August 17, 2019

What Are The Benefits Of U.S. Citizenship

 I N V I S I B L E   C O N T R A C T S

                         George Mercier

                    THE CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT

                         [Pages 386-434]

Next, we turn now and discuss a layer of invisible contract that

is rarely addressed, thought of, or treated as the pure contract

that it is really is:  National Citizenship.  [506]


"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.


As a point of beginning, it is perhaps most easy to think of

Citizenship in terms of joining a Country Club:  You sign up, pay

dues, enjoy the benefits offered by the House, you elect

management, and you are exposed to liability to be fined for no

more than technical infractions to House Rules [without any

damages].  [507]


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.


The procedure for entering into a Country Club Membership contract

differs quite a bit from the Citizenship Contract, in the sense

that while trying to join a Country Club, you first have to go to

the Management, present credentials, and then request Membership;

whereas with the King, everyone is presumed automatically to be

Members, and so now you have to argue your Case that you are not a

Member.  [508]


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)].


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.



"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



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



347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954).


stands for the proposition that States derive their taxing and

regulatory jurisdiction from the 14th Amendment -- a particularly

stupid conclusion to arrive at since such a statement means that

prior to the 14th Amendment there were no State taxes or

regulatory jurisdictions; and that is a factually defective point

of beginning to commence any legal analysis.  [511]


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



This view of legal liability propagated by Protestors is baneful,

and replicates the MODUS OPERANDI of Lucifer when he propagates to

his students many things which are technically accurate of and by

themselves, but then he teaches expansive conclusions which are

defective.  Lucifer counsels his followers to get ready to justify

their actions at the Last Day, an alluring preventative move that

intellectuals find brilliant and intriguing background advice; so

now Lucifer has their attention.  [512]


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 wound 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


  "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?


Then Lucifer continues on (also quite technically correct), that

all of their behavior down here should be so organized as to be

"justifiable" before Father at the Last Day; this too is correct,

as Father will be soliciting our feelings at the Last Day.  But

just one tiny problem surfaces for the world's Gremlins to

consider as they dance the jig in ecstacy over the prospects of

being able to get away with murder, mischief, and mayhem down

here:  An invisible Contract that Father extracted out of us all

before we came down here.  So yes, although you can "justify" your

acts to Father if you want to, that justification is not relevant

to Father in his judgment decision making.  Only the terms of the

Contract will be of interest to Father; and back in the First

Estate, everyone was once on their knees before Father, uttering

from their own tongues, in a Heavenly angelic language we all

spoke then, the terms of the Contract we all would later be judged

by.  So, yes, you will be given the opportunity to justify your

abominations before Father if you want to, but your justifications

sounding in Tort are not going to be taken into consideration by

Father and you Gremlins out there are damaging and deceiving

yourselves.  And in a very similar way, many Tax Protestors are

coaching their followers to concern themselves with the 14th

Amendment -- a very accurate and correct statement, of and by

itself.  [513]


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


Georgetown Law Journal 448 (1937).


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,


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.



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


  -  Stephen Conrad discussing the views of one of our Founding


  REPUBLICAN THEORY, 8 Supreme Court Review at 383 [University

  of Chicago Press, Chicago (1984)].


There is no single place I can point folks to and say "Here,

Citizens, are your benefits."  [515]


The same frustrations and headaches that I have gone through

trying to get at the very bottom of just what those specific

benefits are that the 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].


Even listings of benefits in the dicta of Supreme Court rulings

are fractured and incomplete.  [516]


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.


And the Congress is largely the same.  [517]


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


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)].


Some of the juristic benefits that the King is offering to his

Citizens originate in the Constitution, where these benefits are

inferred by Federal Judges from certain wording and phrases in

that Majestic Document; [518]


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.


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.



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


  "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


  -  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).


Some benefits of Citizenship are proprietary and the distribution

of those benefits are limited to identifiable groups, for example,

such as the elective franchise.  [520]



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.


Some other benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States are,

in general, the protection of United States Marshals.  [521]


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.


Yes, all Citizens accept the protectorate benefits offered by the

United States Marshal Service.  [522]


"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


  -  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.


And unlike your local Police Department, when you call up the U.S.

Marshals and request their security assistance, generally they

will not bark, snap, or snort at you for doing so.  [523]


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


  "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


  -  Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in

  ["Citizenship"], 10 Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at

  392, [W.H. & O.H. Morrison, Washington (1868)].


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.



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.


  -  CITIZENSHIP by Edward Borehard, Thesis [Columbia

  University, New York (1914)], discussing the diplomatic

  protection of American Citizens abroad; refers to the AMERICAN


  -  United States Department Publication, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT


  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.


As for the 14th Amendment, the reason why the 14th Amendment as a

stand-alone line of Status defense is patently frivolous is

because all Citizens accept benefits that the King is offering,

and the classification by Tax Protestors of Citizens into

different categories, when benefits are being accepted by all

Citizens regardless of classification, is baneful.  [525]


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.



  STATES, 1 Michigan Law Review 286 (1902);


  OF STATE CITIZENSHIP [John Hopkins Press, Baltimore (1918)];


  [Columbia University Press, New York (1913)].


Claiming that you are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a PREAMBLE CITIZEN

with a special reciprocity exempt status to avoid that irritating

QUID PRO QUO ("something for something") payment of an

unreasonable enscrewment oriented Income Tax, is foolishness, and

you are not entitled to prevail under any circumstances before a

Federal Judge.  [526]


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


  "The very conception of a just Government and its duty to the

  Citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the Citizen to

  render military service in case of need and the right to

  compel it."

  -  SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245 U.S. 366, at 378 (1917).

The reason why the obligation is reciprocal is because the King is

first offering to you the protectorate services of his bouncers.

The reciprocal and contractual nature of Citizenship is recognized

in Congress as such.  When debates on the proposed 14th Amendment

transpired in the Senate, Senator Trumbull stated his

understanding that:

  "This Government... has certainly some power to protect its

  own Citizens in their own country.  Allegiance and protection

  are reciprocal rights."

  -  CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, at page

  1757 (1866).


The reason why self-proclaimed PREAMBLE CITIZENS and COMMON LAW

CITIZENS, so called, are properly burdened with the heavy QUID PRO

QUO reciprocity of the Income Tax is that all Citizens accept and

enjoy the protectorate benefits previously discussed that the King

is offering, so all Citizens accept Federal benefits.  Yes,

Citizens under the 14th Amendment have additional contracts in

effect (stemming from the additional benefits that the 14th

Amendment offers), that they need to concern themselves with --

but all Citizens accept those other Federal benefits as well, and

so all Citizens are operating under the King's Equity Jurisdiction

of the United States, and are appropriate objects for the

assertion of a regulatory and taxation environment over, through

contract terms.  [527].


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.


I would advise you to terminate your reliance on information

originating from people who lace excessive priority attention on

the 14th Amendment Citizenship question, as their stand-alone

arguments are without any merit whatsoever for purposes of

detaching yourself away from Federal Taxation liability.  [528]


"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


  -  UNITED STATES VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).


Above, I listed some of the benefits that all Citizens of the

United States enjoy; and this is important since Federal Judges

always view things from a "What benefit has this fellow accepted?"

attitude.  [529]


"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).


But just where does the King and the Federal Judges get off with

the idea that Citizenship, all by itself, attaches liability to

Title 26?  Nowhere in Title 26 is there any concise discussion

about how Citizens are those Persons identified in Section 7203

("Willful Failure to File") as being one of "all persons who are

required to file..."  [530]


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


  -  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


  -  Section 911 ["Citizens or residents of the United States

  living abroad"];

  -  Section 932 ["Citizens of possessions of the United


  -  Section 933 ["Income from sources within Puerto Rico"];

  -  Section 1302 ["Definition of averagable income"];

  -  Section 1444 ["Withholding on Virgin Islands source


  -  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


  -  Section 7408 ["Action to enjoin promoters of abusive tax


See also Title 42:

  -  Section 410 ["Definitions relating to employment"];

  -  Section 411 ["Definitions relating to self-employment"];

  -  Section 8143 ["Definitions"].


So just where do Federal Judges get the idea that Citizens are

PERSONS under contract, suitable for a smooth Federal taxation

shake down?  [531]


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


  -  Title 26, Section 2001 ["Imposition and Rate of Tax"].


The answer lies by probing a level deeper into the King's

statutes, into an area Patriots and Tax Protestors do not seem to

be pursuing that much:  Into the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

which operate as junior statutes.  [532]


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


Part 50 deals with WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES.


The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is a codification of the general

and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the

Executive Department and by agencies of the United States.  The

Code is very powerful indeed (remember to always think like a

Federal Judge momentarily for analytical purposes, so you don't

react like a surprised clown when dragged into their courtroom on

a grievance with someone), and the contents of the Code of Federal

Regulations (like it's father, the Federal Register) are required

to be judicially noticed.  [533]


44 United States Code 1507.


And the Code of Federal Regulations is also PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

of the text of the original documents.  [534]


44 United States Code 1510.


This CFR is republished once each year, so the following

quotations, extracted from the 1985 edition, may have been altered

in future editions.  With that in mind, consider the following

words from the CFR:

  "In general, all Citizens of the United States, wherever

  resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the

  income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is

  received from sources within or without the United States...

  "Every person born or naturalized in the United States and

  subject to its jurisdiction is a Citizen."  [535]


26 CFR 1.0-1(b) and 1.0-1(c); (1985).


So you see for Citizens IN GENERAL, Federal Judges have already

quietly taken Judicial Notice of the fact that your Citizenship is

an invisible contract to pay Income Taxes -- but what if you are

not a Citizen GENERALLY speaking [meaning, like everyone else, by

their silence they have accepted Citizenship benefits].  By having

vacated the factual record of any benefits having been accepted,

by striping the factual record of any QUID PRO QUO of equivalence

exchanged, that factual setting is no longer GENERAL and ordinary,

now it is SPECIAL and extraordinary, where if the King makes any

revenue collection attempt, you have him worked into an immoral

position.  Yes, Citizenship is a contract in the classical sense,

since benefits offered conditionally were accepted, and where

expectations of reciprocity were retained by the benefit

contributor -- it's all there.  [536]


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


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.



THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ["Inalienability and Citizenship"], 85

Columbia Law Review 931, at 961 (1985).


The CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS is also another source of

identifying handouts and benefits offered to Citizens.  [537]


I have decided to list each of the PARTS of the 1985 CODE OF

FEDERAL REGULATIONS, since in this way a quick glimpse starts to

uncover the wide-ranging extent of impressive 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


  -  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


  -  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


  -  Part 26:  Internal Revenue;

  -  Part 27:  Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- regulatory


  -  Part 28:  Judicial Administration -- Federal Prisons

               (concentration camps);

  -  Part 29:  Department of Labor -- grants and handouts;

  -  Part 30:  Mineral Resources -- Mine Safety regulations --


  -  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


  -  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


  -  Part 48:  Federal Acquisition Regulatory System -- Federal


  -  Part 49:  Transportation;

  -  Part 50:  Wildlife and Fisheries -- Department of the

               Interior -- fishing, hunting in National Forests,

               wildlife management.


And the Judicial Notice, taken quietly IN CAMERA, that the

Citizenship Contract is the contract being operated on, is never

pronounced publicly in an open courtroom forum.  Does that last

sentence I quoted from the CFR about how every person born or

naturalized in the United States seem familiar to you?  It should,

because it comes straight out of the 14th Amendment, with only one

word being changed.  And read it carefully, as there is admitted a

class of individuals, here residing in the United States as a

matter of birthright, who might not be subject to the total

jurisdiction of the United States Government.  [538]


"... 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).


Who are those individuals?  For starters, they are those

Individuals who don't accept any benefits or handouts from the

King.  [[539]


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:


  DUTIES [Pudney & Russell, New York (1857)];


  STATES [University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1934)];

  -  Albert Brill in TEN LECTURES ON CITIZENSHIP [Ascendancy

  Foundation, New York (1938)];



  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)].


Despite the fact that I say a few isolated nice things about

Federal Judges (with the applicability of my favorable comments

being restricted to just a few limited grievance factual settings

Federal Judges preside over), I am unable to recall any Federal

Case that correctly talks about Citizenship as the pure, raw

contract that it very much is; yet it's all there in Citizenship,

all of the indicia that composes a contract:  Benefits offered, as

well as their acceptance, reciprocity expected back in return, and

all this all written out in advance in specific and blunt terms in

Federal Statutes.  [540]


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].


Why then does the Supreme Court not correctly address Citizenship

as the contract that it really is?  I don't know why, precisely; I

could conjecture that they do not want to publish an exemplary

Case, explaining in the context of a specific factual setting, how

an Individual can get himself out of the contract containing

taxation reciprocity covenants.   But I don't really care, either;

whatever information the Federal Judiciary is deficient in

elucidating regarding identifying Citizenship as the invisible

contract that it is, I can get from other sources, even

ecclesiastical sources, and then retrofit it interstitially to

uncover the real meaning of obscure Judicial reasoning:

  "An old principle, laid down from the earliest ages of British

  jurisprudence, from which we receive our national

  institutions, is that allegiance is that ligament or thread

  which bonds the subject to the sovereign, by an implied

  contract, owes, in turn, protection to the subject; and the

  very moment that the Government withholds its protection, that

  very moment allegiance ceases."  [541]


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).


Yes, Citizenship is very much a contract, and Federal Judges

generally think in contract terms when dealing with a Tax or Draft

Protestor.  [542]


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,


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]

. =============================================================[542] Citizenship is probably the single most important contract that you need to come to grips with, as Citizens are suitable objects to assert both a taxation and regulation jurisdiction over, and properly so as a matter of Law; however, we all have philosophical disagreements on some of the bitter terms this particular Regulatory Jurisdiction contract calls for. With your severance of the reciprocity liability that is associated with Citizenship, a large amount of the friction relating to your confrontations with Government will evaporate overnight — but your Citizenship contract is not the only exclusive contract you need to concern yourself with; and be mindful that Citizenship, or any other type of political status, is not relevant or necessary in those types of criminal prosecutions that are predicated on either Tort or special contract (like Highways). So just where is the bottom line here to detach yourself away from those adhesive statutes in Title 26? [543] [543]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[543] If that is your objective, then you have to effectuate a pure severance of yourself away from the King’s Equity Jurisdiction, and not just a partial severance. No, you don’t get to selectively pick and choose just what Federal benefits you want and don’t want. This Citizenship is one of the larger slices that constitutes the Title 26 liability pie, and once Federal Judges have quietly taken Judicial Notice of your Citizenship, they generally then and there stop looking for other contracts to nail on you, when ruling over civil Income Tax grievances. [544] [544]============================================================= If in fact Citizenship is the dominant invisible contract that Federal Judges are using as BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE justification to adhesively hold the LEX of Title 26 to folks — then there necessarily rises to our attention another question. In 1939, Congress enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT, designed to waive the benefits inuring to Federal Employees of a long-standing doctrine in the United States Supreme Court that prohibits the taxation of Federal instrumentalities by the several States, and VICE-VERSA — called the INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE. “What limitations does the Federal Constitution impose upon the United States in respect of taxing instrumentalities and agencies employed by a State and, conversely, how far does it inhibit the States from taxing instrumentalities and agencies utilized by the United States, are questions often considered here. [Cases deleted]. “The Constitution contemplates a national Government free to use its delegated powers; also state Governments capable of exercising their essential reserved powers; both operate within the same territorial limits; consequently the Constitution itself, either by word or necessary inference, makes adequate provision for preventing conflict between them. “Among the inferences which derive necessarily from the Constitution are these: No State may tax appropriate means which the United States may employ for exercising their delegated powers; the United States may not tax instrumentalities which a State may employ in the discharge of her essential governmental duties — that is, those duties which the Framers intended each member of the Union would assume in order adequately to function under the form of Government guaranteed by the Constitution.” – HELVERING VS. THERRELL, 303 U.S. 218, at 222 (1937). The Constitution nowhere states that the Congress is barred from taxing State Employees, or that the States are barred from taxing Federal Employees; yet the Supreme Court held in COLLECTOR VS. DAY that the salary of a State Officer is immune from Federal income taxation: “That the taxing power of the Federal Government is nevertheless subject to an implied restriction when applied to State instrumentalities was first decided in COLLECTOR VS. DAY, 11 Wallace 113, where the salary of a state officer, a probate judge, was held to be immune from Federal income tax. The question there presented was not one of interference with a granted power in a field in which the Federal Government is supreme, but a limitation by implication upon the granted Federal power to tax.” – HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 414 (1937). So even though Federal Employees cannot be taxed under this immunity doctrine, the Congress enacted the PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT to waive the immunity its employees would otherwise enjoy; The Congress wanted to make sure that their help was paying the freight like everyone else: “Federal Employees… too, should contribute to the support o their State and local Governments to the same extent as private Employees… Employees of Governments receive all the benefits of Government which their fellow Citizens do, and consequently they should also bear their fair share of its costs.” – SENATE REPORT #112 [“Public Salary Tax Act”], 76th Congress, First Session, at 4 (February, 1939). And perhaps the Congress was also expecting some reciprocity back in return from the States: “The statute construed in COLLECTOR VS. DAY afforded no reciprocal right to the States to tax the salaries of Federal Employees. In this respect, it might be said to be discriminatory against the States. The proposed legislation does permit the States to tax Federal Salaries.” – SENATE REPORT #112 [“Public Salary Tax Act”], 76th Congress, First Session, at 8 (February, 1939). After it was enacted, this PUBLIC SALARY TAX ACT read that: “The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for personal service as an office or employee of the United States…” – Title 4, Section 111 [“Public Salary Tax Act”] (revised September, 1966). Tax Protestors reading this statute from the perspective that only Federal Employees are PERSONS liable for the Title 26 tax are in error. This Act only means that INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY is waived and that the States can tax the salaries of Federal Employees, and no more. But where did the Congress initially become so disabled from taxing State employees? “The Constitution contains no express limitation on the power of either a State or the national Government to tax the other, or its instrumentalities. The doctrine that there is an implied limitation stems from MCCULLOCH VS. MARYLAND [4 Wheat 316], in which it was held that a State tax laid specifically upon the privilege of issuing bank notes, and in fact applicable alone to the notes of national banks, was invalid since it impeded the national Government in the exercise of its power to establish and maintain a bank, implied as an incident to the borrowing, taxing, war, and other powers specifically granted to the national Government by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.” – HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 (1937). [That’s right, you FEDERAL RESERVE PROTESTORS out there: Your arguments on the unConstitutionality of the Federal Reserve System and its circulating notes, based on the monetary disabilities present in Article 1, Sections 8 and 10, even though factually correct of and by themselves, are only a very small part of the larger jurisdictional pie our King has to justify his juristic banking creations. I would like to see a Protestor try and argue the unConstitutionality of the Fed based on the full panoply of its sources of jurisdictional fuel: The BORROWING POWER to contract for debts, the WAR POWERS to defend the United States, the TAXATION POWERS resident in Article 1, Section 8, and the regulation of COMMERCE POWER also in Article 1, Section 8, etc. You Protestors can’t do that as there are no countermanding arguments for some of those sources of jurisdictional fuel, and so now the end result is exactly what Federal Judges correctly rule to be so down to the present day: That the Federal Reserve System, Gremlins and all, is in fact Constitutional.] QUESTION: So, if Citizenship is the contract operated on by Federal Judges, then why will Federal Judges simply not refer over to the Citizenship contract as overruling justification to tax Governmental Employees? The Answer lies in the fact that CITIZENSHIP is an implied contract created and structured largely by statutory devices; as an implied contract [meaning not expressly negotiated and individually written down], Citizenship can only fill the vacant contours that are left open by other premier boundary line restrainments of a higher priority. Here we have a fundamental intergovernmental immunity doctrine related to that granddaddy itself: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Under this INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE, Federal and State instrumentalities are pre-emptively disabled from even asking for any taxation reciprocity back in return from each other — even though Federal juristic benefits were accepted by a state employee in COLLECTOR VS. DAY, and an implied taxation contract was in effect. Remember that the Congress is operating on a limited profiled slice of multiple jurisdictional assignments; the Congress is pre-emptively disabled from pulling off many things in the BILL OF RIGHTS that requires either a Commercial Contract or individually negotiated contract consent to overrule. The Corpus of the Constitution also pre-emptively disables the Congress from asking for taxation reciprocity back in return for important Commercial benefits accepted in Article 1, Section 9 [“No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State”], even though those articles destined for foreign nations were very much the product of otherwise taxable INTERSTATE COMMERCE. The right of taxation, where it does exist, is necessarily unlimited in its nature: “… the right of taxation, where it exists, is necessarily unlimited in its nature.” – MCCRAY VS. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, at 57 (1903). But as unlimited as it is in some areas, the right of taxation does not exist everywhere; [EVANS VS. GORE mentions the existence of a class of “… excepted subjects,” 253 U.S. 245, at 261 (1920)] — so not everyone to whom benefits are thrown at are automatically liable for the reciprocating financial payments of taxation; in some cases Government is pre-emptively barred from asking for benefit reciprocity, and implied contracts take a back seat to overruling restrainments such as INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. This Taxation Immunity Doctrine is Judicially created, and Judges, as the individuals that they are, frequent do possess views diverging from the expected conformal median. Question: Are there some Judges who would like to merely cite national CITIZENSHIP as THE justifying taxation contract, and ignore Immunity Doctrines? Yes, there are: “… respondents, though Employees of the New York Port Authority, are Citizens of the United States; the tax levied upon their incomes from the Authority is the same as that paid by other Citizens receiving equal net incomes; and payment of this non-discriminatory income tax by respondents cannot impair or defeat in whole or in part the governmental operations of the State of New York. A Citizen who receives his income from a State, owes the same obligation to the United States as other Citizens who draw their salaries from private sources or the United States and pay Federal income taxes.” – HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 424 [Justice Black concurring] (1937). The same difficulty in assigning values to competing differentials in contract priority, that some Patriots will have to come to grips with the strong relevance of national CITIZENSHIP for taxation purposes when not otherwise disabled, but not quite strong enough to pierce this State Employee immunity veil, is exemplary of the same judgment we all confront daily while we too, just like the Supreme Court, apply the relevance of our Celestial Covenants to a wide ranging array of factual settings that make their appearance in our lives. And those factual settings also present to us a competing confluence of incentives, to which we respond with differential levels of perceived Covenant importance. =============================================================[544] Your successful severance of liability away from the administrative mandates of Title 26 requires a thorough decontamination of yourself away from the contract of Citizenship and all Commercial contracts. Yes, you can be an alien from some foreign jurisdiction, you can be a Russian Native who never left Russia or set foot in the United States, and still have a liability to produce administrative conformance with Title 26. [545] [545]============================================================= 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]. =============================================================[545] The idea of using the King’s Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship a the point of adhesion to tax individuals goes far back into antiquity. [546] [546]============================================================= 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]. =============================================================[546] In the old days of 1913, our Fathers came right out in the open and declared for all to see that Citizens were taxable objects. [547] [547]============================================================= “… 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). =============================================================[547] The decision that was made in 1913 to lay the tax on the attachment of the King’s Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship was made apparently intuitively and without much debate. [548] [548]============================================================= Surrey reviews this in his article entitled CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TAXATION OF CORPORATE FOREIGN INCOME, 56 Columbia Law Review 815, at 817 (1956). =============================================================[548] The purpose of broadening the number of objects subject to federal taxation, away from exclusively constituting only participants in King’s Commerce, over to the larger group of Citizenry, was declared to be performed only with the noblest of intentions, [549] [549]============================================================= “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). =============================================================[549] but the true objective then is the same objective which sustains the continuance of the Income Tax down to the present time: To perfect Bolshevik enscrewment. [550] [550]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[550] Our Fathers fell for that “ability to pay” reasoning then, just like most folks today continue to fall for that same line today. [551] [551]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[551] Let us examine the Judicial Perspective on federal taxation under the Citizenship Contract by way of a Case study. One such ruling touching on the Citizenship Contract involves COOK VS. TAIT, [552] [552]============================================================= 265 U.S. 47 (1924). =============================================================[552] where the Supreme Court ruled that income received by a Citizen of the United States while living in Mexico is taxable due to the benefits received while outside the United States (the old acceptance of benefits story: When benefits that were offered with an expectation of reciprocity back in return have been accepted, there lies a contract and it now becomes immoral not to require a mandatory exchange of reciprocity). The Court then listed those benefits that American Citizens carried with them no matter what their geographical situs was. [553] [553]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[553] In another Case in 1968, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Felix Rexach owed American income taxes by reason of his United States Citizenship. [554] [554]============================================================= FELIX REXACH VS. UNITED STATES, 390 F.2nd 631 (1968). =============================================================[554] Felix Rexach was a native born Puerto Rican, who acquired statutory American Citizenship by virtue of the Jones Act of 1917. [555] [555]============================================================= Title 48, Section 731, et seq. =============================================================[555] In 1944, Felix left Puerto Rico and became a resident of the Dominican Republic, where he remained resident until 1961. However, in 1958 Felix executed a written renunciation of his American Citizenship before a United States consulate official in the Dominican Republic, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. [556] [556]============================================================= Title 8, Section 1481(c). =============================================================[556] His renouncement of American Citizenship was accepted without any frictional hassles by the United States, and a written Certificate of Loss of Nationality was approved by the Department of State. On July 26th of 1958, his desired severance away from American Citizenship was perfected as Felix was decreed to be a Citizen of the Dominican Republic. [557] [557]============================================================= “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. =============================================================[557] Felix was no ordinary fellow, as he busied himself on a large scale by contracting activities in the Dominican Republic, contracts obtained by associating with its ruling dictator, Trujillo. [558] [558]============================================================= REXACH, id., at 631. =============================================================[558] But fortunes soon turned adverse for Felix when the Dictator he was milking was assassinated in 1961. Felix suddenly decided that American Citizenship was now desirable, and so in 1962 he applied for reinstatement of his American Citizenship by applying for a Passport; claiming that his 1958 renunciation was involuntary and had been compelled against his will by reason of physical threats and economic pressures. The United States Consul denied his application, and on administrative appeal, Felix’s testimony was accepted, reversing the local Consul, so his Loss of National Certificate was cancelled. However, now things turn into an interesting direction, because the Department of State, aware of Felix’s financial resources, notified the Internal Revenue Service that Felix was now an American Citizen again; and so now termites in the IRS came out of the woodwork. [559] [559]============================================================= 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). =============================================================[559] And so deficiency assessments were thrown at Felix for income earned in the four intermittent years between his renunciation and his reinstatement. Felix ignored the deficiency assessments, and so Internal Revenue termites then threw liens on property Felix owned, followed by foreclosure actions. Felix countered against the foreclosures by throwing Petitions for Summary Judgements of Foreclosure Dismissal at the IRS. In his legal arguments seeking to deflect the foreclosure, Felix reasoned that, in effect, the reciprocal benefits of Citizenship obligation language in COOK VS. TAIT [560] [560]============================================================= 265 U.S. 47 (1924). =============================================================[560] overruled the unpleasant covenant terms his special statutory Citizenship Contract how called for: The preclusion of Felix from claiming, as a matter of statutory law, that he ever ceased to be a United States Citizen. Felix argued that since the United States had owned him no protection benefits during his four year hiatus of alien, that therefore no reciprocal tax was owing in return to the United States. The First Circuit disagreed, and countered by ruling that: “We cannot agree that the reciprocal obligations are mutual, at least in the sense that [the] taxpayer contends.” [561] [561]============================================================= REXACH, id., at 632. =============================================================[561] So yes, that QUID PRO QUO of reciprocity that I have been talking about all along does have to be there, but the failure of Felix to present a proper factual setting to the Judicial was fatal on his part. Felix reentered the stream of Citizenship under contract, and the terms of his contract called for the irrelevancy of his alien status, since his loss of Citizenship was originally tax avoidance motivated. Felix admitted that he never really ceased to be an American Citizen — and there lies the key to see why the First Circuit correctly ruled the way they did. The price one pays for maneuvering one’s Citizenship [and lying to get it back] to secure self enrichment and economic advantage, according to the First Circuit, is continued liability for United States taxes. The obligation to pay taxes is thus clearly applicable although the Taxpayer who has temporarily abandoned the United States, for purposes of pursuing Commercial enrichment, receives no reciprocal benefits from the Government. In conclusion, most noteworthy is the last line in Rexach, as the First Circuit said that although there is a factual setting that could be presented to them where the lack of reciprocal benefits would preclude the assessment of Internal Revenue taxes, the factual elements necessary to so rule were not present here: “The hypothetical [factual setting where a person rejects benefits timely and then does not return into a King’s Equity relational status with the United States at a future time] suggested by taxpayer during oral argument involved aspects of estoppel on the part of the Government. Whatever may be the merit of such cases, that element is not present here.” [562] [562]============================================================= REXACH, id., at 632. =============================================================[562] Well, George, that DICTA was interesting, but could we see a Case where an Individual rejects all benefits timely, and then a Federal Court vitiated his taxing liability? No, sorry you cannot; [563] [563]============================================================= 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)]. =============================================================[563] such a published ruling so favorable to us folks out here in the countryside does not exist, and will never exist — as I have been saying all along, Cases presented to Federal Judges that come even close to pure Equity severance are being sandbagged at low levels, and you will not even be getting a hearing before the Supreme Court. [564] [564]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[564] Those Citizenship Cases are of interest to us as good TOUCHSTONES indicia of Citizenship liability and of benefit acceptance in general, but they do not meet the Refiner’s Fire threshold requirement of just what happens when Citizens simple waive and reject all political benefits, that Model Case that so many folks are looking for. [565] [565]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[565] What happens to Citizens who reject the King’s benefits? They become Denizens. [566] [566]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[566] Why are Citizens of the United States now burdened down with such an incredible Bolshevik Income Tax Machine, so smoothly eating away at our substance the way it does? The answer lies by the acceptance of protectorate benefits the King is offering. [567] [567]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[567] The correct origin of the Citizenship problem (if PROBLEM is the word) lies back in the 1700’s, not with Lucifer and his filthy little Gremlin Karl Marx, but with our own Fathers, back when our Founding Fathers created the Constitution, a document that warrants your objective evaluation, because our Founding Fathers gave the King just too much jurisdiction: [568] [568]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[568] No explicit and blunt restrainments were made against the circulation of paper currency media; no provision for the Bill of Rights restrainments to operate irrespective of impending technology that otherwise alters factual settings not originally contemplated when the Bill of Rights was drafted; [569] [569]============================================================= 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)]. =============================================================[569] and then the Framers gave the King the blank check to nail Citizens to the wall as taxable objects, a situation that did not exist with the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION: “Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national Government, acting, with ample power, directly on the Citizens, instead of the confederate Government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States.” [570] [570]============================================================= IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 573, at 578 (1894). =============================================================[570] Notice how the Federal Government now operates with AMPLE POWER DIRECTLY ON THE CITIZENS, which National Citizenship did not exist under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. Our Founding Fathers wanted a National Government, and so now we have got their largesse. [571] [571]============================================================= “Experience has made the fact known to the people of the United States that they required a national Government for national purposes. The separate Governments of the separate States, bound together by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or to their complete protection as Citizens of the United States, ‘in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; to themselves and their prosperity, ordained and established the Government of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution, which they adapted as its fundamental law, made its rule of action.” – UNITED STATES VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 549 (1875). =============================================================[571] QUESTION: How does someone get rid of his Citizenship Contract without packing their bags and leaving the United States physically, as the King would like his little subjects to do? [572] [572]============================================================= 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.] =============================================================[572] ANSWER: The same way one gets rid of any other contract. [573] [573]============================================================= Yes, such a simple solution as that to remedy taxation ailments, and many folks will not associate any significance to it. Sometimes the most profound circumstances in life are not understood for what they really mean, as folks frequently fail to correlate previous events that have already occurred as harbinger models that foreshadow future events yet to make their appearance. … For example, previous circumstances, seemingly innocent, that once transpired in Downtown 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 of Inhuman Eyesore?”], page 41 (October 31, 1970). Clippings taken from the two local newspapers, the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE and the SAN FRANCISCO EXPRESS supplied the details herein, through the HISTORY ROOM [“Transamerica File”] of the San Francisco Public Library]. … One day off in the future, this clever little harbinger act that John Beckett once pulled off is going to happen al over again under circumstances that the entire world will take rather strong notice of. Nothing will change the next time around, other than that the desired end objective will be different. Next time, instead of an American Corporate President like John Beckett pulling off something quick and clever to get the upper hand over adversaries, next time, a Russian General will be supervising the logistics. Instead of heavy construction equipment being sneaked into urban areas and then pulled out into the open quickly, next time heavy Russian tanks, personnel carriers, and attack support equipment will come forth one day out of their hiding places to roll down American streets to grab the police barracks and nearby Army Base. Next time, instead of a handful of environmental activists left scratching their heads, puzzled as to how John Beckett pulled off that instant appearance of construction equipment — next time all Americans will be asking themselves the same question: How did they sneak in all of those tanks, helicopters, and the like? Where did those SPACE PLATFORMS come from? Where were all those tank stashed away? Yes, it is going to happen, just like John Beckett has already made it happen once before on a small introductory scale in San Francisco. Just like major media news correspondents — those pathetic little idiots — expressing amazement on how well organized the North Vietnamese were in their take-over of Saigon in April of 1975, folks who actually rely on the caliber of such baneful judgement (like news correspondents who were amazed that professional Gremlins actually knew what they were doing), will also find themselves being amazed when we are next. The only folks who are ever surprised by passing events are those who live most distant from reality — and a very good way to become removed from reality is to rely on those incompetent clowns in the news media who were amazed that professional Gremlins practicing COUPS D’ETAT for some 200 years might just know what they are doing. [I come down hard on Journalists for the same reason that I come down hard on Lawyers: Both professions involve the presentation of intellectual material to others; so when they mess up, then out comes my invectives. However, when an everyday type of Joe SixPack messes up, I respond with patience and instructional counseling. In contrast these Joe SixPacks do not represent themselves as being professionals, so Joe SixPacks are not held to the more stringent standards that Journalists and Lawyers seeking financial compensation for their errors are held to.] The instant appearance of construction crews that John Beckett pulled off was not even considered as a factual possibility by this opponents; just like Russian opposition in the United States

[alleged tough cookie right-wing CONSERVATIVES self-perceiving

themselves as being pretty sharp politically]

are not even considering the factual possibility that Mikhail Gorbachev’s superiors have already had planned out long ago similar American domestic instant appearance circumstances in extended and considerable detail. They fully intend to clean out the Gremlins in Washington, as they have been setup [meaning provoked] to do under attractive Bolshevik inducement. Nothing ever changes from one setting to the next. Learning in a small way that getting out of an automobile lease contract is accomplished by getting rid of the benefit acceptance by returning the car physically to the owner, and not by filing worthless NOTICES OF RECESSION OF CONTRACT, IN REM — that is prepatory to learn that it is the same simple solution to get out of the adhesive juristic reciprocity demanded under Citizenship Contracts: Get rid of those benefits and stop snickering at Federal Judges cracking defiled giblets. By not even considering the factual possibility, however remote, that the tax prosecution defendant may himself be in error, having listened to the distractions of Protestors talking about why the Federal Government is not entitled to prevail due to multiple LEX deficiencies of some type, the tax prosecution defendants finds himself exactly where John Beckett’s opponents once found themselves [and exactly where CONSERVATIVES, so called, will also one day be finding themselves]: Out smarted by adversaries who have a few ideas of their own, and for the same reason. =============================================================[573] But lawyers throwing technical arguments at Federal Judges in Tax and Draft Protesting cases have never bothered to see Citizenship from the judicial trajectory of benefits and retained reciprocity expectations, so lawyers have never correctly handled Tax and Draft Protestors in counsel, and lawyers will continue to throw technical arguments at Judges [just like Tax Protestors] trying to explain why the King is wrong, until such time as the latent high powered juristic velocity instrument of Citizenship is identified for what it really is: A contract. [574] [574]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[574] As a point of beginning, contracts are entered into by the acceptance of benefits, and they are terminated by the explicit disavowal rejecting benefits [as I will explain later in the next section on Federal Reserve Notes]. And Citizenship is one of the most important contracts the Judiciary takes Notice of for purposes of perfecting taxation enstripment. [575] [575]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[575] And so it is the explicit rejection of juristic benefits that will sever the adhesive reciprocal liability of King’s Equity Jurisdiction that attaches itself invisibly to everyone else. So getting rid of your National Citizenship, while very important, is only a first step, and there are numerous other invisible contracts that you need to concern yourselves with, if you are to leave the Bolshevik Income Tax grab without leaving any lingering illicit Equity trail behind you. [576] [576]============================================================= 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).


The Universal Right of Self Determination Places Men Who Exercise The Right Into Another Social Compact Owned By Others

Political Charters Create Corporate Countries As Fictions… You’re still formulating a fiction… The social compact must meet the requirements of a higher authority to be approved…

“The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),played an important role in trying to redress a situation in which, in copyright terms, the world emerged from the war “virtually split into two entirely separate and independent parts”. Launched in 1945 as successor to the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC), UNESCO anchored its copyright policy in the 1948 Declaration on Human Rights.””

The U.N. is a privately owned politically chartered property.. Just like any other..

Who owns the Politically Chartered United Nations… ? Thats who you’re subjects of under the Universal Right of Self Determination.. Are those owners so clever that you’ve placed yourself under their Customs and Traditions Doctrines? Because they own it, do prepare the process of the right of self determination according to how they say so or they deny your claim to it.. Become a citizen under a new contract with the United Nations.. Who owns the U.N.? I know who owns the U.N.. The United Kingdom with the United States Through the Atlantic Charter established the United Nations, for his Majesty the King.. Who is subservient to the Caesar sitting in the Temple of the Divine Serpent.. So don’t piss down my neck and tell me you’re a free man when you are not… Constitutions of the World, WORLD CHARTER SIGNED (1945), The Earth Charter: Constitution of the Global Super-State,

Politics, and Political Charters it must be remembered is ‘someones’ figment of the imagination or creation of the mind that makes up their personal view of the way they see the world and its relationships within their own imaginings. This view resides in their mind and their mind alone, and therefore it is fictitious in nature and can be reflected on paper as a contract ‘mimicking’ the physical world.. Discovery of proper use of the original thinkers formulation of the process places one under the origin thinkers, or under the holder of the intellectual property rights of the customary processes, jurisdiction.. Thats where you’re at..

UNESCO’s strategic deceptive foil of cover as camouflage, in the use of its development of “collectivist” terms for a “Declaration on Human Rights”, won them the approval of their competing proposals for the Self-Ennobling Ones to accept, as the best means of providing for an excuse to convince the victims of designed eugenicist wars, to relegate their ‘freedoms of independence’ to closer cooperation, or corporation, by compelling acquiescence of the general populace to such terms, out of “fear” of a repeat performance of world war, in it being said, that closer cooperation would quell the brutal urges of man.
They, the general populace at large, having no inkling whatsoever, that their compulsion to accept these copywritten terms had been by design, would also have no inkling, that UNESCO’s proposals had the further advantage of completely blinding them into not coming to an understanding that what was copywritten by them in turn, through the Self-Ennobling One’s instruments of deception, (without qualification under registration of ‘noncommital-to-contract’ to copywritten-countries, but merely to record), would effectively provide the means for the Self-Ennobling Ones agencies to ‘collectively’ interfere in the ownership of their intellectual property.
Interfere as superior authorities to a now admitted subordinate position of a registrant, and that through copyright registration ‘without qualificaiton’, it was an admission that registrants were mentally incapable of maintaining their own affairs, in the same way a child lacked the mental capacity to provide for themselves, by demonstrably not understanding the requirements of speaking-up in their own self-interests, as an adult would understand to do, given their circumstances in the world as being functionally independent, and with the recognition that that independence brings, of having the cognition to voice that independence in line with their self-interests and circumstances.
Failure to speak-up, would no doubt reflect on their mental capacities as being immature and in need of assistance by rightly remaining in the charge of an adult parental figure providing for stewardship, to guide and decide what would be in their best interests. Such arrangements, of course, could find their victims intellectual rights the subject of ‘profitable confiscation’ by any number of ‘seemingly’ legitimate means.
The reader to the preceding may remain unperturbed, since as it ought to be well known, any formal relationships entered into, calls for honesty in the interests of fairness for obvious, fair and full disclosure to be provided – for the very reason that genuine ‘fairness’ can only be the basis of authenticity and therefore legitamcy – otherwise, whatsoever arrangements were entered into without full disclosure made known as to the true nature of the operations of the parties to a relationship, would justly render those arrangements ‘null and void’. And that being the case, without having even to speak of ‘the requirements of justice’.
Continuing, page 535
“Prior to the Brussels conference, UNESCO had already noted how copyright was a “barrier” to the “free flow of culture among all the peoples of the world”. In the next few years, UNESCO instigated a number of copyright initiatives culminating in 1952 with The Universal Copyright Convention(UCC).
In sum, the UCC offered an international multilateral convention with lower levels of protection than Berne, thus providing a vehicle for the US to come into the fold of multilateral international copyright agreements. Several specificities in national legislation kept the US outside Berne until 1989; these were primarily the compulsory registration of copyright and the controversial manufacturing requirement, which afforded English-language books copyright protection in the US only if manufacturedon American soil. As a compromise between the formal registration required by US law and the no formalities-Berne framework, the UCC introduced the use of a ©symbol, making it possible for the US and other countries to sign the UCC without having to change their national legislation.”
Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property
World Intellectual Property Organization
Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world:
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)

As long as people remain confused about the true nature of political charters, social compacts, constitutions, contracts, then what they think are their Natural Rights will be trodden on by contractual experts acting honorably.. And people like KC and DW will tell you’ you’re a moron because you don’t want to replicate what these lying thieves have done for centuries, using Customary and Traditional contractual processes to fk over everyone in their path…

Universal Copyright Convention
Again, we note the understandings reached concerning issues of creative intellectual property rights, when we learn of those acting on behalf of the authors to creative property, organizing their interests through their forums to settle on agreement, when we read, 1. Introduction, page 1, of, ‘Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights in the 1930s’ –
After a series of bilateral agreements the main European book trading countries enacted in cooperation with culturally aware publishers and authors a multilateral agreement, the Berne Convention, in 1886. Although the American states passed the first Inter-American copyright agreement at the same time, the Convention of Montevideo in 1889, it was the Berne Convention, which proofed to be a reliable political instrument in the course of the twentieth century pointing the way ahead when intellectual property rights were institutionalized on a global scale first with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1967 followed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994.

The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property
Rights in the 1930s
Isabella Löhr, University of Leipzig

COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS, those who don’t understand the dangers fictions can pose, are to be further deluded into thinking that they matter, with this –

  1. Epilogue: Geneva, October 2007, page 549
    “In October 2007, the WIPO Development Agenda was established by the WIPO General Assembly. Scholars have hailed it as a possible new departure for the international intellectual property regime, which has been completely dominated since 1994 by the trade-based rationales of WTO and the infamous Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS has eclipsed and helped render the UCC “wholly peripheral to the current international copyright framework” and is targeted for critique by developing nations, echoing concerns already articulated already in 1967. The Stockholm Protocol, a satellite “disconnected from its orbit”, is another instrument relegated to the cemetery where intellectual property texts go to die. Yet, each of these texts is part of the historical foundation from which the Development Agenda draws inspiration.
    Although it remains to be seen what clout the Development Agenda will have to redress past wrongs and more recent sins in the power relations between developed and developing nations, it proposes substantial changes in both its general direction and WIPO governance. In 1884, 1885, and 1886 only a handful of nations were present to formulate the original Berne Convention, and they represented a diplomatic elite. Fifty-seven states and more than 400 inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations were present in Stockholm. At present, WIPO counts 184 member nations and over 250 NGOs among those who participate in Geneva deliberations. NGOs now out weigh states in total number, greatly accelerating the presence of civil society in these global arenas, suggesting, to Ruth Okediji, that states are not as important in setting the agenda as they used to be.”
    Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
    Eva Hemmungs Wirtén


The political WORLD system is an PRIVATELY OWNED intellectual propertied exclusive system representing the OWNERS interests, and it is impossible for any persons, groups, peoples, whatever their status or philosophies may be regardless of what is said of their political leanings, to genuinely represent people away from those prioritising interests of the world systems OWNERS, Those ignoring this reality deserve what they get. To reiterate, all, absolutely all political parties represent the exclusive interests of the World Systems OWNERS; irregardless of perspectives perceptions or beliefs to the contrary..

Definition of Confidence trick
A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence scheme, scam and stratagem) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust. Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed.

Commemorating the UN charter.. The Charter of the United Nations.. The Political Charter of the United Nations.. Hmmmm… “The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister…representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom…” Ah those fascinating details of the Atlantic Charter… Both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister are representing His Majesty… ” In the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, the Allies pledged adherence to this charter’s principles.”
“The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter.”
The policy was issued as a statement; as such there was no formal, legal document entitled “The Atlantic Charter”.
Atlantic Charter

The United Nations “pledges” adherence to the Atlantic Charter, means that the United Nations “allegiance” is to the Atlantic Charter. It is therefore the Atlantic Charter that is in ownership of the United Nations and it, the Atlantic Charter, is in turn in the ownership of the Office titled His Majesty, which Office of Monarchy will pass to the Heirs of that Office.
How interesting that we read, that even before the end of the Second World War, the Atlantic Charter ‘somehow’ prophetically determined the ‘designs’ of the post-war world.

So, would his Majesty be the Previous King of Great Britain, who served Caesar.. The Roman Pontiff..

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forms the central coordinating core instrument and forum of the United Nations, representing as ‘plenipotentiary’, the direct will of the Office of Monarch

The ECOSOC serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to member states and the United Nations system.’

Am I to understand the Atlantic Charter to be law, given to mean that it is the will and wish as personally owned private law, through that of the Office of His Majesty, currently in our time Her Majesty, and not that of a legal document constituting a bilateral offer. From the preceding, it perhaps could be seen that the Atlantic Charter constitutes, in effect, a unilateral offer that brings into employment as employee’s, those that wish to accept ‘acting out their lives’ through continued employment to it. Then from there, it could be said and seen that the Offeror, having fulfiled an obligation to perform in making available the written instrument through which acceptance can be made to it, would have honoured his bargain. As with all else in line with ‘political charters’.

Under the subheading, ‘Drafting the Declaration’, we read –
“One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted.”

Unless of course it is against ones religion to associate oneself within their nifty little Customs and Traditions Usage compacts..

Then of course we find the articles, 1 January 1955 – Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations: original manuscript prepared for printing.
The United Nations Charter open to the signatory page.
International Organizations
Charter of the United Nations, 1945

Under the subheading, ‘Charter Provisions’, we read beneath the subtitle, ‘Preamble’, the words –
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined”

A perculiar phrasing given the word, peoples, since the word, ‘people’, on its own is both singular and plural in number in its description of those individuals to be found in the physical world.
Whereas the term, peoples, cannot be of the physical world since the term, people, caters for that territory, and therefore, peoples is a description relating to someone’s personally owned private fictitious noun of their own making, within the territory of their imagination.
Furthermore, for the perculiar people to find themselves within the house of the United Nations, as the phrasing mis-leads us to believe, they would need to agree to accept an offer to be able to enter such a house and only then could they be found within its walls; setting aside the notions of personally owned private fictitious intellectual copywritten jurisdictional territory presented here as, the United Nations.

So the rest of the Universal Right of Self Determination is understood… You’re still bowing your knee to others…

Key points of consideration
– a failure to understand the nature of constitutions and legislative authority necessarily being personally owned private copyrighted intellectual property, and not withstanding that legislation emanating from these written instruments represent personally owned private law under the ownership of the self-validating clergy’s offices
– multinationals are not the principle controling corporations for a push to global government. It is the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s personally owned private fictitious corporate copyrighted countries that are pushing for world government
– the former Pope, John Paul II, fully advocated for global goverment in his Self-Ennobling representative office of Pontifex Maximus; the greatest of ‘bridge-builders’ (king)
The Meaning and Origin of “Pontifex Maximus”
Pontifex Maximus
We read –
“…superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars.”
Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume VII, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #19, page 27, published by Apud G. Storti, 1782 edition.
Material Source:
Adm. rev. p. F. Lucii Ferraris … Prompta Bibliotheca canonica, juridica, moralis, theologica …
by Lucius Ferraris
Published 1782
Volume 7
Publisher Apud G. Storti

19, page 27

Google Translator and disambiguation, given in parts as:
Congruunt ulterius quo ad Papae summam auctoritatem
(‘Consistent further to the Pope’s supreme authority and powers’ – given to mean, ‘the Pope’s supreme authority and power are derived from or consist of’)
et potestarem textus juris Caesarei
(‘the text of the law and the powers of Caesar’ – given to mean, ‘power of Caesar’s law’)
Final disambiguation:
Congruunt ulterius quo ad Papae summam auctoritatem et porestarem textus juris Caesarei
“The Pope’s supreme authority and power are derived from, the power of Caesar’s law”
Reference Sources:
Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca

  1. Congruunt ulterius quaod Papae summam auctoritatem et potestatem texius juris Caesarei.
    Consistent beyond that superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars.
    Quoadea quoeconcernunt papae dignitatem, auctoritatem, seu potestatem, et infallibilitatem.
    Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility.
    Columns 1823 – 1824 (92K) – A summary of 82 points – a rough English Translation (incomplete)
    Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica.
    Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition
    by Lucius Ferraris
    Title names of the Pope
    “Quotes” of the Popes: Their Context and Legitimacy
    – the catholic church was never blackmailed, infiltrated, or taken over :
    Divine right of kings –
    The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God.
    Divine Right of Kings –
    If we consider that all men are ‘equally endowed’ by nature’s Cause with ‘innate freewill’, then the information we find in reading what is said about the Divine Right of Kings, as well as what is said concerning ‘the Church’, is something of a curiosity, since the Will of God, we would reasonably deduce in relation to man, is quite clear when it comes to all men everywhere – who are endowed with ‘an equal measure of freewill before nature’s Cause or nature’s God’, without exception in the realm of the physical world.
    The source of a rebellion to what man sees as God’s Will, on the matter of freewill, would not be God as the source of rebellion contradicting Himself; we would reasonably deduce regarding ‘equal freewill’ in all men, but the source of rebellion, if we look to Heaven for heavenly authority and the source of what God would not make absurd in us, would then be an alternative to God’s Authority and the use by men of that ‘alternative authority’, in making ‘absurd’, equal innate freewill endowed by nature’s Cause or nature’s God in all men.
    The Crown of the Cæsars Passes to the Papacy –
    From Chapter 2, entitled, The Crown of the Cæsars Passes to the Papacy, we read,
    The Roman Church, without dispute, had by 538 inherited the seat of the Caesars, as Adolf Harnack recorded in his book What is Christianity?,
    It [the Papacy] is a political creation, and as imposing as a World-Empire, because of the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Pope, who calls himself “King” and “Pontifex Maximus” is Caesar’s successor. (New York, Putnam, 1901, second edition, page 270).
    The same historian concluded that—
    The Roman Church in its way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is the actual continuation. (Ibid.)
    Alexander Clarence Flick in his historical work, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church, concluded that,
    The mighty Catholic Church was little more than the Roman Empire baptised. Rome was transformed as well as converted. The very capital of the old Empire became the capital of the Christian Empire. The office of the Pontifex Maximus was continued in that of the Pope. . . . Even the Roman language has remained the official language of the Roman Catholic Church down through the ages. (New York: Burt Franklin, 1959 pp 148, 149).
    What is Christianity? (1957) by Harnack, Adolf von, 1851-1930, New York, Harper 1901
    Adolf Harnack – German historian and theologian
    Adolf von Harnack

– the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy are as one in the world of fiction
– the modern vatican, the United Nations (UN), is in the possession of the Self-Ennobling Ones
– the workings and laws of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. Canon Law and its branches being the legislative laws of countries) are not the business of the world at large and rightly remain the private business of the Self-Ennobling Ones


Skeletor Pelosi With Phoenix And Stinger

They ALL keep identifying themselves and EL through HIS Watchmen told you so…


Some “Science Experts” Studied Cattle Farting

And a clique of fools believes those “experts” say so; Keep in mind that science just means knowledge and they’re claiming they know it all about cattle.. They are pretenders…

So the argument is that cattle are a huge cause of climate change.. These are “educated” adult people, with what we would or might “believe” are impressive credentials.. So the best thing for the climate is feedlot beef. Which is high in omega 6 sick animals, sick meat.. And that meat makes people sick.. Then of course that meat is sprayed down with a chemical wash known as liquid carbon monoxide.. Not to mention other drugs in the feedlot feed, and other tricks of the trade to make that meat taste good, but appear to be healthy meat.. So the anti grazing environmental gurus are pushing diseased meats from feedlots as better for the environment.. Problem is that met is not better for human health.. Acidic meats cause cancer not just in people but in animals.. George Wuerthner would serve you burger and steaks that have had the tumors and puss removed.. Wuerthner is a classic example of playing the game of making many misleading or inaccurate assumptions about livestock production and climate change arguments against other contrary arguments that are possibly just as misleading or inaccurate assumptions about livestock production and climate change. It’s a vicious circle of bullshit by academiac-quacks..

“Cattle are by far and away the most significant source of GHG emissions of any livestock group. The simplest and best way that any individual can reduce their GHG emissions is to stop producing and eating beef.”—George Wuerthner

So apparently even the ranch where I buy grass raised grass finished high in omega 3 non acidic high in alkalinity beef on their own 4,000 acres should shut down their business to please this pseudo science charlatan George Wuerthner..

“Grass fed beef is even worse. “Studies have shown that grass-fed cattle produce 20% more methane in their lifetime than grain-fed cattle. This is due to two different factors:
1) cattle naturally emit more methane when digesting grass. 2) grass-fed cattle reach market weight more slowly than feedlot cattle, so they’re emitting methane over a longer time (Marshall, 2010).” (Marshall, J. (2010, January 27). Grass-Fed Beef Has Bigger Carbon Footprint.

“Even if grazing could, under some circumstances, increase soil carbon, this must be balanced against the GHG emissions that result from livestock production. Depending on what is included in the accounting, domestic livestock are responsible for between 14% to 50% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Even at the lower 14% figure, this is more than all global transportation from airplanes to cars.”—George Wuerthner

George is crazy as a shit house rat.. Brainwashed fool extraordinaire.. And thats being kind, perhaps he knows he’s pushing deindustrialization for the purpose of depopulation… That then would make him as evil as a shit house rat…

It’s astonishing how the Luciferian’s behind the Global Warming CC=33 Climate Change Hoax have formulated so many twists and turns in the scientific assumptions rhetoric of their UNEP eugenics depopulation agenda..

Stop growing healthy food and eat poison is the bottom line coming out of the environmental cults scientific rhetoric…

The U.N.E.P. United Nations Environmental Policies and “Globalist” Biodiversity Assessment is a Luciferian plan in implementation at this time being an imposed famine designed to smash the middle class, to destroy that class to the maximum extent possible and to starve as many people to death as possible while doing it.. Destruction of the economic model that supports that class.. Of course this operation will destroy the poorer classes as well.. According to that tome the ultimate destroyer of the ecosystems environments is over population of direct drivers and indirect drivers causing all environmental impacts.. Depopulation is their solution.. Including the UNEP clones that advocate for those policies… What we’re observing experiencing is the evolved process similiar to the process of imposed crashing of the economy that caused the Great Depression.. Which was an orchestrated depopulation event.. The advocates of these polices who will be victims of these policies are extremely ignorant people…

An idiot can be defined in rational terms as someone who thinks in terms of “belief” rather than ‘proof’ as in the assessment of known facts. Those who are True Believers, have no use for facts, they simply appeal to the authority of the creed of their choice of scientific texts. Science is another man made religion that is baseless theory taken on faith and has been politicized thus further destroyed by political bias.. There are those who become dogmatic in their fields in science, and leap to unfounded conclusions just like other religious people of other man made up religions do.. The cult of United Nations Environmental-ism Policies of which the WLNs cult are clones of is no exception..

Basically what is being said by George Wuerthner is that over population of average people is the cause of environmental destruction, climate change, more so than the elites owned mega international corporations that essentially make all of the legislated rules used to manage the herd of citizens.. It’s us not the Luciferian elites.. Not their wars of aggression, not their vast array of nuclear power plants, large over populated over grown cities, not their millions upon millions of planes..

Not their NASA rhetoric, not the blasting off of rockets into no where space, not their fossil fuels that we could live without when we know that the technology to go all electric is suppressed, and the steam engine technology that has been suppressed.. It’s your healthy disease free cattle.. It’s those millions of elk those wolves slaughtered that kept most of us away from the toxic meats coming out of the feedlots.. Keep in mind at the same time this clique of cultists preach that millions of farting large carnivores eating millions of elk and buffalo is a healthy ecosystem.. The hypocrisy on display by the UNEPTITARDS of the WLNs clique is astonishing..

The United Nations Environmental Policies and Global Biodiversity Assessment – Sustainable Developments Sustainability’s justification for depopulation, is that there are too many people to harmonize with the earth’s environment, wildlife and therefore depopulation is an absolute necessity. That’s a pretty disgusting philosophy to get behind.. You guys are sick…‘Sustainability and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of non elitists average people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as vegan serfs to the ruling elites that dreamed this shenanigan up…

Yep, the WLNs clique is without a doubt a group of UNEP cloned clowns…


No NAZI Philosophy In The U.S. Aye? BS!

And both political parties delivered it to you…


The Good Luciferian versus the Bad Luciferian Political Shit Show… Don’t be duped…

The Luciferian Doctrine is everywhere. It is all around us.. Even now, in every household of this very nation. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can hear it when you turn on your radio. It’s in the movies, in the music, in the politics, in the legalisms, in the sciences.. It is even in your consciousness. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. … Born into a prison that you cannot see smell or taste or touch. When you hear others speaking of how they can see, hear, taste it even touch it you think of them as insane.. The Luciferian Doctrine is as ancient as the hills.. It is the snakeskin covered flesh you reside in. The human host prison garment. The theft of the creation code by rebellious angels fallen from The Kingdom of Heaven.. The masses for centuries have been being initiated into Luciferianism and they don’t even know it.. It’s the Vatican=Divine Serpent owned United Kingdom, The United States, THEIR Atlantic Chartered United Nations, the International/National world system. It is the Family of Luciferian Nations. It is the law of Luciferian Nations. It is Luciferian International Law. It is Luciferian Nationalism.. It is every collectivist contractual agreement in history.. It is the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Privileges.. It is this very openly Luciferian U.S. collectivist corporate establishment. The cleverest mechanism of slavery ever formulated by devious malicious Luciferians.. This Penalty Colony for Exiles is their World.. The Kingdom of their enemy Yeshushua the real Christ is not of this world.. The Luciferian’s are gods who are Elohiym who were Angels.. H430.. The Supreme Most High Lord God = elyon el-yone…H3068..He will end their deception soon..

Definition of Dupe = A victim of deception…


Citizen Did And Still Does Mean Subject



    Before getting into the case at hand you MUST understand a little known concept in English writing and the legal term and use of certain words by the court. Failure to understand will result in a poor reading of the case. And, in fact all other cases you read. That is why there is so much misunderstanding amongst people when they read a case. I can read a case and get an entirely different set of facts that most all people do not see. Most people are after a specific thing in a case to prove a point and miss a lot of good material.

Commas are a very important piece of understanding a sentence.

COMMA.n. A segment, to cut off. In writing and printing, this point [,]denoting the shortest pause in reading, and separating a sentence into divisions or members, according to the construction. Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary


4.1.1 Commas usually set off words, phrases, and other sentence elements that are parenthetical or independent. Items of this sort are contrasting expressions. <Work, not words, is what is needed.>

4.1.2 Commas usually set off appositional or modify words, phrases, or clauses that do not limit or restrict the main idea of a sentence. <We leave at three O’clock, when the bell rings.>

4.2.2 Whenever in spoken English there is an enumeration of items, a rising or sustained pause separate and distinguishes each member of a series. In writing, a comma likewise separates words, phrases or clauses that occur in a series.<He opened the can, removed the contents, and replaced the lid.>

4.4.2 It is equally important to insert a comma to prevent misreading or ambiguity. <As the car struck, the utility pole fell with a crash.>


    So you can see just how important commas are and where they are placed in a sentence. You may want to refer to this when reading the case.

    Now we come to an all important word that when in law means something entirely different than what you think it means and the courts are well aware of this when they read legal briefs or write determinations. Something the average writ writer has no clue as to how he is using the word. That word is the simple word “OR”. Did you know that the word OR means AND unless a specific word is used in conjunction with it in LAW?

Standard definition Webster’s Dictionary.

OR. Conj.. Used as a function word to indicate an alternative.

So it is a conjunction.

CONJUNCTION. The state of being conjoined; occurrence together in time or space; connective.

Therefore, it can mean the word on either side of “or” are one and the same.

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 3rd edition. 1969

OR. A conjunction normally in the disjunctive. A conjunction properly used with “either” in stating a proposition in the alternative.


OR, conj.. A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means ‘in other words,’ ‘to wit,’ or ‘that is to say.’ Or is frequently misused; and courts will construe it to mean ‘and’ where it is so used. However, where the word ‘or’ is preceded by the word ‘either,’ it is never given a conjunctive meaning.

    Now you are going to see how important that little word is, as well as the comma. Here I just gave you a prime example that the comma in the preceding sentence separated two independent things, word and comma. Look at punctuation rule 4.2.2 and 4.4.2. Apply it to all other law and you will be shocked that you have probably misread or misconstrued every law and case that you have seen. Now I have given you a second example in the preceding sentence where I used the word OR to mean AND. Since I did not use the word either in the sentence the word misread, OR means AND. And you wonder why these kids from age 35 back to age 18 have no concept of what they read and can’t understand a thing about the world today when it comes to a simple contract? And you wonder why I and only a few other researchers see what you don’t see in law or court cases and say we are wrong because you don’t understand punctuation or the word Or means AND?

    Hopefully I will not have to explain after you read the case. You will pick up on the fact that the term citizen of the United States was used well before the 14th Amendment was ever adopted, like pre 1824. You will see that the word ‘either’ NEVER appears in the decision. However you will see the word ‘neither’ used twice. Remember sentence construction from 6th grade where the “neither nor” rule applied like the “either or rule?” How many remember being taught that like I was?

    You will see that citizen subject is one in the same and is what I have been saying since 1990. So you are not and never were a sovereign. Also you will see that they, the sovereigns, your rulers, can naturalize every man woman and child when an area joins the Union in one fell swoop. The people did not join the Union as only fictions called States can join the Union.

    This case shows where one can be a subject (citizen) of a state and still not be a citizen of the United States despite the 14th Amendment. All the 14th did was to put all under the military rule and was designed for corporations as evidenced by the fact the first time it was used to defend a black man was in the early 1930’s. Come on now, from 1868 to 1933 that no case ever used it for a man, either white or black, should tell you something. In here you will see that those sovereigns give subjects (citizen) only privileges and it is considered a GIFT. Yes you will catch it when reading. Keep searching for the word RIGHTS as you read the case. Are they natural or conferred? Also, if all the so-called “Christians” use the definition as a follower of “Christ,” then they are not “Christians.” When you read what you have to give up to become a SUBJECT (citizen) of another sovereign and renounce all allegiance, I dare say we have no “Christians” in America whatsoever, save a very, very, few. It is all hype as they are all fence sitters. And they wonder why the Lord Almighty doesn’t come down and clean the mess up? Because they are a big part of the mess. Look how many call themselves citizens of the United States or a citizen of the political subdivision of the corporate United States, namely a State? Look for the dates April 14, 1802 & March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) and see what they declared way before the 14th Amendment. Yes dear reader, read this case well especially since I highlighted those words and punctuation for clarity. Now after reading this, do you think all those tons of cases you read have to be reread because the courts are not taking them with any seriousness because you misread them? I wonder what they really said in all those cases? Especially since after reading this case you will immediately see where you placed yourself, by claiming the Constitution is yours. And you probably said, I took an oath to defend it, even though it is not protecting me like I thought it said and by golly, as a citizen of this great state of the Union I am not a United States citizen, even though I voted either for or against Clinton. Now look what the court stated it had claiming jurisdiction over this alien because of what he did, not whom he said he was. Make sure you find the word “contract” in the decision. Every time you see “or” replace it with “AND”. As I have said all along, especially in my New History of America, we are nothing but slaves on the Plantation, never were the sovereigns you thought you were, and have no control over any State officer of the corporation although they like you to think you do. The Constitution they speak of is all rhetoric and meaningless. Plantation does not mean a farm either. So with all this knowledge of English and punctuation lets read what I scanned.











Pg 576 FEDERAL REPORTER, vol 56.


(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 29, 1893.) No. 211

A foreign-born resident of the United States, who has merely declared his intention to become a citizen, but has never complied with any other provision of the naturalization laws, is none the less an alien because of the fact that the constitution and laws of Minnesota, wherein he resides, have conferred the elective franchise and other privileges of citizenship on foreign subjects who have declared their intention to be naturalized, and that he has actually voted for member of congress and state and county officers.

2. SAME–Naturalization Laws. ·
Nor is his status altered by reason of the fact that, when he so declared his intention, he was entitled, by reason of length of residence, to be naturalized, under Rev. St. § 2167, for that section merely dispenses with the two-year delay between the declaration of intention and the actual admission to citizenship which is prescribed by section 2165.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Affirmed.
Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge:

On October 7, 1891, Frederick Reum, the defendant in error, brought this action against the city of Minneapolis, the plaintiff in error, for a personal Injury that resulted from its negligence. He recovered Judgment, to reverse which this writ of error was sued out. In his complaint he alleged that he was an alien, and a subject of the King of Saxony, and this allegation was denied by the defendant. The evidence disclosed these facts: The plaintiff was born in the kingdom of ‘Saxony in 1859. His father and mother were natives of that kingdom, and the former resided there until he died, in the Infancy of the plaintiff. In 1863, after his father’s death, the Plaintiff and his mother came to the state of Minnesota, where they have since resided. In 1885 he was married, and has since that time owned and occupied a farm in that state. On October 25, 189O, he made a declaration of his Intention to become a citizen of the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota; but he has never been admitted, or applied to be admitted, to citizenship under the second and third paragraphs of .section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any provisions of the acts of congress. The state of Minnesota has conferred upon all foreign subjects resident within its borders who have declared their intention to become citizens the elective franchise, the privilege of holding any office within its gift, and practically all of the privileges of citizenship in the power of that state to confer. In November 1890, the plaintiff voted for a member of congress and for state and county officers in Minnesota. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved the court to dismiss the action for want of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the evidence failed to establish the allegation that the plaintiff was an alien. The court denied the motion, and this ruling is the supposed error assigned.

David F. Simpson, (Robert D. Russell, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
John W. Aretander, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts as above.) In Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, Mr. Justice Miller, who was then presiding in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota, held that a state could not make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States, and that a resident of Minnesota who was born a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg, had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States many years before he brought his suit, had resided in the state of Minnesota for 15 years, had several times voted at elections held in that state where the constitution of the state authorizes such residents to do so without naturalization, but had never applied to be or been admitted to citizenship under the federal naturalization laws, was still an alien, and a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg. This decision has been followed by the courts, and acquiesced in by the profession. It is now vigorously challenged by counsel for plaintiff in error.
    Section 2, art. 3. of the Constitution of the United states, provides that the judicial power of the nation shall extend to “controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects;” and the acts of Congress of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat.552,) and of August 13, 1888, (25 Stat. 433,) confer jurisdiction of all these controversies in cases involving over $2,000 upon the circuit courts. Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive. To the land of his birth he owes support and allegiance, and from it he is entitled to the civil and political rights and privileges of a citizen or subject. This relation, imposed by birth, is presumed to continue until a change of nationality is proved. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167; Vatt. Law Nat. p. 101; Morse, Nat. 61, 125. A change of nationality cannot be made by the individual at will. Each nation has the right to refuse to grant the rights and privileges of citizenship to all persons not born upon its soil, and, if it determines to admit them to those rights and privileges, it may fix the terms on which they shall be conferred upon them. Naturalization is the admission of a foreign subject or citizen into the political body of a nation, and the bestowal upon him of the quality of a citizen or subject.
    The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” As the plaintiff was born in the kingdom of Saxony, of parents who at the time of his birth were subjects of the king of Saxony, he is not a citizen of the United States unless he has been naturalized therein. The United States, in the exercise of their undoubted right, have prescribed the conditions upon compliance with which an alien may become a citizen of this nation. The act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165,) provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise. First. He shall, two Years at least prior to his admission, declare before a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce his allegiance to the potentate or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. Second. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before some one of the courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject, which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Third. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.”

    By the act of May 26, 1824, (4: star. 69, c. 186, § 1; Rev. St. § 2167,) it is provided that:
    “Any alien, being under the age of twenty-one years, who has resided In the United States three years next preceding his arriving, at that age, and who has continued to reside therein to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of section twenty-one hundred and sixty-five; but such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his admission, and shall further declare on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for two years next preceding, it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States; and he shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization.
    There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which this plaintiff could have been naturalized. The counsel for plaintiff in error, however, alleges that he became a citizen of the United States (1).because at the time he declared his intention to do so he might have been admitted to citizenship, under the provisions of section 2167; (2) because various acts of congress have conferred certain privileges, and some have conferred all the privileges, of a citizen upon foreign-born residents who had declared their intention to become citizens; and (3) because the state of Minnesota has granted to such residents practically all the privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow.
    Before this plaintiff could become a naturalized citizen, the contract of allegiance and protection that the relation of a citizen to his nation implies must be made between him and the United States. The United States have prescribed the conditions under which such an alien may make this contract, the place where, and the manner in which, it shall be made, and have declared that it can be made on those conditions, and in that manner, and not otherwise. Rev. St. § 2165. The conditions are that he shall declare on oath, that he will support the Constitution; that he does renounce all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to that one of which he was a subject; that it shall be made to appear to the court that he has resided in the United States five years, and in the state where the court is held one year; that he has behaved as a man of good moral character during all of this time, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The place where these conditions must be complied with is in one of the courts of record named in the acts of Congress, and the method by which the contract is to be made is by plenary proof to that court of a compliance with these conditions, which must be evidenced by its judgment. The plaintiff has complied with none of these terms. He has not even applied to any court to be admitted to citizenship. He has not consented to become a citizen of the United States on the terms they offer to him, or on any terms, but he still insists he is not a citizen, and that he is still a subject of the king of Saxony. On the other hand, the United States have not consented to accept the plaintiff as a citizen, on any terms, much less to waive all the essential conditions without a compliance with which Congress has declared an alien cannot be naturalized. The minds of both parties must meet to make a contract, and, where neither party consents, there can surely be no agreement.
    That the plaintiff, on October 25, 1890, had resided in Minnesota, as boy and man, long enough to qualify him to become a citizen under section 2167, is not material. The conclusive answer to the argument here urged is that the declaration of an intention to enter into a new relation for whom parties are qualified does not establish the relation. A man and woman who declare their intention to be married at some future time do not thereby become husband and wife. On the other hand, a declaration of intention to enter into a relation or to do an act at some future time is very persuasive evidence that the relation was not entered upon, and the act was not done, at the time the declaration was made. It must be borne in mind that the only effect of section 2167 was to relieve the plaintiff from waiting two years after filing his declaration before being admitted to citizenship. That section expressly provides that in all other respects he shall comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. The plaintiff’s declaration on October 25, 1890, when he was qualified to be naturalized, that he intended at some future time to become a citizen, coupled with the fact that he did not then apply to be admitted to citizenship, nor comply with any of the conditions prescribed by law for his naturalization, compels the conclusion that he did not then denationalize himself, but that he still remained a foreign subject. That Congress, in various acts, has conferred certain privileges and imposed certain burdens upon “persons of’ foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens,” at the same time that it conferred like privileges or imposed like burdens upon our own citizens, as in the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) where all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and “persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof,” between certain ages, are declared to constitute the national forces, and as in the patent laws, (Rev. St. § 4904,) the pre-emption laws, (Id. § 2259,) and in the mining laws, (Id. § ,2289,) where certain privileges are conferred on citizens of the United States, and “those who have declared their intention to become such,” in no way militates against, but strongly supports, the correctness of our conclusion, because, if foreign-born residents, by declaring their intention to become citizens, could ipso facto become such, it would have been futile to name them in all of these acts as a class distinct from our citizens. That Congress has, by various special acts, many of which are referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 158, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, naturalized certain classes of persons who had not complied with the terms of the general laws on this subject, is not important here, because the plaintiff is not a member of any class thus naturalized. Nor is the decision in Boyd v. Nebraska, supra, in point in this case because Gov. Boyd was there held to be one of a class of foreign-born residents that was naturalized by the acts of Congress admitting the state of Nebraska into the Union. These acts conferred the rights of citizenship upon foreign-born residents of Nebraska who had declared their intention to become citizens. The plaintiff was a resident of Minnesota.
    A single argument remains to be noticed, and that is that the state of Minnesota has conferred on plaintiff the elective franchise, the right to hold any office in its gift, and, in reality, all the rights and privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow; and therefore it is said he is a citizen of that state, and not a foreign subject, and the federal court has no jurisdiction of this action. It may be conceded that a state may confer on foreign citizens or subjects all the rights and privileges it has the power to bestow, but, when it has done all this, it has not naturalized them. They are foreign citizens or subjects still, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the jurisdiction of the federal courts over controversies between them and citizens of the states is neither enlarged nor restricted by the acts of the state. The power to naturalize foreign subjects or citizens was one of the powers expressly granted by the states to the national government. By section 8, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States, it was provided that “the congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Congress has exercised this power, established the rule, and expressly declared that foreign-born residents may be naturalized by a compliance with it, and not otherwise. This power, like the power to regulate commerce among the states, was carved out of the general sovereign power held by the states when this nation was formed and granted by the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. It thus vested exclusively in Congress, and no power remained in the states to change or vary the rule of naturalization Congress established, or to authorize any foreign subject to denationalize himself, and become a citizen of the United States, without a compliance with the conditions congress had prescribed. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 405; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Minor v. Happersett, 21 How. 162; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 160, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375,
    In like manner, the states granted to the judiciary of the nation the power to determine a controversy between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2,) and Congress conferred that power upon the circuit courts. The extent of the jurisdiction of those courts is measured by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. A foreign-born resident, who has not been naturalized according to the acts of Congress, is not a “citizen” of the United States or of a state, within the definition given by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, but remains a foreign subject or citizen; and any controversy between him and a citizen of a state which involves a sufficient amount is thus clearly within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, under any fair construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The jurisdiction thus conferred it is not in the power of any state, by its legislative or other action, to take away, restrict, or enlarge, and the action of the state of Minnesota regarding the citizenship of the plaintiff was not material in this case. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328; Cowless v. Mercer Co. 7 Wall. 118; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 286; Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236, 239; 6 Sup. Or. Rep. 714; O’Connell v. Reed, 56 Fed. Rep. 531.
    The result is that the power granted to Congress by Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, is exclusive; and the naturalization laws enacted by Congress in the exercise of this power constitute the only rule by which a foreign subject may become a citizen of the United States or of a state, within the meaning of the federal Constitution and laws. It is not in the power of a state to denationalize a foreign subject who has not complied with the federal naturalization laws, and constitute him a citizen of the United States or of a state, so as to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over a controversy between him and a citizen of a state, conferred upon them by article 3, § 2, of the constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress.
    A foreign subject who is qualified to become a citizen of the United States, under section 2167 of the Revised Statutes, does not become such by filing his declaration of intention so to do. That section requires that he shall renounce allegiance to the sovereignty of which he is a subject, take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and comply with the other conditions prescribed in the second and third paragraphs of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, in order to become naturalized; and until he does so he remains a foreign subject.
    The court below was right in denying the motion to dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

    Well I hoped you learned something from reading this case with the correct understand of punctuation and the word OR. Karl Granse gave me this case when we were researching citizenship way back in ‘93 or so. I just decided to dig this out when I saw this type argument posted on the internet the first week in February that was close to this. Wow, just think, the word “either” never appeared once in the decision therefore every time the word “OR” was used it is a conjunction meaning AND. Since all citizens of the United States have renounced allegiance to the Sovereign Lord Almighty and given up His citizenship, Eph. 2:19, for another king/sovereign they are neither Christians for they gave up following the Lord nor sovereign with any unalienable rights, only conferred rights by the political establishment. It is that simple. Notice that nowhere were The Lord’s unalienable Rights ever mentioned, only conferred political Rights which are always inferior to Natural rights and is the only reason the country runs, on political rights. Ever hear either the term “politically correct” or “this court cannot decide your tax case argument because it is a `political issue’?”
    Nothing is an unalienable right because the Crown’s corporation of England still rules American “citizens” as it did its “subjects” in England. Only the term changed, i.e. we still are slaves to the feudal (federal) system.

The Informer


Spooner Say’s

“As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a band does nothing towards proving that “the people of the United States ,” or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution. This is the most that any member of Congress can say in proof that he has any constituency; that he represents anybody; that his oath “to support the Constitution,” is given to anybody, or pledges his faith to anybody. He has no open, written, or other authentic evidence, such as is required in all other cases, that he was ever appointed the agent or representative of anybody. He has no written power of attorney from any single individual. He has no such legal knowledge as is required in all other cases, by which he can identify a single one of those who pretend to have appointed him to represent them. No one can come forward and say to him: I appointed you my attorney to act for me. I required you to swear that, as my attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised me that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to me. No single individual can say this.”

“No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, [*37] can come forward and say to him: We appointed you our attorney, to act for us. We required you to swear that, as our attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised us that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to us.

No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can say this to him; because there is no such association or body of men in existence. If any one should assert that there is such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it. Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authentic contract, signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselves into an association; making themselves known as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making themselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, done by their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say that, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he is their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged his faith to them.

On general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer for him to say, to all individuals, and to all pretended associations of individuals, who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them:

I never knew you. Where is your evidence that you, either individually or collectively, ever appointed me your attorney? That you ever required me to swear to you, that, as your attorney, I would support the Constitution? or that, I have now broken any faith that I ever pledged to you? You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band of robbers and murderers, who act in secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot; who keep themselves individually unknown even to the agents they thus appoint; and who, therefore, cannot claim that they have any agents; or that any of their pretended agents ever gave his oath, or pledged his faith to them. I repudiate you altogether. My oath was given to others, with whom you have nothing to do; or it was idle wind, given only to the idle winds. Begone!”

End of Spooner says…

Nothing has changed..


Anticipation Keeps Making Us Wait – Orwell, Call Your Office

Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought, generally known as Anticipations, was written by H.G. Wells at the age of 34. He later called the book, which became a bestseller, “the keystone to the main arch of my work.” Wikipedia
Originally published: 1901
Author: H. G. Wells

The Larger Synthesis

We have seen that the essential process arising out of the growth of science and mechanism, and more particularly out of the still developing new facilities of locomotion and communication science has afforded, is the deliquescence of the social organizations of the past, and the synthesis of ampler and still ampler and more complicated and still more complicated social unities. The suggestion is powerful, the conclusion is hard to resist, that, through whatever disorders of danger and conflict, whatever centuries of misunderstanding and bloodshed, men may still have to pass, this process nevertheless aims finally, and will attain to the establishment of one world-state at peace within itself. In the economic sense, indeed, a world-state is already established. Even to-day we do all buy and sell in the same markets—albeit the owners of certain ancient rights levy their tolls here and there—and the Hindoo starves, the Italian feels the pinch, before the Germans or the English go short of bread. There is no real autonomy any[Pg 246] more in the world, no simple right to an absolute independence such as formerly the Swiss could claim. The nations and boundaries of to-day do no more than mark claims to exemptions, privileges, and corners in the market—claims valid enough to those whose minds and souls are turned towards the past, but absurdities to those who look to the future as the end and justification of our present stresses. The claim to political liberty amounts, as a rule, to no more than the claim of a man to live in a parish without observing sanitary precautions or paying rates because he had an excellent great-grandfather. Against all these old isolations, these obsolescent particularisms, the forces of mechanical and scientific development fight, and fight irresistibly; and upon the general recognition of this conflict, upon the intelligence and courage with which its inflexible conditions are negotiated, depends very largely the amount of bloodshed and avoidable misery the coming years will hold.

The final attainment of this great synthesis, like the social deliquescence and reconstruction dealt with in the earlier of these anticipations, has an air of being a process independent of any collective or conscious will in man, as being the expression of a greater Will; it is working now, and may work out to its end vastly, and yet at times almost imperceptibly, as some huge secular movement in Nature, the raising of a continent, the crumbling[Pg 247] of a mountain-chain, goes on to its appointed culmination. Or one may compare the process to a net that has surrounded, and that is drawn continually closer and closer upon, a great and varied multitude of men. We may cherish animosities, we may declare imperishable distances, we may plot and counter-plot, make war and “fight to a finish;” the net tightens for all that.~HG Wells


Sharp And To The Point

RFID Chip of course

Make no mistake about it they’re ready to stick ya…

Trump isn’t stopping this.. I hope you can say no.. Don’t be chickens just say no..

This is not absurd this is where this system is heading..

It’s easy.. NO!