The Citizenship Contract

Global Citizenship

In this section Mercier focuses on “a layer of invisible contract that is rarely addressed, thought of or treated as the pure contract that it… really is: National Citizenship”.

Question:  Are you a citizen of your particular community, your state, your country—or of the world? As the world becomes more and more unified by both technology and “legal” devices such as the Uniform Commercial Code, the issue of global citizenship is rapidly becoming highly pertinent. Is there any reason to believe that a global government would be any more “just” than whatever jurisdictional authority under which one now finds oneself?

In the preceding section (part Six of this synopsis) we have seen how the evolution of Admiralty Jurisdiction has suborned the inherent rights of the individual, literally subjecting every individual to the caprice of the ruling class. Through clever rule-making the King has bound everyone by adhesive contracts and judicial minions ensure that no one may escape the bindings of presumed benefits (with consequent presumed contracts) simply by expanding the list of benefits to include “rights” that most of us take for granted. Such presumed benefits now appear to include, for instance, the right to a passport or the right to travel upon “the King’s” highways—along with, of course, “creditworthiness” and even the right to engage freely in commercial transactions (all “money” belongs to the King). Another juristic benefit, one that is often overlooked, is “the right to sue and to be sued”!

The solution SHOULD BE to waive the right to benefits but when benefits are now classified so broadly, it creates an IMPOSSIBLE situation. Mercier’s response to the King’s intractability on this issue is absolutely NOT RECOMMENDED:

“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.”

If a JUST international system could be founded on the absolute sovereignty of the individual in a truly transparent environment, perhaps global citizenship could provide a better answer.

Just as national citizenship has displaced the significance of state citizenship, some day it, too, stands to be displaced by international (global) citizenship.  This does not bode well for we global citizens, at least not as long as the King of this world retains the awful power of “money” and remains the “holder in due course” of all commerce. That, it seems to me, is precisely where God’s Plan, the GAIA Program, fits into the picture. Today’s amoral legal system must be replaced by a truly moral system of law based on respect for the sovereignty of each individual. Otherwise, whatever New World Order develops will only serve to propagate Admiralty Jurisdiction (and its coincident though far from accidental two-class, rulers/slaves society) “to the next level”.  The following excerpts are taken from a footnote relating to the subject of global citizenship.

[QUOTING:]

…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.

…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)….

[END QUOTING]

How far has the global-citizenship agenda progressed since 1985? A partial answer can be found in “Global Taxation Rears Its Ugly Head”, an article written by Joan Veon and posted publicly on the Internet on April 28, 2004.

Veon mentions that the UN’s 1993 budget was $10.5B and that the March 1995 UN Social Summit proposed various taxation methods that would provide the UN with over $1.646T per year.  Where would the extra $1.635T go? “At the Millennium Summit in 2000, the UN presented the world’s 189 kings, princes, prime ministers and presidents a list of global needs.  They include by 2015: reducing poverty and hunger by 50%, ensuring that children everywhere are able to complete a full course of primary schooling, reducing by 66% child mortality, halting and reversing HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases and improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers, among others.”

As we should recognize by now, such “benefits” are merely the bait on the hook of the Gremlins’ “enscrewment objectives”.  Once benefits offered conditionally are accepted, the people even tacitly accepting such benefits become SUBJECT TO the offeror (the UN or WB or IMF—the “King” and his “Gremlins” by any name), contractually.

[QUOTING from the Veon article:]

…[T]he primary focus of the Spring Meeting of the IMF/World Bank that just concluded [2004] was how to meet and finance the UN Millennium Development Goals. The UN estimates another $50B per year is needed.  The Development Committee which is comprised of key officials from both the IMF and World Bank, including U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, issued a report on how to increase funding which includes: (1) increase Overseas Development Aid-ODA, (2) set up a proposed International Financing Facility, (3) global taxation and (4) increase in aid.

It should be noted that all of these suggestions have been around for a while. In 1994, the United Nations Development Programme issued the Human Development Report, which basically outlined the same ideas that are now being discussed. The difference is instead of them being conceptual, as they may have been then, today they are being seriously discussed by country governments and are now showing up at the IMF/World Bank level and the G7 Finance Ministers and G8 heads of government levels.

Let us take a look at each of these:

(1) Increase Overseas Development Aid-ODA: To prepare for the Financing for Development Meeting in Monterrey, Mexico in 2002, George Bush doubled [sic] the amount of ODA from $10B to $15B beginning this year. The UN target is .07% of Gross National Income. The U.S. as well as most of the developed countries, are giving an average of 0.23%. [So based on these figures the U.S. is currently overpaying and the money should come from the poorest of all nations? Sick, sick.] ODA is used for debt relief, technical cooperation, and emergency and disaster relief along with food aid and totals $6B a year.

(2) The proposed International Financing Facility: The 1994 Human Development Report recommended that an International Investment Trust be set up.  The proposed International Financing Facility would be a temporary financing mechanism that would hold the annual payments from donor countries as well as use issue AAA-rated bonds based on the future donor pledges of countries.  In other words, it would securitize (issue bonds) future pledges in ODA through the bond market. The bond proceeds would be channeled through existing aid programs. This proposal has already been widely discussed within the G8, EU, UN, the IMF and World Bank as a result of being presented at the September 2003 annual IMF/World Bank meeting in Dubai.  The specific mechanics as to how to set up the Facility is still under discussion.

(3) Global Taxation: In the 1994 Human Development Report, it recommended five different sources of taxation: possible tax on arms trade, a global tax of $1 per barrel on oil consumption, assessing a tax of 0.05% on the value of each international currency transaction, Special Drawing Rights, and a world income tax of 0.1% on the richest nations. The current Global Taxation Proposals include: environmental taxes of various kinds-most prominently a carbon tax or a system of tradable permits (the U.S. has established the first carbon permit trading exchange with other European countries now following suit), a tax on foreign exchange at the rate of 0.02% (many experts say that there are many barriers), increase taxes on aviation fuel and/or air transport, on shipping or arms exports, taxing resources held in the global commons such as the mining rights in international waters (Law of the Sea-the U.S. is to hold hearings on ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty), create and voluntarily redistribute additional Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), and other ideas such as a global lottery.

In the final IMF/World Bank press briefing, I asked key officials that included World Bank President Jim Wolfensohn if they could tell me which global tax mechanism was preferred and what kind of timing did they foresee. I was told that “this was a very complex issue”….

It should be noted that you always need the poor to justify a transfer of wealth. Interestingly enough many of the very poor and highly indebted poor countries are rich in minerals such as gold. However, most of the income from mining minerals goes to pay the World Bank back for loans made to many of these third world countries. Back in the 1970s and 80s, the World Bank made specific project loans to these countries to develop ways in which they could make money by selling electricity from hydro-electric dams, and other high capital investment projects which never panned out but became a financial noose around the necks of many third world countries. Some of these countries are the same that the UN wants us to fund the goals listed above.

[END QUOTING from Veon article]

And so, fellow Global Citizen-to-be, let’s continue with developing our understanding of what citizenship really is—a contract based on presumed benefits purportedly afforded us by “the government” of whatever jurisdiction in which we find ourselves.

[QUOTING from Mercier:]

The Citizenship Contract

…Earlier, I mentioned that the 14^th 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 14^th Amendment then and there creates a Citizenship Contract.  Yes, there are special benefits to be had from the 14^th Amendment. So although the 14^th 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 14^th 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 14^th Amendment. Those students are then taught, quite erroneously, that since the United States derives its taxing power from the 14^th Amendment, therefore, once an Individual has severed his relationship from the 14^th 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 stands for the proposition that States derive their taxing and regulatory jurisdiction from the 14^th Amendment—a particularly stupid conclusion to arrive at since such a statement means that prior to the 14^th Amendment there were no State taxes or regulatory jurisdictions; and that is a factually defective point of beginning to commence any legal analysis.

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.

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 14^th Amendment—a very accurate and correct statement, of and by itself. But the conclusions those Tax Protestors draw, that termination of the adhesive King’s Equity Jurisdiction that the 14^th Amendment attaches is the only thing they need concern themselves with, is incorrect. 14^th 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 14^th 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.

Federal Benefits

There is no single place I can point folks to and say, “Here, Citizens, are your benefits.”  Even listings of benefits in the dicta of Supreme Court rulings are fractured and incomplete. And the Congress is largely the same.  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; 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 possess 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.  Some benefits of Citizenship are proprietary and the distribution of those benefits are limited to identifiable groups, for example, such as the elective franchise.  Some other benefits inuring to Citizens of the United States are, in general, the protection of United States Marshals.

Yes, all Citizens accept the protectorate benefits offered by the United States Marshal Service. 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. 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.

As for the 14^th Amendment, the reason why the 14^th 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.  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.

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 14^th Amendment have additional contracts in effect (stemming from the additional benefits that the 14^th 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.

I would advise you to terminate your reliance on information originating from people who lace excessive priority attention on the 14^th Amendment Citizenship question, as their stand-alone arguments are without any merit whatsoever for purposes of detaching yourself away from Federal Taxation liability.

Code of Federal Regulations

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. But just where do the King and the Federal Judges get off with the idea that Citizenship, all by itself, attaches liability to Title 26?  Nowhere in Title 26 is there any concise discussion about how Citizens are those Persons identified in Section 7203 (“Willful Failure to File”) as being one of “all persons who are required to file...”.

So just where do Federal Judges get the idea that Citizens are Persons under contract, suitable for a smooth Federal taxation shake down?  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.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 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 its father, the Federal Register) are required to be judicially noticed. And the Code of Federal Regulations is also Prima Facie Evidence of the text of the original documents.

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.”

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 stripping 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.

The Code of Federal Regulations is also another source of identifying handouts and benefits offered to Citizens. 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 “every person born or naturalized in the United States” seem familiar to you?  It should, because it comes straight out of the 14^th 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.

Who are those individuals? For starters, they are those Individuals who don’t accept any benefits or handouts from the King.

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.

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, [who,] 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.”

Title 26 Severance

Yes, Citizenship is very much a contract, and Federal Judges generally think in contract terms when dealing with a Tax or Draft Protestor. 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?

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.

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.

The idea of using the King’s Equity Jurisdiction of Citizenship as the point of adhesion to tax individuals goes far back into antiquity. 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. 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.

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, 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. Our Fathers fell for that “ability to pay” reasoning then, just like most folks today continue to fall for that same line today….

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; 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….

What happens to Citizens who reject the King’s benefits? They become Denizens.

[[Quoting from a footnote:]]

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)).

[[End quoting from footnote]]

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.

[[Quoting from a footnote:]]

The reason why I have had such headaches getting to the very bottom of Citizenship is because the King’s boys clam 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).

[[End quoting from footnote]]

The correct origin of the Citizenship problem (if problem is the word) lies back in the 1700s, 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: 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; 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.”

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.

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?

Answer: The same way one gets rid of any other contract.

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.

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.  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.

Individual or Corporation?
Irrelevant Once Benefits Accepted

In a footnote, Mercier expounds a widely quoted case, which is often used by people arguing “lack of jurisdiction” of the corporate government over the living, breathing individual. As he explains, it doesn’t matter once benefits can be presumed to prove the existence of a contract.

[QUOTING:]

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.

[END QUOTING]

Requiem: ‘Saved on the Blood of Jesus’

“Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi”—translated from Latin this means, “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,” and goes on to say, “…grant them eternal peace.” All the Brown Sugar in the world couldn’t sweeten this poison bait, ESPECIALLY for those recently passed over to “the other side”, for whom such a requiem is ostensibly provided. We’ll wrap up this section with a footnote on the subject of “ignorance is bliss”.

[QUOTING:]

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.

[END QUOTING]

In the next installment we’ll see what Mercier has to say on the subject of “Federal Reserve Notes”.