The Citizenship Contract [p. 386-434]
constitution.org[BOF:INCON 007] ---------------------------------------------------------------- Words appearing below in ALL CAPS appeared in italics in the original text. See the file IC-HELP.TXT for additional information and background. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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] [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. =============================================================[506] As a point of beginning, it is perhaps most easy to think of Citizenship in terms of joining a Country Club: You sign up, pay dues, enjoy the benefits offered by the House, you elect management, and you are exposed to liability to be fined for no more than technical infractions to House Rules [without any damages]. [507] [507]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[507] The procedure for entering into a Country Club Membership contract differs quite a bit from the Citizenship Contract, in the sense that while trying to join a Country Club, you first have to go to the Management, present credentials, and then request Membership; whereas with the King, everyone is presumed automatically to be Members, and so now you have to argue your Case that you are not a Member. [508] [508]============================================================= 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)]. =============================================================[508] But once we are beyond that initial point of entrance into the contract, then nothing whatsoever changes in the contractual rights or duties involved when we transfer ourselves from Membership in a Country Club setting over to American Citizenship, as contracts govern both relationships. Earlier, I mentioned that the 14th Amendment offers invisible benefits that Citizens have been deemed by Federal Judges to have accepted by their silence (since anything but silence is very consistent with a person's wanting Citizenship), and so the 14th Amendment then and there creates a Citizenship Contract. Yes, there are special benefits to be had from the 14th Amendment. [509] [509]============================================================= "Since the 14th Amendment makes one a Citizen of the state where ever he resides, the fact of residence creates universally recognized reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the Citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter." - MILLER BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954). =============================================================[509] So although the 14th Amendment creates benefits proprietary to Citizenship, those are not the only Citizenship benefits that you need to concern yourself with. Many Tax Protestors and Patriots are aware of the 14th Amendment story, and accordingly counsel their students to file NOTICES OF BREACH OF CONTRACT and the like, and other hybrid unilateral declarations of RECESSION, in an attempt to remove themselves as persons attached to the 14th Amendment. Those students are then taught, quite erroneously, that since the United States derives its taxing power from the 14th Amendment, therefore, once an Individual has severed his relationship from the 14th Amendment, the student no longer need concern himself with any federal Income Tax liability, or any state tax liability. These folks preach the theory that MILLER BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND, [510] [510]============================================================= 347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954). =============================================================[510] stands for the proposition that States derive their taxing and regulatory jurisdiction from the 14th Amendment -- a particularly stupid conclusion to arrive at since such a statement means that prior to the 14th Amendment there were no State taxes or regulatory jurisdictions; and that is a factually defective point of beginning to commence any legal analysis. [511] [511]============================================================= For example, some states required that auctioneers possess licenses in the early 1800's, long before the 14th Amendment ever made its appearance. Joseph Story mentions this in III Commentaries on the Constitution, at page 483, ["Powers of Congress - Taxes"], (Cambridge, 1833). This little regulatory jurisdiction existed long before either the Civil War or any of the so called Reconstruction Amendments [the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments] made their appearance; and since the States did not need the 14th Amendment then to enact regulatory jurisdictions, the States do not need the 14th Amendment to enact regulatory jurisdictions, and your relational status to the 14th Amendment is irrelevant in determining your attachment to regulatory jurisdictions. =============================================================[511] This view of legal liability propagated by Protestors is baneful, and replicates the MODUS OPERANDI of Lucifer when he propagates to his students many things which are technically accurate of and by themselves, but then he teaches expansive conclusions which are defective. Lucifer counsels his followers to get ready to justify their actions at the Last Day, an alluring preventative move that intellectuals find brilliant and intriguing background advice; so now Lucifer has their attention. [512] [512]============================================================= 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 of a STATEMENT: "Experts will step in where even fools fear to tread." - Bernard Baruch, id., at page 253 Why will experts step in where fools fear to tread? The answer lies in examining what characteristic separates the expert from the fool: Simple lack of factual knowledge, acquired in part experientially, which is often corrected in the future. Tax and Highway Contract Protestors searching for that elusive SILVER BULLET out there will find it -- of all places -- resting with themselves; and they will also find, in an unexpected place, an institution functioning as an accessory instrument offering them assistance to accomplish the most NOBLE and GREAT objectives that the mind can imagine -- an ecclesiastical institution that has always been there during your life, but whose potential beneficial significance was tossed aside and ignored due to overruling emotional intervention. Yes, OVERCOMING YOUR OWN EMOTIONS is a difficult task as high-powered imp Bernard Baruch related so well to a setting involving the intense pursuit of commercial enrichment. Where there are difficult tasks, there also lies impressive benefits not otherwise obtainable; Celestial benefits whose reception then requires a forward glimpse into the future, now. Those Celestial Benefits will be acquired then through the correlative requisite behavioral changes made at the present time -- beneficial changes that cannot be made if that alluring look ahead glimpse into the future that INTELLECTUALS and imps appreciate the value of such much, was not made at the present time. When we make that look ahead glimpse into the future, we ask ourselves a QUESTION: Do I really want to leave this Estate without replacement Covenants? =============================================================[512] Then Lucifer continues on (also quite technically correct), that all of their behavior down here should be so organized as to be "justifiable" before Father at the Last Day; this too is correct, as Father will be soliciting our feelings at the Last Day. But just one tiny problem surfaces for the world's Gremlins to consider as they dance the jig in ecstacy over the prospects of being able to get away with murder, mischief, and mayhem down here: An invisible Contract that Father extracted out of us all before we came down here. So yes, although you can "justify" your acts to Father if you want to, that justification is not relevant to Father in his judgment decision making. Only the terms of the Contract will be of interest to Father; and back in the First Estate, everyone was once on their knees before Father, uttering from their own tongues, in a Heavenly angelic language we all spoke then, the terms of the Contract we all would later be judged by. So, yes, you will be given the opportunity to justify your abominations before Father if you want to, but your justifications sounding in Tort are not going to be taken into consideration by Father and you Gremlins out there are damaging and deceiving yourselves. And in a very similar way, many Tax Protestors are coaching their followers to concern themselves with the 14th Amendment -- a very accurate and correct statement, of and by itself. [513] [513]============================================================= The way to correctly read Supreme Court rulings on 14th Amendment taxation questions is to keep an eye on what the 14th Amendment did in the area of restraining reciprocity expectations political jurisdictions created when throwing benefits at folks. The 14th Amendment prohibited double taxation, and no more. DOUBLE TAXATION is the layering of a plurality of taxes on the same economic asset or legal right by competing jurisdictions. In some factual settings, the jurisdiction to tax an economic asset actually belongs to several states, but should be conceded to only one State for the exercise of taxation jurisdiction. See JURISDICTION TO TAX UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT in Notes, 25 Georgetown Law Journal 448 (1937). =============================================================[513] But the conclusions those Tax Protestors draw, that termination of the adhesive King's Equity Jurisdiction that the 14th Amendment attaches is the only thing they need concern themselves with, is incorrect. 14th Amendment pleading, standing alone by itself, doesn't vitiate anyone's state or federal Income Tax liability -- it never has, and it never will. The legal argument I hear many folks throw at Federal Judges, that they are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a PREAMBLE CITIZEN, and not a 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN, is patently stupid, and carries no weight, merit, or attractiveness before Federal Judges; and for very good reasons: Because all Citizens of the United States are acceptants of that profile of juristic benefits that the King is offering, and these benefits are offered by the King regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or PREAMBLE classification status. And so correlatively, since those juristic benefits are accepted by all United States Citizens regardless of the claimed COMMON LAW or so-called PREAMBLE jurisdictional origin of the classification of Citizenship (distinctions that Citizenship Contract Protestors like to make and argue), these distinctions mean absolutely nothing in important areas involving Tax and Military Conscription reciprocity expectations the King maintains on his Citizens. [514] [514]============================================================= The extent to which Juristic Institutions should be restrained in the placement of tortious covenants within adhesive contracts heavily skewed towards Government like Citizenship, has been an article of discussion since the founding days of the Republic: "How in a Republican regime, is the supremacy of the private, self-regarding sphere in the life of each Citizen to be reconciled with the obligation of the People at large to perform the public-regarding duties of Citizenship? It is interesting that [James] Wilson did not propose to solve this problem by blinking at the magnitude of the apparent dilemma. More vividly even than Locke himself, Wilson stated his liberal creed that "domestic society," that is, the private social life of each individual, must be deemed intrinsically superior in dignity to all public matters, including Law and Government." - Stephen Conrad discussing the views of one of our Founding Fathers, in CITIZENSHIP AND COMMON SENSE IN JAMES WILSON'S REPUBLICAN THEORY, 8 Supreme Court Review at 383 [University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1984)]. =============================================================[514] There is no single place I can point folks to and say "Here, Citizens, are your benefits." [515] [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]. =============================================================[515] Even listings of benefits in the dicta of Supreme Court rulings are fractured and incomplete. [516] [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. =============================================================[516] And the Congress is largely the same. [517] [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 unitary subject [see CITIZENS GUIDE TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 94th Congress, Second Session (October, 1970), which largely discusses those Clauses in the Constitution that restrain Government Tortfeasance (which although such restrainments are benefits in a sense, the restrainment of the King's own prospective Tortfeasance is not the character of benefits whose acceptance by Citizens enables expectations of reciprocity to operate on in the formation of juristic contracts)]. =============================================================[517] Some of the juristic benefits that the King is offering to his Citizens originate in the Constitution, where these benefits are inferred by Federal Judges from certain wording and phrases in that Majestic Document; [518] [518]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[518] other benefits the King is offering find their home nestled in his pile of LEX, other benefits are located in still another layer of administrative LEX called the CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS; and still other benefits do not explicitly appear anywhere in the King's statutes, but are defined in a wide ranging multiplicity of court rulings. When we posses that factual knowledge contained in those court rulings, then the cryptic phrases appearing in some offbeat slice of LEX come alive and make a great deal of sense. [519] [519]============================================================= For example, one of the judicially defined benefits of American Citizenship is the right to sue and be sued in Federal and State Courts in the United States: "George Bird... [having]... fulfilled the conditions which, under law enacted by Congress, entitle him to all the rights, privileges, [benefits,] and immunities of Citizenship. He is a Citizen of the United States, and entitled, equally with all other Citizens, to make lawful use of his own property, and to prosecute and defend in the courts of this state and in the courts of the United States actions affecting his legal rights with respect to property, and to make [commercial] contracts [I will discuss this later]..." - BIRD VS. TERRY, 129 Federal 472, at 477 (1903). With the right to sue and be sued in Federal and State Courts being a benefit to Citizens, now the following cryptic words in the Civil Rights statutes [giving Blacks Citizenship benefits that only Whites enjoyed before the Civil War], now come alive with meaning: "Equal Just under the Law: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts [I will discuss this very important benefit later], TO SUE, BE PARTIES, GIVE EVIDENCE, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white Citizens..." - Title 42, Section 1981 ["Civil Rights"] (1870). Notice how the use of the Courtroom as an instrument of Government to sue someone with is deemed to be a benefit -- and yes, it is a benefit; the absence of which would place a lot of Protestors out of business. But the King offers out his benefit with latent hooks of reciprocity adhesively attached thereto; just like fish thinking that they have finished their evening meal by swallowing that attractive piece of meat over there, unknown to the fish is the fact that an invisible hook awaits whoever goes after that bait. So now let us continue on with Section 1981: Having defined some benefits, now the King's Scribes plant the hook of reciprocity for those who swallow and accept the King's benefits: "[those Blacks, now turned Citizens, as just mentioned above]... shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and no other." - The balance of Title 42, Section 1981. Yes, Citizenship is a Contract: Juristic benefits are offered with latent hooks of reciprocity lying in wait for those who have silently accepted the King's benefits. And Tax and Draft Protestors will continue to loose, and will continue to snicker at the wrong people [hard working Judges] in total error, when the fact of the matter is that it is their boosting of their Citizenship status which is in fact the very juristic contract that the Federal Judges use to CRACK Protestors with. ...The benefit of Citizenship allowing those PERSONS to sue in Federal Courts once surfaced in HAMMERSTEIN VS. LYNE as a jurisdictional question, since one of the statutes in Title 28 confers jurisdiction to Federal District Courts to hear diversity cases involving CITIZENS in different States: "In order to give jurisdiction to the Courts of the United States, the Citizenship of the party must be founded on a change of domicile and permanent residence in the State to which he may have removed from another State. Mere residence is PRIMA FACIE evidence of such change, although, when it is explained and shown to have been for temporary purposes, the presumption is destroyed." - HAMMERSTEIN VS. LYNE, 200 Federal 165, at 169 (1912). =============================================================[519] Some benefits of Citizenship are proprietary and the distribution of those benefits are limited to identifiable groups, for example, such as the elective franchise. [520] [520]============================================================= See ENFRANCHISEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP by Edward J. Pierce [Roberts Brothers, Boston (1896) {Harvard University, WIDENER LIBRARY, Cambridge, Massachusetts}]. Even many of the covenant terms of the Country Club Contract and the Citizenship Contract are identical. For example, Country Clubs rarely admit people into membership positions unless that person is of age, so either all Country Club Members are generally assumed to have the elective franchise to turn over house management, or some type of junior Membership is created for young dependent offspring. Citizenship does differ; there was once a time in the United States when a large body of Citizens were denied the benefit of elective franchise rights, back before Women's Sufferrage matured: "Again, women and minors are Citizens of the [various States], and also of the United States; but they are not electors, nor are they eligible to office, either in those States or in the United States." - Caleb Cushing, Attorney General of the United States, ["Chickasaw Constitution"] in 8 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 300, at 302, [R. Farnham, Washington (1858)]. Yes, the elective franchise, together with the right to hold government offices, is deemed to be one of the many benefits inuring to Citizens, even though not all Citizens universally enjoy such benefits. =============================================================[520] Some other benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States are, in general, the protection of United States Marshals. [521] [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. =============================================================[521] Yes, all Citizens accept the protectorate benefits offered by the United States Marshal Service. [522] [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 jurisdiction." - UNITED STATES VS. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, at 550 (1875). And so the King needs some bouncers to justify his claim of protecting Citizens. =============================================================[522] And unlike your local Police Department, when you call up the U.S. Marshals and request their security assistance, generally they will not bark, snap, or snort at you for doing so. [523] [523]============================================================= To this extent, United States Marshals are somewhat like the old Roman Centurions, who protected Roman Citizens from murder and other dangers originating from attack Gremlins: "... the ruling power at Rome, whether Republican or imperial, granted, from time to time, to communities and to individuals in the conquered East, the Title of ROMAN, and the rights of Roman Citizens. "A striking example of this Roman naturalization, of its controlling authority as a political law, and of its beneficent power to protect a persecuted Citizen, may be found in the case of Saint Paul, as it is graphically reported in the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Paul, being at Jerusalem, was in great peril of his life from his countrymen... who accused him of crimes against their own law and faith, and were about to put him to death by mob violence, when he was rescued by the commander of the Roman troops, and taken into a fort for security. [Paul] first explained, both to the Roman officer and to his own countrymen, who were clamoring against him, his local status and municipal relations; that he was... of Tarsus, a natural born Citizen, of no mean city, and that he had been brought up in Jerusalem, in the strictest manner, according to the law and faith of his fathers. But this did not appease the angry crowd, who were proceeding with great violence to kill him. And then: "the Chief Captain [of the Jews] commanded that he be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be EXAMINED BY SCOURGING, that is, tortured to enforce confession. "And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the Centurion that stood by, 'Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is A ROMAN AND UnConDEMNED?' When the Centurion heard THAT, he went out and told the Chief Captain, saying, take heed what thou doest, FOR THIS MAN IS A ROMAN. Then the Chief Captain came and said, 'Tell me, art thou a ROMAN?' [Paul] said yea; and the Chief Captain said, 'With a great sum obtained I THIS FREEDOM.' And Paul said, 'But I was FREE BORN.' Then straightaway THEY departed from him which should have examined him. And the Chief Captain also was afraid, after he knew that [Paul] was a ROMAN, and because [Paul] had BOUND HIM." "Thus Paul, under circumstances of great danger and obloquy, asserted his immunity, as "a Roman unCondemned," from ignominious constraint and cruel punishment, a constraint and punishment against which, as a mere provincial subject of Rome, he had no legal protection. And thus the Roman officers instantly, and with fear, obeyed the law of their country and respected the sacred franchise of the Roman Citizen. "Paul, as we know by this record, was a natural born Citizen of Tarsus, and as such, no doubt, had the municipal freedom of that city; but that would not have protected him against the throngs and the lash. How he became a Roman we learn from other historical sources. Caesar granted to the people of Tarsus (for some good service done, probably for taking his side in the war which resulted in the establishment of the Empire) the title of Roman, and the freedom of Roman Citizens. And, considering the chronology of events, this grant must have been older than Paul; and therefore he truly said 'I WAS FREE BORN' - a free Citizen of Rome, and as such exempt by law from degrading punishment. "And this immunity did not fill the measure of his rights as a Citizen. As a Roman, it was his right to be tried by the Supreme Authority, at the Capital of the Empire. And when he claimed that right, and appealed from the jurisdiction of the provincial governor to the Emperor of Rome, his appeal was instantly allowed, and he was remitted to 'Caesar's judgment'." - Edward Bates, United States Attorney General, in ["Citizenship"], 10 Opinions of the Attorney General 382 at 392, [W.H. & O.H. Morrison, Washington (1868)]. =============================================================[523] The United States Marshals today will make inquiries and ask probing questions to uncover the reasons why you believe your security is being impaired, as they do want to get to the bottom of the threatening situation, in order to terminate whatever it is that is giving you grounds for concern. On any serious inquiry they will normally send out a Marshal immediately to see you, and they will even put you up in a hotel if deemed provident under the circumstances; so yes, the security benefits offered by the U.S. Marshals are more than legitimate. But no one knows anything about the protectorate benefits being offered by the U.S. Marshals. Due to the HOLLYWOODIZATION of cops and robbers television shows, people have been conditioned to think in terms of calling up their local police department for security assistance, and have also been conditioned to expect a tough rebuffment when asking for bodyguard services -- when all along it was the dormant and ignored U.S. Marshals that have been schooled, trained and are expecting your pleas for limited assistance. [524] [524]============================================================= Other benefits offered to American Citizens by the King [and Federal Judges know this, so we should too] is financial assistance to American Citizens returning from foreign countries. In Title 42, Section 1312, the Secretary of State is authorized to provide temporary assistance to Citizens and to dependents of those Citizens, if they have returned to the United States in a state of destitution resulting from war, threat of war, invasion, or some other crisis some Gremlin pulled off somewhere. Another benefit offered to American Citizens is the protection of the United States Government when travelling abroad; this service is provided through foreign diplomatic consular offices. Our family has businesses in other parts of the globe, and whenever we have made phone calls to the American Embassy for assistance, they have always sent out someone immediately. In Title 22, Section 1731 ["Protection of Naturalized Citizens Abroad"], the King has decreed that PERSONS who have become naturalized Citizens are entitled to this same benefit of protection assistance in foreign lands, both for themselves and their property while over there. In Title 22, Section 1732, the President of the United States is under a specific duty to first inquire of foreign governments and then offer assistance whenever an American is incarcerated abroad. See: - CITIZENSHIP by Edward Borehard, Thesis [Columbia University, New York (1914)], discussing the diplomatic protection of American Citizens abroad; refers to the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW for July, 1913. - United States Department Publication, THE RIGHT TO PROTECT CITIZENS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY LANDING FORCES [Second Edition, GPO (October 5, 1912)] {Harvard University, WIDENER LIBRARY, Cambridge, Massachusetts}, contains a chronological listing of the occasions in which the Government has taken action on behalf of American Citizens up to 1912. =============================================================[524] As for the 14th Amendment, the reason why the 14th Amendment as a stand-alone line of Status defense is patently frivolous is because all Citizens accept benefits that the King is offering, and the classification by Tax Protestors of Citizens into different categories, when benefits are being accepted by all Citizens regardless of classification, is baneful. [525] [525]============================================================= The word CITIZEN appears four times in the 14th Amendment; some are in reference to Citizens of the United States, and others are in reference to Citizens of the several States. There is a Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment pertaining to the benefits [a RIGHT is also frequently a benefit] enjoyed by Citizens of the States in relationship to the benefits enjoyed by Citizens of other States. Called the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, this Clause has generated a large volume of Court Cases. See: - THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, 1 Michigan Law Review 286 (1902); - Roger Howell in CITIZENSHIP - THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF STATE CITIZENSHIP [John Hopkins Press, Baltimore (1918)]; - Arnold J. Lien in PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS [Columbia University Press, New York (1913)]. =============================================================[525] Claiming that you are a COMMON LAW CITIZEN, or a PREAMBLE CITIZEN with a special reciprocity exempt status to avoid that irritating QUID PRO QUO ("something for something") payment of an unreasonable enscrewment oriented Income Tax, is foolishness, and you are not entitled to prevail under any circumstances before a Federal Judge. [526] [526]============================================================= Another line of foolishness some folks propagate is that, just somehow, there is a relationship in effect between Social Security and legal liability for the National Military Draft. In propagating this line, these people suggest the view that Draft Protestors are burning the wrong card, that is, that Draft Resisters should be burning their Social Security Card. This line of reasoning is defective, as the United States has been successfully drafting Citizens into military service in World War I, long before FDR's Rockefeller Cartel sponsors in New York City presented the wealth transfer grab of Social Security to America through their imp nominees in Washington in the 1930's; just like the United States had been successfully collecting taxes on Income during the Civil War, before the 14th or 16th Amendments ever made their appearance. See the SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245 U.S. 366 (1917), for rulings on Draft Protestors in World War I. And speaking of the draft, there is nothing immoral about the draft, either. Reason: There is a very reasonable and even QUID PRO QUO exchange of reciprocity going on that the Draft Protestors don't see. If you examine the benefits American Citizens accept above, one of them is "the protection of the United States Marshals." Since the King is risking the physical security of his bouncers to protect you [yes, and unlike your local Police Department, the Marshals will not snort at you when you request their security benefits], then would someone please explain to me what is unreasonable about the King asking in return for the male Citizenry to risk their physical security to protect the King's kingdom? "The very conception of a just Government and its duty to the Citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the Citizen to render military service in case of need and the right to compel it." - SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245 U.S. 366, at 378 (1917). The reason why the obligation is reciprocal is because the King is first offering to you the protectorate services of his bouncers. The reciprocal and contractual nature of Citizenship is recognized in Congress as such. When debates on the proposed 14th Amendment transpired in the Senate, Senator Trumbull stated his understanding that: "This Government... has certainly some power to protect its own Citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights." - CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, at page 1757 (1866). =============================================================[526] The reason why self-proclaimed PREAMBLE CITIZENS and COMMON LAW CITIZENS, so called, are properly burdened with the heavy QUID PRO QUO reciprocity of the Income Tax is that all Citizens accept and enjoy the protectorate benefits previously discussed that the King is offering, so all Citizens accept Federal benefits. Yes, Citizens under the 14th Amendment have additional contracts in effect (stemming from the additional benefits that the 14th Amendment offers), that they need to concern themselves with -- but all Citizens accept those other Federal benefits as well, and so all Citizens are operating under the King's Equity Jurisdiction of the United States, and are appropriate objects for the assertion of a regulatory and taxation environment over, through contract terms. [527]. [527]============================================================= 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. =============================================================[527] I would advise you to terminate your reliance on information originating from people who lace excessive priority attention on the 14th Amendment Citizenship question, as their stand-alone arguments are without any merit whatsoever for purposes of detaching yourself away from Federal Taxation liability. [528] [528]============================================================= "Citizens are members of the polit
