Another invisible contract that is difficult to see is the
Residency Contract. By being "resident" within a particular
Kingdom for a certain length of time, it is presumed that you
have accepted those juristic benefits which that regional Prince
of yours is offering you.1 If the benefits are legitimate, then
the reciprocity your regional Prince expects back from you in
the form of a state income tax, is very reasonable, and the
Supreme Court has so ruled:
"(States) can tax the privilege of residence in the State and
measure the privilege by net income, including that derived from
interstate commerce." 2
The entire area of State Income Taxes lies generally outside of
Federal intervention, except to the narrow extent to which
several slices of restrainments resident in the United States
Constitution hem in your regional Prince;3 even more so, Tax
Protestors arguing philosophically doctrinaire and other
economic questions on State Taxation schemes are frequently
rebuffed by Federal Judges who defer the question back to the
States.4
The basic power of taxation is an attribute of Sovereignty, and
is inherent in every Government unless explicitly denied or
limited by its Constitution;5 (however, I am referring only to
the expectations of reciprocity inherent as Sovereignty in the
several States, and not the United States Government, which is a
very unique jurisprudential structure of the world's political
jurisdictions.) Properly rephrased, what that means is that the
jurisdiction of Government (remember during this Residency
Contract discussion, I am only talking about the several States)
to first throw benefits at folks, and then in turn demand and
get reciprocal taxation compensation back in return for having
done so, is simply unlimited -- unless the Juristic Institution
in its constitutional structure has been explicitly restrained
(limited) from asking for reciprocity back in return. And when
dealing with a State taxation scheme, we need to focus in on the
State's statutes and its Constitution, rather than the United
States Constitution, because as a general rule the States are
free to throw benefits at folks, and then demand and get
reciprocity back in return -- generally unhampered,
unencumbered, and unrestrained by the Federal Constitution.6
So the place to disable a State's expectations of reciprocity
has its seminal point of origin in the Juristic Institution's
own Charter -- and an examination of your regional Prince's
Charter will reveal that not very much reciprocity restrainment
exists there, if any.7
As this background legal setting applies to us, Residents are
objects accepting juristic benefits, and so now Residents are
PERSONS over which the State has reciprocal expectations of
taxation jurisdiction, largely unhampered by the Federal
Constitution, because you are a benefit acceptant object lying
within the contours of its geographical perimeters.8
So the State has some jurisdiction over you simply because you
are an object in that kingdom, however, whether or not that
level of jurisdiction ascends to the reciprocal level of
taxation jurisdiction when no benefits are being transferred
down to you, is another question.9
Now we ask ourselves the usual question: Just what benefits are
being thrown at us this time, in order to justify one more
juristic layer of taxation?10
As a point of beginning, Residents accept the benefits offered
by State Constitutions.11
The fact that a state conducts certain programs for its
Residents does not mean that these benefits are available to all
who live within its borders.12
Here in New York State, we open up the State Constitution no
farther that the first line in Article 1, Section 1, and we find
the recital of benefits the United States Supreme Court was
referring to:
"No member of this state shall be disenfranchised, or deprived
of any of these rights or privileges secured to any Citizen
thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his
peers..."
- NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, Article I, Section 1 ["Rights,
privileges, and franchise secured"] (1938).
Generally speaking, State Residents are State Citizens; and
Citizens, as members of the State body politic, possess election
rights of suffrage.13
Another benefit inuring to State Residents is the protectorate
operation of the State Police Powers.14
By the use if this power, a wide ranging array of benefits can
be thrown at folks in justification for the enforcement of the
reciprocal demands of taxation.15
But in addressing the Residency Question itself, which is a
sister to Citizenship, two Cases come to my mind:
- In COOK VS. TAIT,16
which is primarily a Citizenship Contract Case, the Supreme
Court ruled that income received by a Citizen of the United
States while resident in Mexico is taxable due to benefits
received while outside of the United States (the old acceptance
of benefits story: When benefits offered conditionally have
been accepted, there lies a contract and it becomes immoral not
to require a mandatory exchange of reciprocity). The Court then
listed those benefits that American Citizens carried with them
no matter what their geographical situs was.17
- In SHAFFER VS. CARTER,18
a Resident of Illinois was experiencing income from property he
owned in Oklahoma. It was held that Oklahoma can tax
non-Residents on their property located within the Oklahoma
boundary situs, and the reason is that protective benefits were
accepted by that Oklahoma property and so the state is entitled
to a part of the financial gain that property realized (which is
also a correct statement of Nature, although the Supreme Court
did not use those words.)19
The taxation key in both of those Cases was the acceptance of
benefits.20
Viewed from a Judge's perspective, what this means is that it is
permissible for a political jurisdiction to throw some benefits
at you, and then demand, and get, some QUID PRO QUO financial
compensation in return for having done so. In this respect, due
to Sovereignty, Governments differ from Individuals in the
respect that Individuals have to document with evidence the
voluntary acceptance of a benefit [of which silence, but the
RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, can be reasonably inferred in some
circumstances] from someone else before bringing that other
person to his knees in a Courtroom; Government, however, simply
throws benefits at everyone at large, and the acceptance of the
benefit by silence is automatically assumed absent explicit,
blunt, and timely benefit rejection and disavowal by you. The
several States as independent Sovereignties also possess this
inherent power, except as limited by the United States
Constitution.21
And so as it applies to occupancy, Residency Status is very much
a privilege in the sense that contracts are in effect; by your
silence, after talking occupancy in some Prince's kingdom, you
attached a reasonable expectation of using the Prince's police
protectorate powers, among taking advantage of other juristic
benefits; and so now state statutes that define a reciprocal
taxation liability being expected back in return after you have
lived in that kingdom for some 60 to 90 days, or whatever, and
then continues liability attachment unless you have been out of
his kingdom for more than six months in any one year, etc. are
all morally correct and provident.22
By your silence, benefits offered conditionally by your regional
Prince were accepted by you through your refusal to disavow
them, so invisible contracts where then and there created by
your acts (your act of refusing to reject and disavow the
juristic benefit).23
Therefore, State Income Tax Protestors, who merely make the
declaration, while in the midst of some type of state income tax
enforcement proceeding, that they "are not residents" or are not
"state citizens" are wasting their time.24
The fact that you may have recorded that declaration in a public
place, and may have also made the declaration timely, are not
relevant factual elements that inure to your advantage, since
the substance of your arguments is meaningless. Your Residency
Contract is not unilaterally terminated by your mere declaration
that you are not a Resident; contractual termination has to
occur for a good substantive reason. One such reason would be
Failure of Consideration (meaning, that you explicitly and
timely rejected all state and municipal benefits). Now that
there has been a failure of benefit transference, now you have a
substantive attack to make on the assertion of a Residency
Contract on you. Your objective is to terminate the contract.25
If you want to win your State Income Tax Cases, then do not
throw arguments sounding in the Tort of unfairness at the Judge;
do not pretend that the invisible contract does not exist, and
do not argue that it is unfair to hold such a contract against
you since either nothing "was signed" or that the Protestor baby
talk of "minimum contacts" or "nexus" required by the Supreme
Court in their line of State Jurisdiction Cases was not met (as
your physical household inhabitancy in that kingdom overrules
those types of questions designed to address factual settings
where Geography Jurisdiction itself is a disputed element).26
You must address the Contract question head on, that by the act
of your silence a Residency Contract was entered into, and you
must come to grips with that fact.27
The local state tax collector did not receive any Notice of your
Rejection of Benefits, so his assertion of a reciprocal tax
against you is provident, up to a limited point. And so winning,
on point, will be predicated upon your correctly addressing the
existence of the contract in arguments for what it really is,
and then attacking the content substantively on the hard
mandatory requirement of benefit enjoyment [which does not exist
in your Case due to Failure of Consideration], a defense line
that causes contracts so deficient in Consideration to fall
apart and collapse under attack in adversary judicial
proceedings. When trying to get out of contract where one of the
parties is a Juristic Institution, a few low-level Trial Judges
will find your position to be novel and philosophically
uncomfortable, and so you should brace yourself for some
snortations descending down to the floor of the Courtroom from
the Bench. I did not realize this at first, but some Judges are
actually jealous of people turning around so smoothly walking
away from a juristic taxation contract; the Judge went to Law
School, and then possibly went to work for a law firm, and then
they were called to be a Judge; in their minds they look back
and see all that money they threw out the window to Government
year after year only to wind up in the pockets of some Special
Interest Group, and here you are, actually GETTING AWAY WITH
what they did not know how to do themselves, and what is nowhere
documented in statutes.
1 "All these appellants, indeed, shared during the taxable year
the benefits of the expenditures by the State for the various
activities of its Government. As the trial judge pointed out,
the public schools were available to their children; they had
the benefit of police protection for themselves, their families
and their property; they could use the public roads daily; the
courts were open for resort by them if necessary; and so with
every other benefit and privilege provided by the State or its
agencies, such, for instance, as water supply and sewerage. They
entered upon the enjoyment of these benefits, and should be
liable to a share in the taxation levied to maintain them, in
the absence of any distinguishing factor in their situation."
WOOD VS. TAWES, 28 Atlantic 2nd 850, at 854 (1942).
Since we know that the acceptance of benefits locks folks into
contracts, we also know how to get out of unwanted contracts;
our distinguishing factor in our situation is going to be, of
course, a NOTICE OF REJECTION OF BENEFITS filed appropriately
and timely. Until benefits have been rejected, invisible
contracts are in effect and we are not entitled to prevail under
any circumstances. Here, in WOOD VS. TAWES, Residency Protestors
tried unsuccessfully to weasel out of state income taxes. This
WOOD VS. TAWES case was heard before by the Maryland Court of
Appeals -- but its reasoning and justification is very similar
to other state judges in all 50 states. Of those benefits that
are listed above, you should know that acceptance of the twin
state POLICE PROTECTION BENEFIT and AVAILABILITY OF THE STATE
COURTS BENEFIT are universally viewed by judges in all English
Common Law Countries world wide as being sufficient, all by
themselves, to lock folks into RESIDENCY CONTRACTS, as silence
by inhabitants is deemed acceptance of those particular juristic
benefits. In a nice way, this Maryland Court is trying to say:
You accepted those juristic benefits -- so pay the tax and stop
trying to be cheap. Yes, protestors are irritating to judges; so
let's reverse the factual setting presented for a grievance
settlement, and let's first work our adversaries into an immoral
position by vacating the transfer of juristic benefits to us.
Now, when the state tax commission asks for money, now that
there is no QUID PRO QUO equivalence on the record, now as a
moral question, we are entitled to prevail. However, if we have
kids going to public schools then we will not be able to get rid
of all benefits offered by the state, and our NOTICE OF
REJECTION OF BENEFITS means nothing since it is incomplete --
and we should not protest state income taxes while accepting
benefits, because we are not entitled to prevail.
2 FREEMAN VS. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, at 255 (1946).
3 "A state is free to pursue its own fiscal policies,
unembarrassed by the Constitution, if by the practical operation
of its power in relation to opportunities which it has given, to
protection which it has afforded, to benefits which it has
conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized society."
- WISCONSIN VS. J.C. PENNEY, 311 U.S. 435, at 444 (1940).
4 "... the economic wisdom of state net income taxes is one of
state policy not for our decision..."
- PORTLAND CEMENT VS. MINNESOTA, 359 U.S. 450, at 461 (1959).
5 "Before we proceed to examine [the Case's] argument, and
subject it to the test of the Constitution, we must be permitted
to bestow a few considerations on the nature and extent of this
original right of taxation, which is acknowledged to remain with
the states. It is admitted that the power of taxing the people
and their property is essential to the very existence of
Government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to
which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the
Government may choose to carry it. The only security against the
abuse of this power is found in the structure of Government
itself. In imposing a tax the legislature acts upon its
constituents. This is in general a sufficient security against
erroneous and oppressive taxation."
- M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316, at 428 (1819).
6 "On the other hand, the Constitution, by words, places no
limitation upon a state's power to tax the things or activities
or persons within its boundaries. What limitations there are
spring from applications to state tax situations of general
clauses of the Constitution."
- JOSEPH VS. CARTER & WEEKS, 330 U.S. 442, at 426 (1946).
7 "The power of taxation rests upon necessity and is inherent in
every independent State. It is as extensive as the range of
subjects over which the Government extends; it is absolute and
unlimited, in the absence of constitutional limitations and
restraints, and carries with it the power to embarrass and
destroy."
- TANNER VS. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 380, at 380 (1915).
8 "... the power of taxation is not confined to the people and
property of a state. If may be exercised upon every object
brought within its jurisdiction. This is true. But to what
source do we trace the right? It is obvious, that it is an
incident of Sovereignty."
- Joseph Story, in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 490
(Cambridge, 1833).
9 "The obligation of one domiciled with a state to pay taxes
there, arise from unilateral action of the state Government in
the exercise of its most plenary of sovereign powers, that to
raise revenue to defray the expenses of Government and to
distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its
benefits. Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for
taxation."
- LAWRENCE VS. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, at 279
(1931).
10 "Decisions of this Court, particularly during recent decades,
have sustained nondiscriminatory, properly apportioned state...
taxes... when the tax is related to... local [in-State]
activities and the State has provided benefits and protections
for those activities for which it is justified in asking a fair
and reasonable return."
- COMPLETE AUTO BODY VS. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274, at 287 (1976).
"The application of the rule will vary with the quality and
nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each
case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of conducting [commercial]
activities within this forum state, thus invoking the benefits
and protections of its laws."
- HANSON VS. DENCKLA, 357 U.S. 235, at 253 (1957).
"But to the extent that a [person] exercises the privilege of
conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and
protections of the laws of that state. The exercise of that
privilege may give rise to obligations..."
- INTERNATIONAL SHOE VS. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, at 319
(1945).
11 "A Sovereign may impose upon everyone domiciled within his
territory a personal tax, which is `the burden imposed by
Governments upon its own Citizens for the benefits what that
Government affords by its protection and its laws.' Any
domiciled person is subject to this tax, though he be an alien
or a corporation."
- Joseph Beale in JURISDICTION TO TAX, 32 Harvard Law Review
587, at 589 (1919).
12 The right to use certain state benefits often depends upon
whether the Resident can meet certain qualifications. See
generally, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS AFTER SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 70
Columbia Law Review 134 (1970).
13 "Every Citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election
for all officers elected by the people..."
- NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 1.
14 "The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of
every civilized Government, is exercised upon the assumption of
an equivalent rendered to the Taxpayer in the protection of his
person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or
in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which
he shares -- such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks,
pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the
taxing power be in no position to render these services, or
otherwise benefit the person or property taxed, and such
property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to
which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks
for protection, the taxation of such property within the
domicile of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an
extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court
to be beyond the power of the Legislature, and a taking of
property without due process of law."
- UNION REFRIGERATOR VS. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 195, at 202 (1905).
15
One manifestation of the operation of the Police Powers, so
called, is the creation of regulatory jurisdictions designed to
restrain color and race discrimination:
"... the police powers of a State under our Constitutional
system is adequate for the protection of the civil rights of its
Citizens against discrimination by reason of race or color."
- Justice Douglas in BOB-LO EXCURSION COMPANY VS. MICHIGAN, 333
U.S. 28, at 41 (1947).
By multiplying little slices of invisible benefits here and
there, States create a large array of benefits that are
impressive to Federal Judges -- and even the 14th Amendment
surfaces as an expression of Law in State Residency Contract
proceedings:
"Since the 14th Amendment makes one a Citizen of the state
where ever he resides, the fact of residence creates universally
recognized reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of
allegiance and support by the Citizen. The latter obviously
includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is
largely a political matter."
- MILLER BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954).
16 265 U.S. 47 (1924).
17 And just like the King can tax his Citizens when they have
asset streams out of the country, States can tax their Residents
on asset streams the Residents own outside the perimeters of the
State.
"A state may tax its residents upon net income from a business
whose physical assets, located wholly without the state, are
beyond its taxing power... That the receipt of income by a
resident of the territory of a taxing sovereignty is a taxable
event is universally recognized. Domicile itself affords a basis
for such taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence
[accepting residency benefits] and the attendant right to invoke
the protection of its laws [the police protectorate benefits,
contract enforcement benefits, and others], form responsibility
for sharing the costs of Government. `Taxes are what we pay for
civilized society...' See COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE
FILIPINAS VS. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [275 U.S. 87]. A tax
measured by net income of residents is an equitable method of
distributing the burdens of Government among those who are
privileged to enjoy its benefits."
- NEW YORK EX REL COHN VS. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, at 313 (1936)
[Statements were quoted out of order.].
18 252 U.S. 37 (1920)
19 "The [income] tax, which is apportioned to the ability of the
taxpayer to pay it, is founded upon the protection afforded by
the state to the recipient of the income in his person, in his
right to receive the income and in his enjoyment of it when
received. These are the rights and privileges which attach to
domicil within this state."
- NEW YORK EX REL COHN VS. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, at 313 (1936).
20
When arguing state taxation jurisdiction Cases before judges,
one of the permissible arguments to make is a subjective value
cost/benefit question. In listing some of the arguments that
could have been made by a Tax Protestor, but were not, the
Supreme Court said that:
"We note again that no claim is made that the activity is not
sufficiently connected to the State to justify a tax, or that
the tax is not fairly related to benefits provided the
taxpayer..."
- COMPLETE AUTO BOY VS. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274, at 287 (1976).
Incidentally, as a point of reference, the Constitution's
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE disables certain State Income Taxing
schemes from taking effect, under some limited conditions. See
UNITED STATES GLUE COMPANY VS. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321 (1917),
which discusses several such factual settings where challenged
State Income Taxing schemes were either affirmed or annulled on
questions that turned on the COMMERCE CLAUSE.
21 "We have had frequent occasion to consider questions of state
taxation in the light of the Federal Constitution, and the scope
and limits of national interference are well settled. There is
no general supervision on the part of the nation over state
taxation, and, in respect to the latter, the state has, speaking
generally, the freedom of a sovereign, both as to objects and
methods."
- MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD VS. POWERS, 201 U.S. 245, AT 292
(1905).
22 "... the `controlling question is whether the state has given
anything for which it can ask return.' Since by `the practical
operation of [the] tax the state has exerted its power in
relation to opportunities which it has given, to protection
which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred...' it
`is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the
Constitution...'"
- PORTLAND CEMENT VS. MINNESOTA, 358 U.S. 450, at 465 (1959).
23 "And we deem it clear, upon principles as well as authority,
that... a State may impose general income taxes upon its own
Citizens and residents whose persons are subject to its
control..."
- SHAFFER VS. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 52 (1919).
24 Whether or not RESIDENTS of a state are automatically
classifiable as STATE CITIZENS varies based on several factors;
sometimes these two words mean the same thing, and sometimes
they do not. Although a light reading of the 14th Amendment
would lead folks to believe that residents are Citizens of the
state wherein they reside, there is a distinction in effect
between "resident" and "Citizen":
"Of course the terms `resident' and `citizen' are not
synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important [like
in] (LA TOURETTE VS MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465, at 470 (1918))."
- TRAVIS VS. YALE & TOWNE, 252 U.S. 60, at 78 (1919).
For purposes of analyzing a taxation scheme under the PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment, the terms RESIDENT
and CITIZEN are essentially interchangeable; see AUSTIN VS. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 420 U.S. 656, footnote 8 (1974).
However unequal the Government benefit distribution skew is
between these two classifications, important for the moment, for
taxation purposes RESIDENTS are equally taxable objects like
CITIZENS.
25 There is a distinction between the termination of a contract,
and the repudiation of contract. REPUDIATION is to reject,
disclaim, or renounce a duty or obligation that is owed to
another party -- since the retention of the benefits derived
from the operation of the contract continues the life of the
contract in effect. To repudiate a contract is to merely give
advance notice to the other party that you intend to breach the
contract for some reason [see UCC 2-708 "SELLER'S DAMAGES FOR
NON-ACCEPTANCE OR REPUDIATION" and 2-711 "BUYER'S REMEDIES IN
GENERAL," see also Samuel Williston in REPUDIATION OF CONTRACTS,
14 Harvard Law Review 421 (1900).] In contrast to that, to
TERMINATE a contract is to end and cease the existence of the
contract altogether [see UCC 2-106 "DEFINITIONS: `CONTRACT',...
`TERMINATION'"]. Under TERMINATION, all rights, duties, and
obligations arising between the parties cease altogether, and
there are no lingering reciprocal expectations retained by
either party.
26 And geography was very much disputed in 1959 when, as
Governor, Nelson Rockefeller gave his taxing grab one more turn
of the screws to Parties of the New York State Personal Income
Tax -- as this time, Residents of New Jersey, who work in New
York City and pay New York Income Taxes as the reciprocity for
the use of the Commerce Jurisdiction of New York State, decided
to take matters into their own hands. They persuaded U.S.
Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey to introduce a proposed
Constitutional amendment into the Congress in March of 1959
which would have prohibited the several States from taxing the
income of non-Residents. Although Nelson Rockefeller's tax
increase was the catalytic trigger for initiating this
amendment, however, as is usually the case the truth itself is
obscure and difficult to find, because during Hearings held in
Congress, emphasis was shifted over to paint a larger regional
picture of an "unfairness" taxation problem by pointing to the
double taxation of New Jersey Residents both by New York and
also by Pennsylvania for those who commuted into Philadelphia.
During Senate Hearings, the question arose as to how to protect
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New York from
the prospective loss of revenue -- revenue that was generated
from such non-Residents [certain people seemed very concerned
that Nelson Rockefeller not be deprived of so much as one thin
dime of tax money to spend]. Would there be any reciprocating
QUID PRO QUO that New Jersey would yield in exchange for
financial benefits lost to New York State?
"The reciprocal exemption of New York residents from a New
Jersey income tax on nonresidents working in New Jersey might
well constitute sufficient QUID PRO QUO."
- Senator Clifford Case in HEARINGS BEFORE... THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, page 17 ["Constitutional
Amendment: Taxation By States of Nonresidents"], 86th Congress,
First Session, April, 1959; acting on Senate Joint Resolutions
29 and 67 [GPO, Washington (1959)].
As we turn around from a juristic situs on political arguments
made in Congress, over to the unbridled snortations
disseminating outward from a Federal Judge's Courtroom, nothing
changes either, as the same PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that Judges hold
errant Tax Protestors to [that your expected QUID PRO QUO
reciprocity is mandatory when juristic benefits were accepted by
you], also applies to nullify prospective opposition to
political arguments. By Senator Case's identification in advance
of the QUID PRO QUO that New York State would be gaining if this
amendment gets Ratified, the impending opposition of this
amendment by New York State is placed into a known expected
manageable mode -- a strategic model for handling grievances
that Tax and Draft Protestors would be wise to consider adapting
into their MODUS OPERANDI of errant defiance. Through this
Letter, I have identified certain key benefits that Federal
Judges have their eyes fixated on when signing a Commitment
Order to a Federal Penitentiary on Tax and Draft Protesting
Cases. Your failure to nullify, in advance, the Principle of
BENEFITS ACCEPTED/RECIPROCITY NOW DEMANDED in the arguments of
your impending adversaries, will prove to be self-detrimental,
as this PRINCIPLE OF NATURE can and will make an appearance in
any setting. And if you do win on some off-point technical
grounds, your apparent victory will be carrying over with a
lingering illicit savor. Secondary consequences will also be
created in the wake of having deflected attention off to the
side while the true reason for winning that particular battle
remains obscured, and also by having been deprived of the
important intellectual benefits associated with battles that are
fought and won/lost on their merits. Failure to identify the
true cause of a battle loss or win is to render the efforts
expended on behalf of your battle largely naught, and leaves a
person's judgment no better off coming out of the battle than
they were when first going into it.
27 The power to tax, the power to throw benefits at folks and
then demand, and get, financial reciprocity:
"... is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-existensive with
that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the
sovereign power of a State extends, are objects of taxation; but
those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest of
principles, exempt from taxation."
- M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316, at 429 (1819).
