Cottonwood Diction
THE LEGAL TRAP OF RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP - Beware the Pirates Code Tags: danger immunity Legal Rabbit Hole matrix renuciation stateless

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?

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.

Why not?

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”.


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…

State­less means.…FUBAR.

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?


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”.

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”.



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.


David-Parker: Williams

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.


Blog Categories

Recent Comments
No one has commented recently

This website is powered by Spruz