textfiles-politics/regexConspTest/incon013.xml

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

<p> THE RESIDENCY CONTRACT
[Pages 553-565]</p>

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

<p>Another invisible contract that is difficult to see is the Residency Contract.
By being "resident" within a particular Kingdom for a certain length of time,
it is presumed that you have accepted those juristic benefits which that
regional Prince of your's is offering you. [732]</p>

<p>[732]============================================================= "All these
appellants, indeed, shared during the taxable year the benefits of the
expenditures by the State for the various activities of its Government. As the
trial judge pointed out, the public schools were available to their children;
they had the benefit of police protection for themselves, their families and
their property; they could use the public roads daily; the courts were open for
resort by them if necessary; and so with every other benefit and privilege
provided by the State or its agencies, such, for instance, as water supply and
sewerage. They entered upon the enjoyment of these benefits, and should be
liable to a share in the taxation levied to maintain them, in the absence of
any distinguishing factor in their situation."
WOOD VS. TAWES, 28 Atlantic 2nd 850, at 854 (1942). Since we know that
the acceptance of benefits locks folks into contracts, we also know how to get
out of unwanted contracts; our distinguishing factor in our situation is going
to be, of course, a NOTICE OF REJECTION OF BENEFITS filed appropriately and
timely. Until benefits have been rejected, invisible contracts are in effect
and we are not entitled to prevail under any circumstances. Here, in WOOD VS.
TAWES, Residency Protestors tried unsuccessfully to weasel out of state income
taxes. This WOOD VS. TAWES case was heard before by the Maryland Court of
Appeals -- but its reasoning and justification is very similar to other state
judges in all 50 states. Of those benefits that are listed above, you should
know that acceptance of the twin state POLICE PROTECTION BENEFIT and
AVAILABILITY OF THE STATE COURTS BENEFIT are universally viewed by judges in
all English Common Law Countries world wide as being sufficient, all by
themselves, to lock folks into RESIDENCY CONTRACTS, as silence by inhabitants
is deemed acceptance of those particular juristic benefits. In a nice way, this
Maryland Court is trying to say: You accepted those juristic benefits -- so pay
the tax and stop trying to be cheap. Yes, protestors are irritating to judges;
so let's reverse the factual setting presented for a grievance settlement, and
let's first work our adversaries into an immoral position by vacating the
transfer of juristic benefits to us. Now, when the state tax commission asks
for money, now that there is no QUID PRO QUO equivalence on the record, now as
a moral question, we are entitled to prevail. However, if we have kids going to
public schools then we will not be able to get rid of all benefits offered by
the state, and our NOTICE OF REJECTION OF BENEFITS means nothing since it is
incomplete -- and we should not protest state income taxes while accepting
benefits, because we are not entitled to prevail.
=============================================================[732]</p>

<p>If the benefits are legitimate, then the reciprocity your regional Prince
expects back from you in the form of a state income tax, is very reasonable,
and the Supreme Court has so ruled:</p>

<p>"(States) can tax the privilege of residence in the State and measure
the privilege by net income, including that derived from interstate commerce."
[733]</p>

<p>[733]============================================================= FREEMAN VS.
HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, at 255 (1946).
=============================================================[733]</p>

<p>The entire area of State Income Taxes lies generally outside of Federal
intervention, except to the narrow extent to which several slices of
restrainments resident in the United States Constitution hem in your regional
Prince; [734]</p>

<p>[734]============================================================= "A state is
free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution, if
by the practical operation of its power in relation to opportunities which it
has given, to protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has
conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized society."
-WISCONSIN VS. J.C. PENNEY, 311 U.S. 435, at 444 (1940).
=============================================================[734]</p>

<p>even more so, Tax Protestors arguing philosophically doctrinaire and other
economic questions on State Taxation schemes are frequently rebuffed by Federal
Judges who defer the question back to the States. [735]</p>

<p>[735]============================================================= "... the
economic wisdom of state net income taxes is one of state policy not for our
decision..."
-PORTLAND CEMENT VS. MINNESOTA, 359 U.S. 450, at 461 (1959).
=============================================================[735]</p>

<p>The basic power of taxation is an attribute of Sovereignty, and is inherent in
every Government unless explicitly denied or limited by its Constitution; [736]</p>

<p>[736]============================================================= "Before we
proceed to examine [the Case's] argument, and subject it to the test of the
Constitution, we must be permitted to bestow a few considerations on the nature
and extent of this original right of taxation, which is acknowledged to remain
with the states. It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their
property is essential to the very existence of Government, and may be
legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost
extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The only security
against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of Government itself.
In imposing a tax the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is in
general a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."
-M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316, at 428 (1819).
=============================================================[736]</p>

<p>(however, I am referring only to the expectations of reciprocity inherent as
Sovereignty in the several States, and not the United States Government, which
is a very unique jurisprudential structure of the world's political
jurisdictions.) Properly rephrased, what that means is that the jurisdiction
of Government (remember during this Residency Contract discussion, I am only
talking about the several States) to first throw benefits at folks, and then in
turn demand and get reciprocal taxation compensation back in return for having
done so, is simply unlimited -- unless the Juristic Institution in its
constitutional structure has been explicitly restrained (limited) from asking
for reciprocity back in return. And when dealing with a State taxation scheme,
we need to focus in on the State's statutes and its Constitution, rather than
the United States Constitution, because as a general rule the States are free
to throw benefits at folks, and then demand and get reciprocity back in return
-- generally unhampered, unencumbered, and unrestrained by the Federal
Constitution. [737]</p>

<p>[737]============================================================= "On the
other hand, the Constitution, by words, places no limitation upon a state's
power to tax the things or activities or persons within its boundaries. What
limitations there are spring from applications to state tax situations of
general clauses of the Constitution."
-JOSEPH VS. CARTER &amp; WEEKS, 330 U.S. 442, at 426 (1946).
=============================================================[737]</p>

<p>So the place to disable a State's expectations of reciprocity has its seminal
point of origin in the Juristic Institution's own Charter -- and an examination
of your regional Prince's Charter will reveal that not very much reciprocity
restrainment exists there, if any. [738]</p>

<p>[738]============================================================= "The power
of taxation rests upon necessity and is inherent in every independent State. It
is as extensive as the range of subjects over which the Government extends; it
is absolute and unlimited, in the absence of constitutional limitations and
restraints, and carries with it the power to embarrass and destroy."
-TANNER VS. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 380, at 380 (1915).
=============================================================[738]</p>

<p>As this background legal setting applies to us, Residents are objects accepting
juristic benefits, and so now Residents are PERSONS over which the State has
reciprocal expectations of taxation jurisdiction, largely unhampered by the
Federal Constitution, because you are a benefit acceptant object lying within
the contours of its geographical perimeters. [739]</p>

<p>[739]============================================================= "... the
power of taxation is not confined to the people and property of a state. If may
be exercised upon every object brought within its jurisdiction. This is true.
But to what source do we trace the right? It is obvious, that it is an incident
of Sovereignty."
-Joseph Story, in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 490
(Cambridge, 1833).
=============================================================[739]</p>

<p>So the State has some jurisdiction over you simply because you are an object in
that kingdom, however, whether or not that level of jurisdiction ascends to the
reciprocal level of taxation jurisdiction when no benefits are being
transferred down to you, is another question. [740]</p>

<p>[740]============================================================= "The
obligation of one domiciled with a state to pay taxes there, arise from
unilateral action of the state Government in the exercise of its most plenary
of sovereign powers, that to raise revenue to defray the expenses of Government
and to distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits.
Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation."
-LAWRENCE VS. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, at 279 (1931).
=============================================================[740]</p>

<p>Now we ask ourselves the usual question: Just what benefits are being thrown at
us this time, in order to justify one more juristic layer of taxation? [741]</p>

<p>[741]============================================================= "Decisions
of this Court, particularly during recent decades, have sustained
nondiscriminatory, properly apportioned state... taxes... when the tax is
related to... local [in-State] activities and the State has provided benefits
and protections for those activities for which it is justified in asking a fair
and reasonable return."
-COMPLETE AUTO BODY VS. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274, at 287 (1976). "The
application of the rule will vary with the quality and nature of the
defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act
by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of
conducting [commercial] activities within this forum state, thus invoking the
benefits and protections of its laws."
-HANSON VS. DENCKLA, 357 U.S. 235, at 253 (1957). "But to the extent
that a [person] exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a
state, it enjoys the benefits and protections of the laws of that state. The
exercise of that privilege may give rise to obligations..."
-INTERNATIONAL SHOE VS. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, at 319 (1945).
=============================================================[741]</p>

<p>As a point of beginning, Residents accept the benefits offered by State
Constitutions. [742]</p>

<p>[742]============================================================= "A Sovereign
may impose upon everyone domiciled within his territory a personal tax, which
is 'the burden imposed by Governments upon its own Citizens for the benefits
what that Government affords by its protection and its laws.' Any domiciled
person is subject to this tax, though he be an alien or a corporation."
-Joseph Beale in JURISDICTION TO TAX, 32 Harvard Law Review 587, at
589 (1919). =============================================================[742]</p>

<p>The fact that a state conducts certain programs for its Residents does not mean
that these benefits are available to all who live within its borders. [743]</p>

<p>[743]============================================================= The right to
use certain state benefits often depends upon whether the Resident can meet
certain qualifications. See generally, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS AFTER SHAPIRO VS.
THOMPSON, 70 Columbia Law Review 134 (1970).
=============================================================[743]</p>

<p>Here in New York State, we open up the State Constitution no farther that the
first line in Article 1, Section 1, and we find the recital of benefits the
United States Supreme Court was referring to:</p>

<p>"No member of this state shall be disenfranchised, or deprived of any
of these rights or privileges secured to any Citizen thereof, unless by the law
of the land, or the judgment of his peers..."
-NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, Article I, Section 1 ["Rights,
privileges, and franchise secured"] (1938).</p>

<p>Generally speaking, State Residents are State Citizens; and Citizens, as
members of the State body politic, possess election rights of suffrage. [744]</p>

<p>[744]============================================================= "Every
Citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by
the people..."
-NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 1.
=============================================================[744]</p>

<p>Another benefit inuring to State Residents is the protectorate operation of the
State Police Powers. [745]</p>

<p>[745]============================================================= "The power
of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized Government, is
exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the Taxpayer in the
protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property,
or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares --
such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for
the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render
these services, or otherwise benefit the person or property taxed, and such
property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be
said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation
of such property within the domicile of the owner partakes rather of the nature
of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be
beyond the power of the Legislature, and a taking of property without due
process of law."
-UNION REFRIGERATOR VS. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 195, at 202 (1905).
=============================================================[745]</p>

<p>By the use if this power, a wide ranging array of benefits can be thrown at
folks in justification for the enforcement of the reciprocal demands of
taxation. [746]</p>

<p>[746]============================================================= One
manifestation of the operation of the Police Powers, so called, is the creation
of regulatory jurisdictions designed to restrain color and race discrimination:
"... the police powers of a State under our Constitutional system is
adequate for the protection of the civil rights of its Citizens against
discrimination by reason of race or color."
-Justice Douglas in BOB-LO EXCURSION COMPANY VS. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S.
28, at 41 (1947). By multiplying little slices of invisible benefits here and
there, States create a large array of benefits that are impressive to Federal
Judges -- and even the 14th Amendment surfaces as an expression of Law in State
Residency Contract proceedings:
"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).
=============================================================[746]</p>

<p>But in addressing the Residency Question itself, which is a sister to
Citizenship, two Cases come to my mind:</p>

<p>-In COOK VS. TAIT, [747]</p>

<p>[747]============================================================= 265 U.S. 47
(1924). =============================================================[747]</p>

<p>which is primarily a Citizenship Contract Case, the Supreme Court ruled that
income received by a Citizen of the United States while resident in Mexico is
taxable due to benefits received while outside of the United States (the old
acceptance of benefits story: When benefits offered conditionally have been
accepted, there lies a contract and it 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. [748]</p>

<p>[748]============================================================= And just
like the King can tax his Citizens when they have asset streams out of the
country, States can tax their Residents on asset streams the Residents own
outside the perimeters of the State.
"A state may tax its residents upon net income from a business whose
physical assets, located wholly without the state, are beyond its taxing
power... That the receipt of income by a resident of the territory of a taxing
sovereignty is a taxable event is universally recognized. Domicile itself
affords a basis for such taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence
[accepting residency benefits] and the attendant right to invoke the protection
of its laws [the police protectorate benefits, contract enforcement benefits,
and others], form responsibility for sharing the costs of Government. 'Taxes
are what we pay for civilized society...' See COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE
FILIPINAS VS. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [275 U.S. 87]. A tax measured by
net income of residents is an equitable method of distributing the burdens of
Government among those who are privileged to enjoy its benefits."
-NEW YORK EX REL COHN VS. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, at 313 (1936)
[Statements were quoted out of order.].
=============================================================[748]</p>

<p>-In SHAFFER VS. CARTER, [749]</p>

<p>[749]============================================================= 252 U.S. 37
(1920) =============================================================[749]</p>

<p>a Resident of Illinois was experiencing income from property he owned in
Oklahoma. It was held that Oklahoma can tax non-Residents on their property
located within the Oklahoma boundary situs, and the reason is that protective
benefits were accepted by that Oklahoma property and so the state is entitled
to a part of the financial gain that property realized (which is also a correct
statement of Nature, although the Supreme Court did not use those words.)
[750]</p>

<p>[750]============================================================= "The
[income] tax, which is apportioned to the ability of the taxpayer to pay it, is
founded upon the protection afforded by the state to the recipient of the
income in his person, in his right to receive the income and in his enjoyment
of it when received. These are the rights and privileges which attach to
domicil within this state."
-NEW YORK EX REL COHN VS. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, at 313 (1936).
=============================================================[750]</p>

<p>The taxation key in both of those Cases was the acceptance of benefits. [751]</p>

<p>[751]============================================================= When arguing
state taxation jurisdiction Cases before judges, one of the permissible
arguments to make is a subjective value cost/benefit question. In listing some
of the arguments that could have been made by a Tax Protestor, but were not,
the Supreme Court said that:
"We note again that no claim is made that the activity is not
sufficiently connected to the State to justify a tax, or that the tax is not
fairly related to benefits provided the taxpayer..."
-COMPLETE AUTO BOY VS. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274, at 287 (1976).
Incidentally, as a point of reference, the Constitution's INTERSTATE COMMERCE
CLAUSE disables certain State Income Taxing schemes from taking effect, under
some limited conditions. See UNITED STATES GLUE COMPANY VS. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S.
321 (1917), which discusses several such factual settings where challenged
State Income Taxing schemes were either affirmed or annulled on questions that
turned on the COMMERCE CLAUSE.
=============================================================[751]</p>

<p>Viewed from a Judge's perspective, what this means is that it is permissible
for a political jurisdiction to throw some benefits at you, and then demand,
and get, some QUID PRO QUO financial compensation in return for having done so.
In this respect, due to Sovereignty, Governments differ from Individuals in the
respect that Individuals have to document with evidence the voluntary
acceptance of a benefit [of which silence, but the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, can
be reasonably inferred in some circumstances] from someone else before bringing
that other person to his knees in a Courtroom; Government, however, simply
throws benefits at everyone at large, and the acceptance of the benefit by
silence is automatically assumed absent explicit, blunt, and timely benefit
rejection and disavowal by you. The several States as independent Sovereignties
also possess this inherent power, except as limited by the United States
Constitution. [752]</p>

<p>[752]============================================================= "We have had
frequent occasion to consider questions of state taxation in the light of the
Federal Constitution, and the scope and limits of national interference are
well settled. There is no general supervision on the part of the nation over
state taxation, and, in respect to the latter, the state has, speaking
generally, the freedom of a sovereign, both as to objects and methods."
-MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD VS. POWERS, 201 U.S. 245, AT 292 (1905).
=============================================================[752]</p>

<p>And so as it applies to occupancy, Residency Status is very much a privilege in
the sense that contracts are in effect; by your silence, after talking
occupancy in some Prince's kingdom, you attached a reasonable expectation of
using the Prince's police protectorate powers, among taking advantage of other
juristic benefits; and so now state statutes that define a reciprocal taxation
liability being expected back in return after you have lived in that kingdom
for some 60 to 90 days, or whatever, and then continues liability attachment
unless you have been out of his kingdom for more than six months in any one
year, etc. are all morally correct and provident. [753]</p>

<p>[753]============================================================= "... the
'controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can
ask return.' Since by 'the practical operation of [the] tax the state has
exerted its power in relation to opportunities which it has given, to
protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred...' it 'is
free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution...'"
-PORTLAND CEMENT VS. MINNESOTA, 358 U.S. 450, at 465 (1959).
=============================================================[753]</p>

<p>By your silence, benefits offered conditionally by your regional Prince were
accepted by you through your refusal to disavow them, so invisible contracts
where then and there created by your acts (your act of refusing to reject and
disavow the juristic benefit). [754]</p>

<p>[754]============================================================= "And we deem
it clear, upon principles as well as authority, that... a State may impose
general income taxes upon its own Citizens and residents whose persons are
subject to its control..."
-SHAFFER VS. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 52 (1919).
=============================================================[754]</p>

<p>Therefore, State Income Tax Protestors, who merely make the declaration, while
in the midst of some type of state income tax enforcement proceeding, that they
"are not residents" or are not "state citizens" are wasting their time. [755]</p>

<p>[755]============================================================= Whether or
not RESIDENTS of a state are automatically classifiable as STATE CITIZENS
varies based on several factors; sometimes these two words mean the same thing,
and sometimes they do not. Although a light reading of the 14th Amendment would
lead folks to believe that residents are Citizens of the state wherein they
reside, there is a distinction in effect between "resident" and "Citizen":
"Of course the terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous, and
in some cases the distinction is important [like in] (LA TOURETTE VS MCMASTER,
248 U.S. 465, at 470 (1918))."
-TRAVIS VS. YALE &amp; TOWNE, 252 U.S. 60, at 78 (1919). For purposes of
analyzing a taxation scheme under the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE of the
14th Amendment, the terms RESIDENT and CITIZEN are essentially interchangeable;
see AUSTIN VS. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 420 U.S. 656, footnote 8 (1974). However unequal
the Government benefit distribution skew is between these two classifications,
important for the moment, for taxation purposes RESIDENTS are equally taxable
objects like CITIZENS.
=============================================================[755]</p>

<p>The fact that you may have recorded that declaration in a public place, and may
have also made the declaration timely, are not relevant factual elements that
inure to your advantage, since the substance of your arguments is meaningless.
Your Residency Contract is not unilaterally terminated by your mere declaration
that you are not a Resident; contractual termination has to occur for a good
substantive reason. One such reason would be Failure of Consideration (meaning,
that you explicitly and timely rejected all state and municipal benefits). Now
that there has been a failure of benefit transference, now you have a
substantive attack to make on the assertion of a Residency Contract on you.
Your objective is to terminate the contract. [756]</p>

<p>[756]============================================================= There is a
distinction between the termination of a contract, and the repudiation of
contract. REPUDIATION is to reject, disclaim, or renounce a duty or obligation
that is owed to another party -- since the retention of the benefits derived
from the operation of the contract continues the life of the contract in
effect. To repudiate a contract is to merely give advance notice to the other
party that you intend to breach the contract for some reason [see UCC 2-708
"SELLER'S DAMAGES FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE OR REPUDIATION" and 2-711 "BUYER'S
REMEDIES IN GENERAL," see also Samuel Williston in REPUDIATION OF CONTRACTS, 14
Harvard Law Review 421 (1900).] In contrast to that, to TERMINATE a contract
is to end and cease the existence of the contract altogether [see UCC 2-106
"DEFINITIONS: 'CONTRACT",... 'TERMINATION'"]. Under TERMINATION, all rights,
duties, and obligations arising between the parties cease altogether, and there
are no lingering reciprocal expectations retained by either party.
=============================================================[756]</p>

<p> If you want to win your State Income Tax Cases, then do not throw arguments
sounding in the Tort of unfairness at the Judge; do not pretend that the
invisible contract does not exist, and do not argue that it is unfair to hold
such a contract against you since either nothing "was signed" or that the
Protestor baby talk of "minimum contacts" or "nexus" required by the Supreme
Court in their line of State Jurisdiction Cases was not met (as your physical
household inhabitancy in that kingdom overrules those types of questions
designed to address factual settings where Geography Jurisdiction itself is a
disputed element). [757]</p>

<p>[757]============================================================= And
geography was very much disputed in 1959 when, as Governor, Nelson Rockefeller
gave his taxing grab one more turn of the screws to Parties of the New York
State Personal Income Tax -- as this time, Residents of New Jersey, who work in
New York City and pay New York Income Taxes as the reciprocity for the use of
the Commerce Jurisdiction of New York State, decided to take matters into their
own hands. They persuaded U.S. Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey to introduce
a proposed Constitutional amendment into the Congress in March of 1959 which
would have prohibited the several States from taxing the income of
non-Residents. Although Nelson Rockefeller's tax increase was the catalytic
trigger for initiating this amendment, however, as is usually the case the
truth itself is obscure and difficult to find, because during Hearings held in
Congress, emphasis was shifted over to paint a larger regional picture of an
"unfairness" taxation problem by pointing to the double taxation of New Jersey
Residents both by New York and also by Pennsylvania for those who commuted into
Philadelphia. During Senate Hearings, the question arose as to how to protect
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New York from the prospective
loss of revenue -- revenue that was generated from such non-Residents [certain
people seemed very concerned that Nelson Rockefeller not be deprived of so much
as one thin dime of tax money to spend]. Would there be any reciprocating QUID
PRO QUO that New Jersey would yield in exchange for financial benefits lost to
New York State?
"The reciprocal exemption of New York residents from a New Jersey
income tax on nonresidents working in New Jersey might well constitute
sufficient QUID PRO QUO."
-Senator Clifford Case in HEARINGS BEFORE... THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, page 17 ["Constitutional Amendment: Taxation By
States of Nonresidents"], 86th Congress, First Session, April, 1959; acting on
Senate Joint Resolutions 29 and 67 [GPO, Washington (1959)]. As we turn around
from a juristic situs on political arguments made in Congress, over to the
unbridled snortations disseminating outward from a Federal Judge's Courtroom,
nothing changes either, as the same PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that Judges hold errant
Tax Protestors to [that your expected QUID PRO QUO reciprocity is mandatory
when juristic benefits were accepted by you], also applies to nullify
prospective opposition to political arguments. By Senator Case's identification
in advance of the QUID PRO QUO that New York State would be gaining if this
amendment gets Ratified, the impending opposition of this amendment by New York
State is placed into a known expected manageable mode -- a strategic model for
handling grievances that Tax and Draft Protestors would be wise to consider
adapting into their MODUS OPERANDI of errant defiance. Through this Letter, I
have identified certain key benefits that Federal Judges have their eyes
fixated on when signing a Commitment Order to a Federal Penitentiary on Tax and
Draft Protesting Cases. Your failure to nullify, in advance, the Principle of
BENEFITS ACCEPTED/RECIPROCITY NOW DEMANDED in the arguments of your impending
adversaries, will prove to be self-detrimental, as this PRINCIPLE OF NATURE can
and will make an appearance in any setting. And if you do win on some off-point
technical grounds, your apparent victory will be carrying over with a lingering
illicit savor. Secondary consequences will also be created in the wake of
having deflected attention off to the side while the true reason for winning
that particular battle remains obscured, and also by having been deprived of
the important intellectual benefits associated with battles that are fought and
won/lost on their merits. Failure to identify the true cause of a battle loss
or win is to render the efforts expended on behalf of your battle largely
naught, and leaves a person's judgment no better off coming out of the battle
than they were when first going into it.
=============================================================[757]</p>

<p>You must address the Contract question head on, that by the act of your silence
a Residency Contract was entered into, and you must come to grips with that
fact. [758]</p>

<p>[758]============================================================= The power to
tax, the power to throw benefits at folks and then demand, and get, financial
reciprocity:
"... is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-existensive with that to
which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a State
extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are,
upon the soundest of principles, exempt from taxation."
-M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316, at 429 (1819).
=============================================================[758]</p>

<p>The local state tax collector did not receive any Notice of your Rejection of
Benefits, so his assertion of a reciprocal tax against you is provident, up to
a limited point. And so winning, on point, will be predicated upon your
correctly addressing the existence of the contract in arguments for what it
really is, and then attacking the content substantively on the hard mandatory
requirement of benefit enjoyment [which does not exist in your Case due to
Failure of Consideration], a defense line that causes contracts so deficient in
Consideration to fall apart and collapse under attack in adversary judicial
proceedings. When trying to get out of contract where one of the parties is a
Juristic Institution, a few low-level Trial Judges will find your position to
be novel and philosophically uncomfortable, and so you should brace yourself
for some snortations descending down to the floor of the Courtroom from the
Bench. I did not realize this at first, but some Judges are actually jealous of
people turning around so smoothly walking away from a juristic taxation
contract; the Judge went to Law School, and then possibly went to work for a
law firm, and then they were called to be a Judge; in their minds they look
back and see all that money they threw out the window to Government year after
year only to wind up in the pockets of some Special Interest Group, and here
you are, actually GETTING AWAY WITH what they did not know how to do
themselves, and what is nowhere documented in statutes.</p>

</xml>