Beware the Pirates Code.
Below is a letter "from the mailbag" addressing issues concerning Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship.
Are you familiar with this link, Mr. Williams? http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html#
Did you participate in these action as well? Yes and No And if you did not, then why?
Am I familiar with Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship? Yes
Do or did I “participate”? No.
This is a “program” designed to transfer “a cow” from one ranch (slave plantation) to another ranch. If you will notice, it states that you “should” possess other “nationality” (but you don’t have to). That means that you become a “national”. Nationals have “granted civil rights”. I didn’t become a “national”.…I became “Ambassador at Large” with diplomatic rights. I still possess those rights.
I am attaching the SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES. You will see that this “code” is bogus, according to the treaties signed by the United States. But, if you don’t know International law and treaties; and you then conform to the “code” (by agreement).…as it says.…it does not get you out of “your debtor slave obligations”.
Allow me to list the problems inherent with this THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT :
“(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State” (emphasis added).
Do other countries do this when thir “nationals” become US citizens? No. A naturalization process of a “foreign state” cannot be dictated by the “state of origination”. That would be like the US dictating the process for become a Panamanian (or Bolivian or any other nation-state other than US. However, if you understand the verbiage.…it is not talking about “becoming a naturalized citizen of another State/nation”.…it is talk about “making a formal renunciation of nationality”. Why would someone do that when it is not necessary? Where in International Law and Treaties is such “renunciation” required?
At this point.…open the file (pdf) and go to page 63 and read Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention on Nationality that the United States is signatory to. Make sure that you keep in mind that some nations may not sign or may have reservations. If they were one of the “High Contracting Parties” at the Convention and they “do not sign at all”…they must make record of their refusal or reservation. So, be sure to scroll to the end of that “session” on page 64 and read the reservations. (note: you will not see the United States making a reservation, meaning that they adopted this convention. To verify the accuracy of what I just said, scroll to page 69 where you will see the United States making reservations on Extradition; and further to page 71 where you will find a declaration of the United States about their “belief” in Political Asylum.)
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. So what? Does this sound like you’re “in control” of this process? Does this sound a little “arbitrary” in nature? Mr. Cameron, the what that I refer to; for those that do this “renunciation process” and make themselves a “target” of the “Matrix system” is this.…you’re admitting that you’re incompetent and you’re saying.…“I don’t know International Law.” If you are going to “renounce citizenship”, you must be in another country from the start of the process. Therefore; International laws and International protocols govern. This is by Treaty and Agreement.
This is Catch 22.…because this is an International process. And the Catch 22 goes back to the document attached and the question previously posed; which is: Why would someone do this “renunciation process” when it is not required? This is an intentional snare. As George Bush said, if you are not “with us, you are against us”. The obviousness of this intentional snare is the fact that it doesn’t conform to International Protocols, it makes you “appear” (possibly and unnecessarily) belligerent, it can make you vulnerable it ways that are destructive (as you will see as I cover the highlighted problems), and it’s based on people’s voluntary consent to do the process due to ignorance.
Using International Protocols, as I did; there are much more Peaceful means and ways. The U.S. has acknowledged me now as Ambassador at Large for the State that I now represent. They did so specifically because I executed everything in accordance with the International Public Order as defined within the International Agreements/(treaties) and Protocols. Therefore, the US knows that I am not incompetent and have no statements on any record that might be “questionable”. In fact, the very opposite is true.…but that requires further information that is not within the context of your question.…so continuing…
Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. Courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. Citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below. Ineffective? It’s ineffective because a “lateral transfer” from one “slave plantation” to another “slave plantation” is not “exercising the Right of Self Determination and Self Governance”. And, naturalization is the process of transfer…not “renunciation”. Renunciation is only a trap to “make you stateless”…if you don’t “repatriate” somewhere else. You are claiming that you are totally incompetent, in any event.…especially if you “make yourself stateless”.
Please re-read subsection C, again. It’s about (alleged) privileges and benefits versus liabilities…if you understand what I mean. (if not, we can discuss it later)
Persons intending to renounce U.S. Citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. This is blatant identification of the Legal Catch 22. This would be a “holy crap, Batman” moment. No protection of any government?! Whaddya think they’re doing this “homegrown terrorism bill” for? This “act” has already passed and it’s intent is to “identify possible domestic belligerents”; and then once “identified”, to make “Americans/USCitizens” stateless, so that “no other State” will interfere with “the domestic terrorists’ internment” into a Camp, such as have been already built for such purposes. And, they are building “a list”; that is Homeland Security’s function. That’s it. That is their function; and ignorantly doing such a process as this can (possibly) “identify you”.
Here’s what happens when you understand International Law and Peaceful Protocols, the LAW OF NATIONS, and the Right of Self Determination. Note: Please read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (I suggest “entirety”, but specifically Art. 15) and the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights (Article 1 Sentence 1 spec.) for confirmation of some of the following…
Building a State/nation and Self Governing.…sovereign immunity and political rights.….good.
Integration into an Independent State as diplomatic member or representative…diplomatic immunity and political rights.…good.
National status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.
Citizen status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.
Resident status.…granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.
Alien.….granted civil rights; no immunity.……bad.
(fouled up beyond all recognition…never make assumptions)
Do you understand? NO RIGHTS, NO PROTECTIONS.…NOTHING. They (meaning any State or Nation) can put you in a C-130 like a piece of luggage…and open the door at 20,000 feet and throw you out…and no one (and I mean no one) can or is going to say a word on your behalf you are deemed “stateless”. This is about understanding the world you live in today; and the Ramifications of Legal Ignorance.
As they say.…there is no excuse. Result: You can get fried for stupidity.
[Note Mr. C: this is for your edification about “the movement”. “The Movement” is a name used by Judges in the Federal Courts. Been there…know it. This term refers to those that call themselves by names, titles, and positions that don’t exist and never existed…but which the Fed and State courts have ruled as Domestic Terrorist.
1. Sovereign Citizen.…no such thing.…oxymoronic.. Citizens are subjects. Sovereigns are Monarchs or nations. Therefore: STUPID/bad
2. State National.…what? The State ain’t ‘national’. Stupid and oxymoronic. Means nothing. Although many claim that these terms are interchangeable. In a sense that is true, since neither exist “in law” and they are both a “fraud”.…as they don’t exist. [And it ain’t your state, anyway. You didn’t create it. These guys are going to prison in droves at the moment. They are ignorant and arrogant; a dangerous combination; and according to certain sources I have…it is going to get worse.…a lot worse. It is why they are passing these new “domestic terrorist” bills. But, be warned…no matter how many times you show them; and even if they cannot rebut you with any facts/information; they cannot be convinced in any manner. None of them will debate the issue of their lunacy with “outsiders”. Although…they debate it among one another as to which position is actually accurate. They beat themselves silly at seminars. The stories are very comical. They are so arrogant about the “rightness” of their position; that they will fight and argue vehemently with each other. Bad. Avoid like plague.]
They may also have difficulty traveling…That sucks. But it is the result of “renunciation”. It does not say that “difficult travel” is the result of “a naturalization process” before the competent authorities of another State. Nor does it say that “difficult travel“is result of the exercise of the “Right of Self Determination.” It is this (bogus) “renunciation process”.
Renunciation vs. Naturalization vs. ASSUMING YOUR SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION AMONG THE POWERS OF THE EARTH.
Under the Doctrine of Reciprocity.…if THEY are free to travel anywhere…then so are THOSE that exercise the latter.…due to the Doctrine of Equality. Equal Station means “EQUAL STATUS/station/state”. At this level.…you must learn to read “what it does not say”.
Nonetheless, renunciation of U.S. Citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual back to the United States in some non-citizen status.
Well.…I guess ya better be sure that the other Rancher/Farmer running the other ranch/slave-plantation likes you before you start filing any “possibly identifying belligerent” papers, huh? This would be known as the “Yehsa, Massa” clause. “Non-citizen” means “stateless” if you have done the renunciation process properly according to the United States Code. They are telling you plainly that…
Also, persons who wish to renounce U.S. Citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. Citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. Tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information).
Wow.…does not effect your tax status whatsoever, eh? And, they can still toss your butt back into the Military…if you ever served…under the guidelines of STOPLOSS. Of course, my contention is that you might want to pay real close attention to a movie called: EAGLE EYE.…in which “any US Citizen can be ACTIVATED for the purpose of National Defense…according to the CON-STITUTION. This would be because Article 2 Section 3 (according to me and Patrick Henry…among others) grants the President (i.e. Supreme Commander-in-Chief) the “powers of a King”.
If you are unfamiliar with the “powers of a King” then another great movie wherein THEY told everyone that little secret about “the Powers of a King” was PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END…in the scene where a parlay is called between Lord Becket and Elizabeth Swan: KING OF THE BREATHREN COURT. She turns him (Jack Sparrow) over to Lord Becket as .…“Keeng”.
In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. Citizenship will not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.
No absconding DEBTORS allowed. Can’t flee the mortgages…or the taxes. S.O.L. (sorry, out of luck)
Parents cannot renounce U.S. Citizenship on behalf of their minor children.
Who’s your “daddy” now?
READ THIS SENTENCE ON THAT WEBLINK SEVERAL TIMES TO “GET IT”.
I suggest you Google or find a Black’s Law Dictionary and look for the term: parens patraie and learn more about it. For instance: from wikipedica; “Parens patriae relates to a notion initially invoked by the King’s Bench in the sixteenth century in cases of non compos mentis adults”. http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae
And, this is an entirely different conversation about the effects of this act of Congress.…
Please consider the effects of renouncing U.S. Citizenship, described above, before taking this serious and irrevocable action.
This is why I don’t participate in “their private code”…I use International Law because International Law is the “Supreme Law of the Land”.
Treaty: INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NATIONS
Farmers #4; Anti-Federalist Papers
US Constitution; Article 2 section 3 and Article 6 sentence 2 (read what Patrick Henry; the historian of the time and Attorney, had to say about the future”)
Make no mistake about it, International Law is Supreme Law of the Land called America; and it trumps that “code” (i.e.secret language) every time.
And that, as they say.…“is all, folks”.
THE LEGAL MATRIX: A WEB OF CATCH 22s.….coming soon to a website “near” you.
Thanks for the query, Mr. Cameron. These are fun.
P.S. Some other material for your “edification pleasure”.….
P.S.S. O.…please go back and click the link in the website link that you sent…referencing (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) and pay particular attention that this only applies to subsection (5) of part (a) of § 1481 of “THEIR CODE”. There are other sections that correspond and conform more correctly with the Treaties and Conventions on Naturalization signed by the United States.