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.1
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].2
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.3
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.4 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,5 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.6
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.7
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.8 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.9
There is no single place I can point folks to and say "Here,
Citizens, are your benefits."10 Even listings of benefits in the
dicta of Supreme Court rulings are fractured and incomplete.11
And the Congress is largely the same.12 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;13 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.14 Some benefits of
Citizenship are proprietary and the distribution of those
benefits are limited to identifiable groups, for example, such
as the elective franchise.15 Some other benefits inuring to
Citizens of the United States are, in general, the protection of
United States Marshals.16
Yes, all Citizens accept the protectorate benefits offered by
the United States Marshal Service.17 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.18 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.19
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.20 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.21
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.22
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.23
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.24 But just where do 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..."25
So just where do Federal Judges get the idea that Citizens are
PERSONS under contract, suitable for a smooth Federal taxation
shake down?26 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.27
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.28 And the Code of Federal
Regulations is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of the text of the
original documents.29
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."30
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.31
The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is also another source of
identifying handouts and benefits offered to Citizens.32
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.33
Who are those individuals? For starters, they are those
Individuals who don't accept any benefits or handouts from the
King.34
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.35
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."36
Yes, Citizenship is very much a contract, and Federal Judges
generally think in contract terms when dealing with a Tax or
Draft Protestor.37 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?38
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.39
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 26.40
The idea of using the King's Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship
a the point of adhesion to tax individuals goes far back into
antiquity.41 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.42 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.43
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,44 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.45
Our Fathers fell for that "ability to pay" reasoning then, just
like most folks today continue to fall for that same line
today.46
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,47 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.48
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.49 Felix Rexach was a native born
Puerto Rican, who acquired statutory American Citizenship by
virtue of the Jones Act of 1917.50 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 1952.51 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.52
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.53 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.54 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. TAIT55 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."56
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."57
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;58 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.59
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.60
What happens to Citizens who reject the King's benefits? They
become Denizens.61
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.62
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:63 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;64 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."65
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.66
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?67
ANSWER: The same way one gets rid of any other contract.68
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.69
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.70 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.71
1 "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.
2 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.
3 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. & O.H. Morrison, Washington (1868)].
4 "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).
5 347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954).
6 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.
7 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 stories 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?
8 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).
9 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)].
10 The same frustrations and headaches that I have gone through
trying to get at the very bottom of just what those specific
benefits are that the King is offering to his Citizens, is the
same frustration [if FRUSTRATION is the word] that others have
experienced in the past -- because the definition of American
Citizenship and the correlative concise presentation of the
benefits of American Citizenship, simply does not exist. In a
previous day and era, an Attorney General of the United States
once expressed similar reservations:
"Who is a Citizen? What constitutes a Citizen of the United
States? I have often been pained by the fruitless search in our
law books and the records of the courts, for a clear and
satisfactory definition of the phrase CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES. I find no such definition, no authoritative
establishment of the meaning of the phrase, neither by a course
of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and
consentaneous action of the different branches of our political
Government. For aught I see to the contrary, the subject is now
as little understood in its details and elements, and the
question as open to arguments and speculative criticism, as it
was at the beginning of the Government. Eighty years of
practical enjoyment of Citizenship, under the Constitution, have
not sufficed to teach us either the exact meaning of the word,
or the constituent elements of the thing we prize so highly."
- Edward Bates, United States Attorney General ["Citizenship"],
in 10 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 382 at 383 [W.H. & O.H.
Morrison, Washington (1868)].
The reason why I have had such headaches getting to the very
bottom of Citizenship is because the King's boys 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].
11 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.
12 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)].
13 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.
14 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).
15 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.
16 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.
17 "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.
18 To this extent, United States Marshals are somewhat like the
old Roman Centurions, who protected Roman Citizens from murder
and other dangers originating from attack Gremlins:
"... the ruling power at Rome, whether Republican or imperial,
granted, from time to time, to communities and to individuals in
the conquered East, the Title of ROMAN, and the rights of Roman
Citizens.
"A striking example of this Roman naturalization, of its
controlling authority as a political law, and of its beneficent
power to protect a persecuted Citizen, may be found in the case
of Saint Paul, as it is graphically reported in the ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES. Paul, being at Jerusalem, was in great peril of his
life from his countrymen... who accused him of crimes against
their own law and faith, and were about to put him to death by
mob violence, when he was rescued by the commander of the Roman
troops, and taken into a fort for security. [Paul] first
explained, both to the Roman officer and to his own countrymen,
who were clamoring against him, his local status and municipal
relations; that he was... of Tarsus, a natural born Citizen, of
no mean city, and that he had been brought up in Jerusalem, in
the strictest manner, according to the law and faith of his
fathers. But this did not appease the angry crowd, who were
proceeding with great violence to kill him. And then:
"the Chief Captain [of the Jews] commanded that he be brought
into the castle, and bade that he should be EXAMINED BY
SCOURGING, that is, tortured to enforce confession.
"And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the
Centurion that stood by, `Is it lawful for you to scourge a man
that is A ROMAN AND UnConDEMNED?' When the Centurion heard
THAT, he went out and told the Chief Captain, saying, take heed
what thou doest, FOR THIS MAN IS A ROMAN. Then the Chief Captain
came and said, `Tell me, art thou a ROMAN?' [Paul] said yea;
and the Chief Captain said, `With a great sum obtained I THIS
FREEDOM.' And Paul said, `But I was FREE BORN.' Then
straightaway THEY departed from him which should have examined
him. And the Chief Captain also was afraid, after he knew that
[Paul] was a ROMAN, and because [Paul] had BOUND HIM."
"Thus Paul, under circumstances of great danger and obloquy,
asserted his immunity, as "a Roman unCondemned," from
ignominious constraint and cruel punishment, a constraint and
punishment against which, as a mere provincial subject of Rome,
he had no legal protection. And thus the Roman officers
instantly, and with fear, obeyed the law of their country and
respected the sacred franchise of the Roman Citizen.
"Paul, as we know by this record, was a natural born Citizen of
Tarsus, and as such, no doubt, had the municipal freedom of that
city; but that would not have protected him against the throngs
and the lash. How he became a Roman we learn from other
historical sources. Caesar granted to the people of Tarsus (for
some good service done, probably for taking his side in the war
which resulted in the establishment of the Empire) the title of
Roman, and the freedom of Roman Citizens. And, considering the
chronology of events, this grant must have been older than Paul;
and therefore he truly said `I WAS FREE BORN' - a free Citizen
of Rome, and as such exempt by law from degrading punishment.
"And this immunity did not fill the measure of his rights as a
Citizen. As a Roman, it was his right to be tried by the Supreme
Authority, at the Capital of the Empire. And when he claimed
that right, and appealed from the jurisdiction of the provincial
governor to the Emperor of Rome, his appeal was instantly
allowed, and he was remitted to `Caesar's judgment'."
- Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in
["Citizenship"], 10 Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at 392,
[W.H. & O.H. Morrison, Washington (1868)].
19 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.
20 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)].
21 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."
22 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.
23 "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).
24 "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).
25 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 $2,500 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"].
26 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"].
27 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.
28 44 United States Code 1507.
29 44 United States Code 1510.
30 26 CFR 1.0-1(b) and 1.0-1(c); (1985).
31 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).
32 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 & 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 & 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.
33 "... 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).
34 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 & 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 & Company, New
York (1904)];
- Melvin Risa in CITIZENSHIP "Theories on the Obligations of
Citizens to the State," Thesis, [University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia (1921)];
- Ansaldo Ceba in CITIZENSHIP "Rights, Duties, and Privileges
of Citizens" [Paine & Burgess, New York (1845)].
35 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].
36 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).
37 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].
38 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.
39 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 of
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..."
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, frequently 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.
40 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].
41 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].
42 "... 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).
43 Surrey reviews this in his article entitled CURRENT ISSUES IN
THE TAXATION OF CORPORATE FOREIGN INCOME, 56 Columbia Law Review
815, at 817 (1956).
44 "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).
45 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.
46 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.
47 265 U.S. 47 (1924).
48 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.
49 FELIX REXACH VS. UNITED STATES, 390 F.2nd 631 (1968).
50 Title 48, Section 731, et seq.
51 Title 8, Section 1481(c).
52 "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.
53 REXACH, id., at 631.
54 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).
55 265 U.S. 47 (1924).
56 REXACH, id., at 632.
57 REXACH, id., at 632.
58 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)].
59 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.
60 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.
61 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.
62 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) >and which is taking place
in the United States today<, her impending adversary, Germany,
was building an attack naval fleet -- and not for the claimed
purpose of "safeguarding of the Empire's coasts," but for
military attack purposes. Throwing deceptions at planned
adversaries to lull them asleep is extensively used by Gremlins
as a pre-War tool, just like Lucifer's deceptive withholding of
factual information from his imp assistants on the existence of
Covenants in effect with Father overruling his Tort damages
justifications, is a war measure.
Mark my words this day in 1985: The more that glowing
statements are made about missile treaties and arms reduction
agreements between Russia and the United States, the closer the
two are to outright war. When the news media tries to emphasize
the importance of some new "breakthrough" missile agreement, the
more imminent are the open hostilities. Remember, Gremlins never
change a successful MODUS OPERANDI, -- and they deem lulling you
to sleep to be very important.
..This Second Estate is very much adversarial in nature, and
all of the rules applicable to deception used by Gremlins in war
will be found incorporated by Lucifer in his SUB ROSA attacks on
your impending embryo Celestial Status. And whatever is
necessary to get folks to bypass their own good judgment and
sense of positive responsibility, however momentarily
uncomfortable, and rely instead upon the more comforting passive
inactivity and nonchalant judgment of others that ALL IS WELL IN
IGNORANCE, will be done -- it is being done politically by
Americans generally ignoring numerous visible signs of an
impending domestic military invasion and correlative secondary
internal damages that will occur in its wake; and it is being
done Spiritually by getting folks to ignore and toss aside any
concern for a known impending Judgment and replacing that
concern with the more comforting sugar-coated assurance that,
yes, since they have accepted Jesus Christ, they will be Saved,
and they don't need concern themselves with anything else --
some hokey religion out there -- baah.
63 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.
64 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 & Company, Philadelphia (1863)].
65 IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 573, at 578 (1894).
66 "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 posterity, 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).
67 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.]
68 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 $1 million annual contribution this
tower would be making to the San Francisco tax rolls. A unique
confluence of incentives came into focus at the end of 1969 that
pressured Transamerica President John Beckett to act in the
unusual, sneaky and clever way that he did, in order to get the
tower built -- the same UNUSUAL, SNEAKY, and CLEVER ways that
all Americans, and even the entire world, will one day be very
well acquainted with, but for very different objectives:
Because next time around, building a high-rise will not be the
objective.
For many years the California State Legislature in Sacramento
had encouraged insurance companies to locate home offices in
California by allowing them to deduct from their state income
taxes whatever amount those companies had paid in local property
taxes on a headquarters building. This generous state taxation
statute contributed to San Francisco's status as the financial
center of the American West, and to the placement of several
high-rises in San Francisco's skyline. But this state statute
was due to expire at the end of 1969 for buildings constructed
after this date; and if John Beckett could not get the SITE
PERMIT issued and at least some construction started by December
31st, then his proposed high-rise would not qualify for the
special $1 million annual property tax deductions. The first day
in December had arrived with the City Supervisor's formal
approval, but Transamerica still needed a SITE PERMIT, which
would permit ground to be broken and construction thereby to
commence. Time was running out, but John Beckett had a few ideas
of his own. These were very adversary proceedings he was
swirling in, and with the opposition ventilating their hot air,
being determined to kill this project but dead -- that would be
the opposition's way of making their STATEMENT. Going into the
first week of December, the paper work in City Hall to issue out
a SITE PERMIT was gaining momentum. The opposition, lead by
lawyers, knew that their only hope was to file a SITE PERMIT
appeal, which would automatically delay construction until
another hearing on the Appeal could be heard in the following
year. However, such an appeal by the opposition could not be
made until the SITE PERMIT itself had first been issued. In
early December, both sides watched the paperwork going back and
forth in City Hall, with the opposition actually having arranged
for observers to man the PERMIT desk and the Montgomery Street
construction site to watch for movements by Transamerica. By
mid-December, the permit paperwork had been completed, and the
opposition intensified its watch of City Hall like an English
Hunting Dog at Full Point; the opposition had their own plans to
appeal the SITE PERMIT immediately after its issuance to block
construction until the following year -- but John Beckett was
playing his cards with an ace tucked up his sleeves, because
when he had hired Dinwiddie Construction Corporation to be the
contractor on the building, he had given them very special
instructions. That long awaited December day arrived when
Transamerica decided it was ready to pick up the SITE PERMIT and
start construction on the Transamerica high-rise. One morning an
unknown representative of Dinwiddie Construction went to City
Hall and made sure that the SITE PERMIT was available for the
asking, which it was. During the noon lunch hour, a Transamerica
corporate vice-president, dressed in farmer's overall's, arrived
at City Hall in an old pickup truck; he did not want his true
identity to be recognized by the opposition and their watchers.
The VP looked plain, he looked normal, he looked like an
everyday type of ordinary Joe -- why, he "... just couldn't
possibly have nutin' to do with no big important high-rise."
Having picked up the SITE PERMIT undetected, he phoned ahead to
the construction supervisor, who was hiding in a restaurant
across the street from where the Transamerica Tower was to be
built. The go-signal having been received, all of a sudden a
construction crew appeared at the Montgomery Street site out of
nowhere. Literally within minutes, heavy construction equipment
that had been quietly sneaked into Downtown San Francisco and
hidden away under covers in a nearby basement excavation,
surfaced into the open and went to work. To the cheers of the
tiny crowd conducting the abbreviated groundbreaking ceremonies,
the bulldozer bit through the surface of the parking lot while
other construction equipment went to work excavating at the
Transamerica site. Just an hour later the same day, word came
that a SITE PERMIT APPEAL had been quickly filed -- but as
exceptionally quick as the opposition was, they were too late,
as commencement of construction bars 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 or 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.
69 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.
70 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.
71 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).
