, states that a Denizen is:
"... in kind of a middle state between an alien and a natural born
subject, and partakes of the STATUS of both of these."
-	BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY ["Denizen"], Fifth Edition, [West Publishing,
St. Paul] and adds that an American judicial definition of Denizen has changed
somewhat from its historical English counterpart. What DENIZEN means today is
the same that it has always meant:
"Our laws give certain privileges [benefits] and withhold certain
privileges from our adopted subjects, and we may naturally conclude, that there
may be some qualification of the privilege in the laws of other countries. But
our resident Denizens are entitled, as I take it, to all sorts of commercial
privileges, which our natural-born subject can claim."
-	MARRYAT VS. WILSON, a British case (1799). Yes, Denizens do not enjoy
political franchise rights [nor can they hold elective Government office], but
they do hold occupancy jurisdiction, and they do enjoy Commercial benefits
created by the State, and so Denizens were only taxed to the extent they
participated in Commerce. Back before the Civil War days, Blacks were not
Citizens of the United States, as only White folks could be Citizens before the
RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS made their appearance. An Attorney General once spoke
on how colored persons are not ALIENS and not CITIZENS, yet they are something
-- but what are they? They are DENIZENS, as Denizens hold occupancy
jurisdiction, but do not enjoy any juristic benefit originating from the United
States of a political nature:
"It is not necessary, in my view of the matter, to discuss the question
how far a free man of color [meaning a black who was not a slave] may be a
Citizen, in the highest sense of the word -- that is, one who enjoys in the
fullest manner all the JURA CIVITATIS under the Constitution of the United
States... Now free people of color are not ALIENS, they enjoy universally
(while there has been no express statutable provision to the contrary) the
rights of Denizens... How far a political STATUS may be acquired is a different
question, but his civil STATUS is that of a complete Denizenship."
-	Hugh S. Legare, Attorney General of the United States, in
["Pre-Emption Rights of Colored Persons"], 4 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
147, at 147 (March, 1843). Here in the United States of 1985, PERSONS
participating in that closed private domain of King's Commerce without enjoying
any political benefits pay the same identical taxes as those who do enjoy
political benefits; there is no economy now associated with being a Denizen
pursuing commercial enrichment today. The economy long sought after by Tax
Protestors will be realized only effectuating a total and pure severance of
themselves away from the adhesive attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction,
which consists of having accepted either Commercial benefits, or of the
political benefits derived from an operation of Citizenship.
<div>[566]
Why are Citizens of the United States now burdened down with such an incredible
Bolshevik Income Tax Machine, so smoothly eating away at our substance the way
it does? The answer lies by the acceptance of protectorate benefits the King is
offering. [567]
[567]<div> Even if you
want the protectorate benefits the King is offering, at a minimum it is
improvident to remain silent on his manipulative use of his administration of
this contract by Gremlins. Today in 1985, our King is busy with talk of
negotiating construction suspension agreements with a foreign adversary --
Russia; called the STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS (SALT). The King wants to
suspend our production of certain defense hardware in the interest of
cordialities, a spirit of unilateral disarmament that was publicly initiated in
1972 with an operation of Royal diplomatic deception called DETENTE. The reason
why this is of significance is because a war with Russia is on the horizon -- a
war to be presented to us as a surprise from the world's Gremlins; and folks
making practical assessments of potential impending events by giving any weight
to the carefree and factually limited judgment exercised by others is
improvident. In a previous era, administrative Gremlins working for the King of
England once pulled off the identical same pre-war measure; but we should not
really be surprised, as Lucifer finds it unnecessary to change, alter, or
modify his MODUS OPERANDI, as he goes about his work running one civilization
into the ground after another. In a news article that could have appeared in
today's news with only a change in names and technology:
"There has as yet been no reply from German official quarters to the
British proposal of a year's suspension of battleship construction. The
President of the German Naval League has declared Winston Churchill's offer to
be undeserving of serious consideration; but this is a natural position for a
president of a naval league to take. In the meanwhile, it is to be noted that
the German authorities, while fond of speaking of REALPOLITIK -- a policy based
on frank recognition of actualities instead of sentiment or general principles
-- have in this matter of the limitation of naval armaments not been quite so
REAL as they might be... The Kaiser's Ministers usually speak of their naval
plans as dictated by Germany's Imperial interests and by the necessity of
safeguarding the Empire's coasts."
-	Editors, 29 THE NATION MAGAZINE, at 375 (October 23, 1913). [THE
NATION was once a very popular magazine in the United States.] The following
year, in 1914, the visible public movements of World War I began to surface
with numerous German offenses made throughout Europe. While Gremlins had been
hard at work running the defense structure of Great Britain into the ground (of
which hardware construction suspensions are one such visible manifestation of
termite management) &gt;and which is taking place in the United States today&lt;, her
impending adversary, Germany, was building an attack naval fleet -- and not for
the claimed purpose of "safeguarding of the Empire's coasts," but for military
attack purposes. Throwing deceptions at planned adversaries to lull them asleep
is extensively used by Gremlins as a pre-War tool, just like Lucifer's
deceptive withholding of factual information from his imp assistants on the
existence of Covenants in effect with Father overruling his Tort damages
justifications, is a war measure. Mark my words this day in 1985: The more that
glowing statements are made about missile treaties and arms reduction
agreements between Russia and the United States, the closer the two are to
outright war. When the news media tries to emphasize the importance of some new
"breakthrough" missile agreement, the more imminent are the open hostilities.
Remember, Gremlins never change a successful MODUS OPERANDI, -- and they deem
lulling you to sleep to be very important. ...This Second Estate is very much
adversarial in nature, and all of the rules applicable to deception used by
Gremlins in war will be found incorporated by Lucifer in his SUB ROSA attacks
on your impending embryo Celestial Status. And whatever is necessary to get
folks to bypass their own good judgment and sense of positive responsibility,
however momentarily uncomfortable, and rely instead upon the more comforting
passive inactivity and nonchalant judgment of others that ALL IS WELL IN
IGNORANCE, will be done -- it is being done politically by Americans generally
ignoring numerous visible signs of an impending domestic military invasion and
correlative secondary internal damages that will occur in its wake; and it is
being done Spiritually by getting folks to ignore and toss aside any concern
for a known impending Judgment and replacing that concern with the more
comforting sugar-coated assurance that, yes, since they have accepted Jesus
Christ, they will be Saved, and they don't need concern themselves with
anything else -- some hokey religion out there -- baah.
<div>[567]
The correct origin of the Citizenship problem (if PROBLEM is the word) lies
back in the 1700's, not with Lucifer and his filthy little Gremlin Karl Marx,
but with our own Fathers, back when our Founding Fathers created the
Constitution, a document that warrants your objective evaluation, because our
Founding Fathers gave the King just too much jurisdiction: [568]
[568]<div> See
generally: Bernard Bailyn in the IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
["Sovereignty"], at page 198, et seq. [The Belknap Press of the Harvard
University Press, Cambridge (1967)]. Bernard Bailyn went back into the 1770's
and uncovered some 400 pamphlets on all sorts of writings that he reviewed --
treatises on political theory, essays on history, political arguments, sermons,
correspondence, poems and other literary devices. They were all expressions of
the kind of society the Framers lived in, and were exemplary of the
intellectual thought then permeating the American countryside at that time.
Those pamphlets and other literary devices were explanatory to a degree beyond
the FEDERALIST PAPERS, in so far as they reveal motives, undercurrent, and
understandings in addition to the known ideas and assumptions expressed on
world views at that time -- hence the ideological origins of the American
Revolution. <div>[568]
No explicit and blunt restrainments were made against the circulation of paper
currency media; no provision for the Bill of Rights restrainments to operate
irrespective of impending technology that otherwise alters factual settings not
originally contemplated when the Bill of Rights was drafted; [569]
[569]<div> Ben Franklin
once expressed reservations about certain features of the Constitution in
particular, and then encouraged its ratification as a whole; and so we too can
take a similar position:
"Mr. President: I confess that there are several parts of this
Constitution which I do not at present approve...
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all of
its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary
for us, and there is no form of Government, but what may be a blessing to the
people if well administered; ..."
-	Ben Franklin in 5 DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, James Madison, Editor, at page 554 [J.P. Lippincott &amp; Company,
Philadelphia (1863)].
<div>[569]
and then the Framers gave the King the blank check to nail Citizens to the wall
as taxable objects, a situation that did not exist with the ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION:
"Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution.
The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by
substituting a national Government, acting, with ample power, directly on the
Citizens, instead of the confederate Government, which acted with powers,
greatly restricted, only upon the States." [570]
[570]<div> IN RE DEBS,
158 U.S. 573, at 578 (1894).
<div>[570]
Notice how the Federal Government now operates with AMPLE POWER DIRECTLY ON THE
CITIZENS, which National Citizenship did not exist under the ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION. Our Founding Fathers wanted a National Government, and so now we
have got their largesse. [571]
[571]<div> "Experience
has made the fact known to the people of the United States that they required a
national Government for national purposes. The separate Governments of the
separate States, bound together by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION alone, were
not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in
respect to foreign nations, or to their complete protection as Citizens of the
United States, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; to themselves and their
prosperity, ordained and established the Government of the United States, and
defined its powers by a constitution, which they adapted as its fundamental
law, made its rule of action."
-	UNITED STATES VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 549 (1875).
<div>[571]
QUESTION: How does someone get rid of his Citizenship Contract without packing
their bags and leaving the United States physically, as the King would like his
little subjects to do? [572]
[572]<div> For
commentary on loss of Citizenship for any one of several reasons, see:
-	Lawrence Abramson in UNITED STATES LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP LAW AFTER
TERRAZAS: DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW, 16 New York University
Journal of International Law and Politics 29 (1984);
-	Terry Reicher in A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF INVOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION AND A TAXPAYER'S RIGHT TO
DISCLAIM CITIZENSHIP in 15 Vanderbuilt Journal of Transnational Law 123
(Winter, 1982). When money is at stake, Federal Judges have noted that all of a
sudden the traditional allure of possessing American Citizenship now suddenly
takes upon itself an unattractive dimension:
"... since United States Citizenship is considered by most to be a
prized status, it is usually the Government which claims that the Citizen has
lost it, over the vigorous opposition of the person facing the loss. In this
rare case the roles are reversed. Here the estate of a wealthy deceased United
States Citizen seeks to establish over the Government's opposition that she
expatriated herself. As might be suspected, the reason is several million
dollars in tax liability, which the estate might escape if it could sustain the
burden of showing that the deceased lost her United States Citizenship."
-	UNITED STATES VS. MATHESON, 532 F.2nd 809, at 811 (1976). The only
reason why folks want out of the reciprocal taxation demands of Citizenship is
because the cost of Citizenship is obviously, if given but a few moments
thought, for the null paltry value of the juristic benefits justifying it, not
worth the price tag that looters and Gremlins are demanding through their
juristic enrichment instrumentality, the King. Rather than snickering at
ex-Protestors who wised up a little, Federal Judges would be smart to start to
create remedies negating the unlawful use of the Legislature by looters and
Gremlins [of which dormant and forgotten Clauses now exist in the
Constitution], which is the true seminal point of origin as to why the
Countryside is now reacting negatively to avoid and terminate unreasonable
taxation demands not related to benefit equivalence. [Remember that your
consent, individually, is very important adhesive material in the formation of
contracts; see ASSENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN CONTRACT: AN ANALYSIS OF OBJECTIVE
STANDARDS IN CONTEMPORARY CONTRACT ADJUDICATION by Brian Blum, 59 St. John's
Law Review 1 (Fall, 1984); and it is this very POINT OF FORMATION in Contract
Law that needs to be correctly understood and handled, so that the contract can
be annulled properly.]
<div>[572]
ANSWER: The same way one gets rid of any other contract. [573]
[573]<div> Yes, such a
simple solution as that to remedy taxation ailments, and many folks will not
associate any significance to it. Sometimes the most profound circumstances in
life are not understood for what they really mean, as folks frequently fail to
correlate previous events that have already occurred as harbinger models that
foreshadow future events yet to make their appearance. ... For example,
previous circumstances, seemingly innocent, that once transpired in Downtown
San Francisco in 1969 regarding the construction of the Transamerica
Corporation pyramid office tower will one day be replicated synchronously all
across the United States. John Beckett, President of Transamerica Corporation,
wanted to build a 55-story high-rise on Montgomery Street to house the offices
of Transamerica. The announcement of the plans for the tower immediately
generated a heavy controversy locally; this was the Vietnam era where Bay area
protesting was in vogue. After making preliminary inquiries to San Francisco
planning and zoning officials, the building was downsized to 48 stories.
Numerous environmental groups (such as THE ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP), neighborhood
associations (such as the TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS ASSOCIATION), and other
assorted individuals (such as activist Alvin Daskin) just looking for something
tame to challenge -- let it be known that they disapproved of these plans.
Numerous other professional architectural groups from surrounding areas (such
as the CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS), otherwise
normally passive, also entered into this arena to throw their opposition
invectives at the proposed Transamerica Tower. Public interest attorneys (like
Peter A. Gunnufsen) filed lawsuits, attempting to seek judicial restraining
orders halting the construction on technical grounds relating to procedures
used by the City of San Francisco to transfer a public street to Transamerica.
During hearings held by city officials across the summer of 1969, protest
groups would hold vigils and march outside City Hall to express their dissent
from this heinous outrage. But Mayor Joseph Alioto and a majority of City
Supervisors wanted the high-rise to be built, as they made numerous references
to the $1000000 annual contribution this tower would be making to the San
Francisco tax rolls. A unique confluence of incentives came into focus at the
end of 1969 that pressured Transamerica President John Beckett to act in the
unusual, sneaky and clever way that he did, in order to get the tower built --
the same UNUSUAL, SNEAKY, and CLEVER ways that all Americans, and even the
entire world, will one day be very well acquainted with, but for very different
objectives: Because next time around, building a high-rise will not be the
objective.
For many years the California State Legislature in Sacramento had
encouraged insurance companies to locate home offices in California by allowing
them to deduct from their state income taxes whatever amount those companies
had paid in local property taxes on a headquarters building. This generous
state taxation statute contributed to San Francisco's status as the financial
center of the American West, and to the placement of several high-rises in San
Francisco's skyline. But this state statute was due to expire at the end of
1969 for buildings constructed after this date; and if John Beckett could not
get the SITE PERMIT issued and at least some construction started by December
31st, then his proposed high-rise would not qualify for the special $1000000
annual property tax deductions. The first day in December had arrived with the
City Supervisor's formal approval, but Transamerica still needed a SITE PERMIT,
which would permit ground to be broken and construction thereby to commence.
Time was running out, but John Beckett had a few ideas of his own. These were
very adversary proceedings he was swirling in, and with the opposition
ventilating their hot air, being determined to kill this project but dead --
that would be the opposition's way of making their STATEMENT. Going into the
first week of December, the paper work in City Hall to issue out a SITE PERMIT
was gaining momentum. The opposition, lead by lawyers, knew that their only
hope was to file a SITE PERMIT appeal, which would automatically delay
construction until another hearing on the Appeal could be heard in the
following year. However, such an appeal by the opposition could not be made
until the SITE PERMIT itself had first been issued. In early December, both
sides watched the paperwork going back and forth in City Hall, with the
opposition actually having arranged for observers to man the PERMIT desk and
the Montgomery Street construction site to watch for movements by Transamerica.
By mid-December, the permit paperwork had been completed, and the opposition
intensified its watch of City Hall like an English Hunting Dog at Full Point;
the opposition had their own plans to appeal the SITE PERMIT immediately after
its issuance to block construction until the following year -- but John Beckett
was playing his cards with an ace tucked up his sleeves, because when he had
hired Dinwiddie Construction Corporation to be the contractor on the building,
he had given them very special instructions. That long awaited December day
arrived when Transamerica decided it was ready to pick up the SITE PERMIT and
start construction on the Transamerica high-rise. One morning an unknown
representative of Dinwiddie Construction went to City Hall and made sure that
the SITE PERMIT was available for the asking, which it was. During the noon
lunch hour, a Transamerica corporate vice-president, dressed in farmer's
overall's, arrived at City Hall in an old pickup truck; he did not want his
true identity to be recognized by the opposition and their watchers. The VP
looked plain, he looked normal, he looked like an everyday type of ordinary Joe
-- why, he "... just couldn't possibly have nutin' to do with no big important
high-rise." Having picked up the SITE PERMIT undetected, he phoned ahead to
the construction supervisor, who was hiding in a restaurant across the street
from where the Transamerica Tower was to be built. The go-signal having been
received, all of a sudden a construction crew appeared at the Montgomery Street
site out of nowhere. Literally within minutes, heavy construction equipment
that had been quietly sneaked into Downtown San Francisco and hidden away under
covers in a nearby basement excavation, surfaced into the open and went to
work. To the cheers of the tiny crowd conducting the abbreviated groundbreaking
ceremonies, the bulldozer bit through the surface of the parking lot while
other construction equipment went to work excavating at the Transamerica site.
Just an hour later the same day, word came that a SITE PERMIT APPEAL had been
quickly filed -- but as exceptionally quick as the opposition was, they were
too late, as commencement of construction bars appeal.
[See: John Krizek [manager of Public Relations for Transamerica] in
PUBLIC RELATIONS JOURNAL ["How to Build a Pyramid"], at page 17 (December,
1970). The opposition lingered on even after construction started -- see
BUSINESS WEEK ["Beautiful Building of Inhuman Eyesore?"], page 41 (October 31,
1970). Clippings taken from the two local newspapers, the SAN FRANCISCO
CHRONICLE and the SAN FRANCISCO EXPRESS supplied the details herein, through
the HISTORY ROOM ["Transamerica File"] of the San Francisco Public Library].
... One day off in the future, this clever little harbinger act that John
Beckett once pulled off is going to happen al over again under circumstances
that the entire world will take rather strong notice of. Nothing will change
the next time around, other than that the desired end objective will be
different. Next time, instead of an American Corporate President like John
Beckett pulling off something quick and clever to get the upper hand over
adversaries, next time, a Russian General will be supervising the logistics.
Instead of heavy construction equipment being sneaked into urban areas and then
pulled out into the open quickly, next time heavy Russian tanks, personnel
carriers, and attack support equipment will come forth one day out of their
hiding places to roll down American streets to grab the police barracks and
nearby Army Base. Next time, instead of a handful of environmental activists
left scratching their heads, puzzled as to how John Beckett pulled off that
instant appearance of construction equipment -- next time all Americans will be
asking themselves the same question: How did they sneak in all of those tanks,
helicopters, and the like? Where did those SPACE PLATFORMS come from? Where
were all those tank stashed away? Yes, it is going to happen, just like John
Beckett has already made it happen once before on a small introductory scale in
San Francisco. Just like major media news correspondents -- those pathetic
little idiots -- expressing amazement on how well organized the North
Vietnamese were in their take-over of Saigon in April of 1975, folks who
actually rely on the caliber of such baneful judgement (like news
correspondents who were amazed that professional Gremlins actually knew what
they were doing), will also find themselves being amazed when we are next. The
only folks who are ever surprised by passing events are those who live most
distant from reality -- and a very good way to become removed from reality is
to rely on those incompetent clowns in the news media who were amazed that
professional Gremlins practicing COUPS D'ETAT for some 200 years might just
know what they are doing.
[I come down hard on Journalists for the same reason that I come down
hard on Lawyers: Both professions involve the presentation of intellectual
material to others; so when they mess up, then out comes my invectives.
However, when an everyday type of Joe SixPack messes up, I respond with
patience and instructional counseling. In contrast these Joe SixPacks do not
represent themselves as being professionals, so Joe SixPacks are not held to
the more stringent standards that Journalists and Lawyers seeking financial
compensation for their errors are held to.] The instant appearance of
construction crews that John Beckett pulled off was not even considered as a
factual possibility by this opponents; just like Russian opposition in the
United States [alleged tough cookie right-wing CONSERVATIVES self-perceiving
themselves as being pretty sharp politically] are not even considering the
factual possibility that Mikhail Gorbachev's superiors have already had planned
out long ago similar American domestic instant appearance circumstances in
extended and considerable detail. They fully intend to clean out the Gremlins
in Washington, as they have been setup [meaning provoked] to do under
attractive Bolshevik inducement. Nothing ever changes from one setting to the
next. Learning in a small way that getting out of an automobile lease contract
is accomplished by getting rid of the benefit acceptance by returning the car
physically to the owner, and not by filing worthless NOTICES OF RECESSION OF
CONTRACT, IN REM -- that is prepatory to learn that it is the same simple
solution to get out of the adhesive juristic reciprocity demanded under
Citizenship Contracts: Get rid of those benefits and stop snickering at Federal
Judges cracking defiled giblets. By not even considering the factual
possibility, however remote, that the tax prosecution defendant may himself be
in error, having listened to the distractions of Protestors talking about why
the Federal Government is not entitled to prevail due to multiple LEX
deficiencies of some type, the tax prosecution defendants finds himself exactly
where John Beckett's opponents once found themselves [and exactly where
CONSERVATIVES, so called, will also one day be finding themselves]: Out smarted
by adversaries who have a few ideas of their own, and for the same reason.
<div>[573]
But lawyers throwing technical arguments at Federal Judges in Tax and Draft
Protesting cases have never bothered to see Citizenship from the judicial
trajectory of benefits and retained reciprocity expectations, so lawyers have
never correctly handled Tax and Draft Protestors in counsel, and lawyers will
continue to throw technical arguments at Judges [just like Tax Protestors]
trying to explain why the King is wrong, until such time as the latent high
powered juristic velocity instrument of Citizenship is identified for what it
really is: A contract. [574]
[574]<div> Many
commentators have noted that the relational status of American Citizens to the
Federal Government today is quite similar to the relational status experienced
by SUBJECTS in the old monarchial days of the Kings of England. Even though
contemporary Americans are now called CITIZENS, many lost rights, benefits,
protections, together with unfairly skewed reciprocal duties and liabilities
that characterize the subparity relationship of old Britannic SUBJECTS, are in
effect today -- hence as well my characterization of the Executive Branch of
the United States as a KING.
One writer who elucidates very well on this status declension of Americans from
being CITIZENS holding the upper hand, down to SUBJECTS doing what they are
told and paying what they are told to pay, is Francis X. Hennessy in his book
about the 18th Amendment entitled CITIZENS OR SUBJECT? Even though Americans
are still called CITIZENS today in name [an initially impressive but
meaningless characterization substantively] the Kingly status that the American
Revolution of 1776 once created for us all [as the Supreme Court noted in
GEORGE VS. BRAILSFORD] has been reversed back to the Crown again, through the
devilish maneuverings of Gremlins. Back in the early American Colonial days the
political factions in America were split into WHIGS and TORIES -- and knowledge
of the philosophical distinction between the two is being withheld from
American high school history books here in the 1980's for a very good reason:
TORIES were sympathetic with the Aristocratic Class who simply had to have the
masses controllable and their pockets reachable for some looting; Tories do not
want a nation of CITIZENS, they want fleeceable SUBJECTS. Today, Tory
Aristocrats are filthy little creatures who want to use Juristic Institutions
to transfer money from your pockets to theirs. Where with the 18th Amendment,
Tories wanted to use the guns of Government to create PROHIBITION, so that they
could then practice commercial enrichment in the BLACK MARKET of elevated
prices and restricted competition that all exclusion monopolies creates. Some
of the most prominent American families had been sponsoring the WOMAN'S
CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE LEAGUE and other nominees using deceptive names, to
plaster the countryside with the noble and lofty sounding objectives of ridding
drunks from our society -- while all along the sponsors of PROHIBITION could
care less about drunks and merely wanted to experience the commercial
enrichment a BLACK MARKET creates. Today, other plant derivatives have replaced
alcohol in the statutes now creating another BLACK MARKET, while second and
third generational descendants of those same identical American families
smuggle cocaine and marijuana instead of bourbon. Today, a Tory sympathizer is
a jealous person who wants to be sure that everyone else is paying their taxes;
a Tory sympathizer is someone who is content with the STATUS QUO as it has been
brought to its present position by Gremlins, and has no desire to return to our
Father's quiescent STATUS QUO ANTE. A Tory sympathizer is a little dupe who
feels good about going off to a foreign country to fight a war -- because the
President says its Patriotic to do so. Yes, a Tory sympathizer plays into the
hands of Gremlins by giving them what they want -- as Gremlins want the
contemporary STATUS QUO, the foreign wars, and BLACK MARKETS they have created.
"Whenever Government exists, even Government limited to those powers
thought by its Citizens necessary to secure human liberty, the weakness of
human nature makes it certain that the exercise of granted powers will not
always be for the common benefit of the Citizens who grant them. When the
Government is the State and human beings its SUBJECTS, that weakness is usually
more apparent. As a result, in every country the rich and powerful largely
secure the actual control of the Government. That they may entrench themselves
in its control and exercise of even its lawful powers, they lavish favors on a
class actually large in number but comparatively constituting a small minority
of the people of the country. For this [Aristocratic] class, it is of material
advantage [to them] that Government should be the State and the people its
SUBJECTS. When a man is born or educated as a member of this [Aristocratic]
minority, it is beyond the experience of the human race that his mental
attitude should not regard the relation of SUBJECT to ruler as the proper
relation of human being to Government."
-	Francis X. Hennessy in CITIZEN OR SUBJECT? ["The Exiled Tory About To
Return"], at 235 [E.P. Dutton, New York (1923)]. Gremlins want such a KING TO
SUBJECT relational status in effect specifically for purposes of conquest and
furthering their own proprietary enrichment through taxation enstripment.
Francis Hennessy, an attorney and member of the New York State Bar, goes into
highly detailed factual recital of the circumstances surrounding the proposal
and later ratification of the 18th Amendment [the PROHIBITION AMENDMENT]. From
debates on the Floor of the Congress to the inner sanctums of Gremlin power,
Francis Hennessy chronicles out the impediments, headaches, and legal
difficulties the sponsors of the 18th Amendment had in 1917 trying to force
Prohibition on us all, by virtue of the fact that the United States
Constitution is a hybrid composite blend of NATIONAL and FEDERAL power, and
therefore requires different procedures to effectuate modifications, based on
the nature of the right being modified. This was one of the legal arguments
considered by the Supreme Court when the underlying legality of the 18th
Amendment itself came under attack [see THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION CASES, 253
U.S. 350 (1920)]. Because the nature of the right that the Congress was about
to deprive American Citizens of [the right to eat or drink anything they feel
like] was of a NATIONAL nature, the proposed 18th Amendment was worded in such
a way as to circumvent the Constitution's ARTICLE 5 CONVENTION requirement by
subtly commanding the States to first enact Prohibition legislation (see
Section 2 of the 18th Amendment). Yes, Gremlins are well-oiled experts at both
political circumvention, as well as running Citizens into the ground. A
devilishly brilliant MODUS OPERANDI that if not understood now, will be
understood in no uncertain terms when, during the impending CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION that is close to being called, Gremlins using slick Parliamentary
devices divert the floor proceedings away from the BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
over to discussing an entire new Constitution altogether -- THEIR Constitution.
All of a sudden, folks who thought they had the situation under control by
having State Legislatures self-restrict the content being discussed at that
Convention to consider only the proposed BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, will see
then that they were outsmarted by imps, as they will also be outsmarted by
either Mikhail Gorbachev or his successors, who have a few ideas of their own
on how to control Gremlins in Washington.
<div>[574]
As a point of beginning, contracts are entered into by the acceptance of
benefits, and they are terminated by the explicit disavowal rejecting benefits
[as I will explain later in the next section on Federal Reserve Notes]. And
Citizenship is one of the most important contracts the Judiciary takes Notice
of for purposes of perfecting taxation enstripment. [575]
[575]<div> But this
great revenue contract of Citizenship is also the greatest weakness the King
has, due to the dual stratified nature of American Juristic Institutions being
layered into State and Federal slabs. Because of this STATE TO FEDERAL satrapic
relational setting, the Federal Citizenship and State Citizenship are sourced
from different jurisdictional origins, and are separate and distinct legal
relationships. The weakness of Citizenship surfaces by reason of the fact that
our King is without and wanting jurisdiction to tax State Citizens [the King
acquires the requisite jurisdiction by consent, obtainable through several
channels]. Yes, there are numerous technical grounds for beating the King, as
well as fundamental grounds, but the entire orientation of such a defense
posture necessarily gravitates around the error present in an adversary -- not
a very secure way to win a battle, without having to turn around and keep
looking over your shoulder [always looking for some new LEX deficiency or Court
Opinion somewhere]. The remedy to these legal impediments (of which there are
quite a few), are more and more corrective slices of LEX being thrown into an
organic Title 26. The very fact that some Congress off in the 1990's enacts a
statute declaring that State Citizens are PERSONS adhered to Title 26,
automatically admits in inference that all previous income taxation dollars
collected by the King were illicitly looted -- absent express contracts.
...Eventually, this letter will filter down and circulate throughout the
corridors of prosecution officialdom [as the King does have his ears close to
the ground]; and if there is any Government attorney out there who can show me
where the King has the jurisdiction -- either Case Law or Statutory
pronouncements -- to tax State Citizens residing in the States, then please
come forth and now do so. I would like to see the citation that shows where
Title 26 applies to State Citizens residing in the several States. The right to
tax is the right to throw juristic benefits at folks creating invisible implied
contracts, and then turn around and demand financial reciprocity in return
pursuant to an ADHESION covenant therein. The King's Federal Jurisdiction is
necessarily limited to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United
States Congress -- meaning limited to Federal Employees, residents of the
District of Columbia and Federal Territories, and other Federal Enclaves.
QUESTION: Is that closed private domain of King's Commerce a Federal Enclave?
Is the acceptance of Federal protectorate benefits the creation of a situation
specific AD HOC Federal Enclave? I am not really interested in arguing those
questions, because I am not interested in probing for error in others. I would
rather vacate the acceptance of all Federal benefits from off of the record,
work the King into an immoral position of having made an Assessment in want of
a QUID PRO QUO equivalence having been exchanged, and then have an
administrative sandbagging effected on my Case: Because clean NO WIN Cases are
in fact dropped by the King's termites in the IRS -- who know when it's best to
throw in the towel, call it a day, and go chase after another piece of meat.
<div>[575]
And so it is the explicit rejection of juristic benefits that will sever the
adhesive reciprocal liability of King's Equity Jurisdiction that attaches
itself invisibly to everyone else.
So getting rid of your National Citizenship, while very important, is only a
first step, and there are numerous other invisible contracts that you need to
concern yourselves with, if you are to leave the Bolshevik Income Tax grab
without leaving any lingering illicit Equity trail behind you. [576]
[576]<div> In a limited
sense today, the relationship of the world's political jurisdictions to the
United Nations is somewhat structurally similar to the pre-1787 relationship in
effect between the various American State political jurisdictions and the
CONFEDERACY in Washington. The old CONFEDERACY back then had no serious taxing
power of any significance, and had to make financial requisitions to its member
States. There was no National American Citizenship back then that could enable
the national Government to bypass the States and go directly to the common
folks for money, either. That relational model is somewhat similar to what the
world's numerous political jurisdictions are involved with today in the United
Nations -- today the United Nations has no power to tax, makes financial
contribution requests to member Nations, and there is no World Citizenship.
With that modeling scenario in mind, consider the following: Citizenship is
known up and down the corridors of Gremlin power world wide as being a very
interesting adhesive source of Object Jurisdiction to loot. For example, even
if the atrophied remnants of the Rockefeller Cartel are unsuccessful in
convincing Americans to hand over their national Sovereignty to some world
Juristic Institution like the United Nations, then one of the ways that the ONE
WORLDERS could largely accomplish their Grand Objectives of global conquest
through global Government, is to stop trying to get the various national
Sovereignties throughout the world to forfeit over their Sovereignty (which
isn't very likely anyway), and just create an invisible attachment of Equity
Jurisdiction by creating World Citizenship. In bypassing individual regional
political jurisdictions this way [American Citizens are free to enter into
contracts with the United Nations, or any other political jurisdiction in the
world], income taxes and the like can be collected from its Citizens in
reciprocating exchange for some benefits that will be created; and with World
Citizenship in place, handy regulatory jurisdictions, licensing, and other
favorite Bolshevik enscrewment tools can be erected. Gremlins in the
Rockefeller Nest have already given this idea some thought; see an interview
with imp Robert Hutchins in THE CENTER MAGAZINE, ["What the World Needs Now is
Citizens"], page 23 (January/February, 1971). The Gremlin drive for World
Citizenship has been in gestation for some time; see EDUCATION FOR WORLD
CITIZENSHIP by William George Can [Stanford University Press, Stanford,
California (1928)]. Under the classical contours of INTERNATIONAL LAW, only
political jurisdictions were subjects accountable to it, and individuals were
simply not included; while the Nuremberg Trials changed all this on an AD HOC
basis, the status of people as being STRANGERS to INTERNATIONAL LAW continues
on down to the present day -- but when the adhesive Equity tentacles of World
Citizenship are nestled in place someday, the world's Gremlins will be ecstatic
on that grand impending day when an operation of the World Court reaches
through to individuals world wide, transparent to any prospectively beneficent
intervention on your behalf from any other jurisdiction [just like today when
your State will not intervene in any manner whatsoever on your behalf when
Federal Marshals come knocking on your door]. For a commentary on the
relational setting in effect between individuals and INTERNATIONAL LAW that is
neither critical nor justifying the enlargement of INTERNATIONAL LAW that took
place at Nuremberg, see THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ernst Schneedberger in 35 Georgetown Law Journal, 481
(1947). <div>[576]
</conspiracyFile>