Growing Black Opposition to Forced Citizenship by Roger Roots
As reported in The Jubilee more than 2 years ago (Vol. 7, No. 2, 3), the IRS and Justice Department are facing a legal challenge from growing numbers of Blacks based on their forced U.S. citizenship status. Dr. Robert Brock, longtime President of the Washington, D.C.-based Self Determination Committee, filed a federal lawsuit in April of 1993 on behalf of slave-descended Africans in America who refuse to pay income taxes.
The challenge was based on well-founded principles of law: How can African Nationals be citizens of the United States when they never agreed to be governed by the United States? Their forced enlistment as U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment was just another type of slavery, according to Brock. Brock outlined four main issues on which the refusal of Blacks to pay taxes was based:
A. There was no MUTUALITY of agreement to partake in the citizenship of the 14th Amendment.
B. There was no opportunity for
DISCLAIMER on the part of Blacks who wished to decline forced citizenship.
C. The legal DOMICILE OF black ex-slaves was and continues to be in Africa, according to all the rules of legal construction. (The domicile of origin is the domicile of every person until it is abandoned freely. The domicile gained by free birth in Africa cannot be changed by a slave birth in the United States.)
D. JURISDICTION based on Slavery. Brock’s legal analysis is as logical as his conclusion is inescapable. The forced citizenship of Blacks was the product of completely unilateral acts by others against them. No vote was ever taken, no petitions were ever signed, and no polls were ever conducted to indicate that African Nationals in America wanted to live under the White-created Constitution. The case was originally dismissed by the federal district court in Los Angeles. Brock has appealed and petitioned for rehearing over a 4-year period. The U.S. Attorney’s Office finally responded in April, 1994 but did not dare broach the specific allegations of Brock’s action.
“It is clear that [Brock’s] constitutional challenges to the income tax on his wages are nothing more than the usual garden variety tax-protestor-type arguments that have time and again been rejected by all courts to have considered them,” wrote the assistant U.S. Attorney. The case has now wound its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has denied certiorari. Brock is currently petitioning for a rehearing, but views the case as having reached the end of the line in U.S. courts. Brock has been busy trying to gather 2-1/2 million signatures of Blacks who vow to stop paying income tax. “in view of the fact that the United States after 4 years has not come forward with an answer to the 4 questions,” Brock told The Jubilee, “2-1/2 million Blacks are not going to pay any more taxes to the U.S. and will take direct action to obtain reparations and self-determination.”
While it is unknown how many Blacks will actually follow up on their vows to refuse to volunteer income tax payments, it is certain that the petitions serve another purpose. They are disclaimers of mutuality and stand as evidence that the signor does not consent to citizenship. And because all legal remedies have been exhausted, Brock said, “We [Blacks] will be forced to take direct action or seek redress under international law.”
THE EXPATRIATION ACT OF 1868 AND HOW BLACKS CAN GET OUT FROM UNDER U.S TAXES BY THE SELF DETERMINATION COMMITTEE
What is Expatriation?
The U.S. Congress passed The Expatriation Act of 1868 one day prior to the pronouncement of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Expatriation Act of 1868 made official the Congressional view that every individual on earth has the absolute right to expatriate (remove) himself from one government to another if he so desires. The current Expatriation Act is based upon The Expatriation Act of 1968. The 1868 Expatriation Act was, in reality, an effort to cover up a substantial error contained in the 13th Article of Amendment, which reads:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereon the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Now by what international authority did the Congress of the United States have to place upon the Black People of this nation, who were, or whose ancestors and antecedents before them were brought into the Territorial Jurisdiction of this nation by force (not political/social) in chains without their consent of mutuality? The fact was that the Congress knew they had no such jurisdiction, and so The Expatriation Act was their offer to the Blacks to expatriate themselves, i.e. to voluntarily abandon one’s country, renouncing one’s country and becoming the citizen or subject of another country. After over 200 years of slavery and forced illiteracy by the threat of death if caught reading a book, Blacks had 24 hours to make this decision. Where were Blacks to go, and with what? In this manner, Congress was attempting to free itself of the responsibility for slavery.
Repatriation, Reparations and Self Determination should have been offered to the slaves. Since the ignorant Blacks knew nothing of this Expatriation Act, few, if any took advantage of it. A very few did sign papers for this act. The inaction of the remainder of the Blacks (most of us) did, however, in the eye of the Congress, make our future servitude “voluntary” thus conforming to the intent of the 13th Amendment. Contrary to the popular misunderstanding, the 13th Amendment did not free the slaves, but, in effect, removed slaves from the private hands of their Confederate slave masters, who had lost the war, placing them into the hands of legislative government where African slaves’ descendants continuously to today have their “ownership” as legislated slaves without Self Determination.
Blacks of slaves’ descent were without the political process under constitutional provisions until the ratification of the 14th Amendment under martial law as an adhesion contract, making Blacks “person after the law” which is to say that Blacks became legislatively granted citizens “after” the law was passed, without their participation, consent or mutuality, whereas Whites are Citizens “before” the law and their status does not depend on law but on their mutual consent to the law. The legal status of Blacks is continued enslavement, i.e. persons with no choice in their so-called citizenship who were forced to pay taxes with the 16th Amendment. White People pay direct taxes under the Constitution in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (1787):
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States” As such, there are two citizenships in America, one for Whites and one for Blacks, and two direct Taxing structures, one for Whites and one for Blacks, which is racial discrimination. There is also legislated Civil Rights for Blacks and Human Rights for Whites, mutuality contracts for Whites and “adhesion contracts” for Blacks. These differences are in violation of International Law and serve to explain our continued confusion and
apprehensions about our legal status in America. How Can Blacks Expatriate from the Racially Discriminatory Laws on Citizenship and Taxation and Get Out from Under U.S. Taxes?
Attorney Dr. Robert L. Brock is helping African slaves’ Descendants to get out from under U.S. taxes and racial discriminatory laws, and while there has been no solution for slavery after the deaths of 100 million Blacks plus forced citizenship and forced taxation, by expatriating from the corporate U.S. Government you will not be obligated to pay U.S. taxes.
Expatriation does not mean that you will have to leave the United States.
You can maintain residency in the U.S. Our current residency is as captives of war. What more to have residency based upon choice via Expatriation, with an end to illegal taxation? Africans did not come to the U.S. to be citizens by choice as do immigrants.
You can expatriate yourself from the United States as a forced legislative person “after the law” as an African Slaves’ Descendant.
Source: The Champion Newspaper, February 18, 1998, Decatur, Georgia
“Quest for Answers in Tax Case Continue”
It all began when a young woman, Carolyn Worsley, from Tarboro, north Carolina decided not to open her mouth, according to Dr. Robert Brock, because she refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. This made her the perfect case.
“I’m not that bold. If they [the courts] ask me for my name, I’ll give it,” Brock said. But this young woman, Carolyn Worsley, basically said, “I’m not subject to your jurisdiction,” and did not submit. Because of this, she became the perfect “test case.” Worsley was indicted on two counts of filing false claims against the United States Government.
According to a press release from the office of Janice McKenzie Cole of the United States Attorney’s Office, Worsley filed her 1994 and 1995 Federal Income Tax Returns knowing that they contained fraudulent losses from self-employed businesses. The amounts, which could ultimately cost her up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000 and a supervised release term of three years, were $3,052 for 1994 and $3,319 for 1995. Worsley was indicted (although the jury Foreman failed to sign the paperwork) on April 3 and subsequently arrested on April 9 and held without bond until April 14.
Brock submitted a “Notice to the Courts” on her behalf which basically stated that because Worsley was a U.S. slave descendant [and not a citizen of the United States] based on the fact that there has never been mutuality (or coming to a mutual agreement with the former slaves) and domicile (persons who were taken from Africa by force who never agreed to become residents of the United States of America); although according to the New Standard Encyclopedia, the 14th Amendment that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” does not apply to her, because of the prior disagreements; therefore, the United States has no jurisdiction over her. What made this case different, according to Brock, was that Worsley, “refused to submit; she didn’t answer any of their questions. Not a single one.” She didn’t even tell them her name. In an order issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Eastern Division, the court found the issue to be “frivolous and without merit,” and cited several cases where courts have uniformly rejected the argument that individuals who are “Freeborn” or “natural individuals” are not subject to taxation. In the transcript of a hearing held on Monday, July 7, Worsley did not verbally answer any questions, and Brock asserted that there were two different approaches that could be taken in the case. One was that the United States lacked jurisdiction over Worsley, which Brock said that he provided the Court and to the United States Attorney’s Office, and the other was that she was arrested illegally. Brock requested that the court rule on the issue of jurisdiction. The judge set her hearing for August 25 at 9 A.M. In the meantime, the battle lines were being drawn. On Monday, August 18 the Court ruled that it did, in fact, have jurisdiction over Worsley; however, because Brock did not receive the notice until the Friday prior to the Monday trial, he was forced to file an Emergency Writ of Prohibition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Virginia on Monday the 25th to stop the proceedings. In his writ, Brock cited several areas including the fact that the United States and the Internal Revenue Service did not respond to the motion of Judicial Notice challenging jurisdiction as a matter of right under Rule 201(e) (f) which erroneously stated that the United States had responded; based on that lack of responses, he challenged the ORDER written August 20; and he claimed that Worsley was forced to sign a release to stay out of jail and cited an excessive bond amount. While Brock was filing the writ in Virginia, outside of the courthouse in Greensboro, protestors marched to show their disapproval of the treatment that Worsley was receiving. In November, Brock received an Unpublished Opinion of three of the Appeals Court Justices which, according to Brock, continued to disregard facts. On December 1, Brock filed a petition for a Rehearing in Banc (which would bring all 10 justices together to hear the case). The petition was denied “as no member of this court or the panel requests a poll on the suggestion for rehearing in banc.” Brock will visit Greenville, North Carolina on Saturday, February 21 at 3 P.M. to discuss Reparations and Taxation.
The Worsley Defense Fund, P.O. Box 15288, Washington, D.C. 20003.
Black Tax Rebellion in the U.S.A.
(A reprint from the Daily Challenge
Tuesday, Forum Column, p. 5, April 29, 1997)
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights “The laws of nature, law of self-preservation, and International Law are here the applicable laws, since the United States cannot be sued for slavery, since it allowed Negro slavery by its law and Constitution, but then, how can the United States use its Constitution to tax Blacks of slaves’ descent? Are we to say the United States is immune from slavery charges?” Dr. Robert Brock, Self Determination Committee The prejudice of the Government and the Caucasian majority in the United States against Blacks (slaves’ descendants) is deeply, almost mysteriously rooted in the past.
Therefore the Nations of the world may not yet realize what it is that fuels America’s racial turmoil. In this study of the presently occurring Back Tax Rebellion, an attempt is made to clarify this hidden element. We recognize that there are officials, and member States of the United Nations who have observed, with deep interest the problems in America. Some know that the United States of America is a uniquely deceitful government, claiming a great human rights record while hiding gross violations of human rights from world view. Others may need to see more evidence. This study gives evidence of the fear-driven decisions of the U.S. Government, it shows how these decisions have caused the most serious Black rebellion to date, and it demonstrates how Blacks are justified seeking the assistance of the world community. If the United Nations would intervene to help resolve the racial conflict in America at this moment, it could not stop the Black Tax Rebellion. The Self Determination Committee of Attorney, Dr. Robert L. Brock has collected 60,000 signatures (125,000 as of 1998) of persons disclaiming mutuality with the U.S. Constitution. This number is rapidly growing as Blacks begin to question the legality of their status. Because of the climate of fear and hate, such a rebellion is bound to cause great tension between Blacks and the U.S. Constitution and the Caucasian majority. Increased tension promises increased oppression and increasing demands for U.N. intervention. Can the Black Tax Rebellion be defended, before the Nations of the World, as rebellion against tyranny? The following facts will indicate that this rebellion may indeed be justifiable. Upon reading these facts, perhaps Member States will respond to the petition of the Honorable Silis Muhammad, and the Government of the Lost Found Nation, and prepare to step in and protect slave descendants while they force the United States to comply with International Law. We will begin our study by looking at the work that Dr. Brock has done to exhaust the available judicial remedies. Before we look at the arguments that we brought before the Courts, it can be revealed that the final result was __ the U.S. Government waived its rights and defaulted (In The Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1996, No. 96-6680: WAIVER. The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the court. Walter Dellinger, Acting Solicitor General.). Dr. Brock spent four years taking the case through the Courts, eventually having to file a brief to the Supreme Court in Certiorari asking the Court the question, “How are we before the Supreme Court when no issue was raised and all of the defendants defaulted? Since no issue was raised, the opposition came from the Court itself.” Early on in his fight, Dr. Brock was quoted as saying, “The Judge resorted to any excuse as a rationale to dispose of this hearing, since if the merits of this case were to so much as get into the Court, we would have won a priori because all of the premises of our action from decades of research, are un-impeachable.” What we see in the action of the Court is a Government dodging, hiding and hoping that it can avoid the fruit of its oppression. The action of the Courts in opposing the slave descendant’s prayer, rather than judging the facts, gives great strength to the prayer for United Nations intervention.
Dr. Brock insists that slave descendants are now empowered to go forward on their own as they went forward before they were in slavery. Also, the IRS cannot take Blacks to court for not paying taxes when they’re already in court and the Government waived its rights and defaulted. So therefore the IRS commits violence if it does anything else to collect income tax from Blacks (slaves’ descendants) in the future. It appears that the legal grounds may be firmly established for the Black Tax Rebellion.
Following are four arguments upon which the case is built, and two rules or conclusions. Mutuality – The Basis of All Law: The 13th Amendment to the Constitution brought an end to the buying and selling of African captives. The 13th Amendment also gave a new power to Congress, and that power was to enforce the 13th Amendment by appropriate legislation (Civil Rights law). In essence, this meant that the slaves were removed from the authority of their individual owners and put under the authority of the Congress. This, Dr. Brock argues, points toward one continuous act of enslavement. The 14th Amendment proceeded to make the slaves citizens. Since other persons (other than slaves) were already citizens, born and naturalized, the 14th Amendment had a problem in accomplishing slave citizenship. They could not offer the slaves mutuality because the slaves might make demands for compensation, might wish to return home, might wish to govern themselves. The old fear of rebellion or retaliation must have entered the reasoning process of the lawmakers. The slaves were not offered a choice in citizenship, and so the basis of law, which is mutuality, was ignored. The new 14th Amendment (2nd class) citizens, under the control of the Congress, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, forced into citizenship, were still not free nor were they equal. Subsequently the slave descendants were taxed under the 16th Amendment.
Disclaiming the Foundation of U.S. Law: Under the guidance of Dr. Brock, the Petitioner Leonard Ashton, descendant of slaves, on behalf of himself and 49 million slaves’ descendants, made an oral disclaimer of the U.S. Constitution and all of its laws, statutes, rules and regulations. A maxim of law is that silence means consent, baring the Statute of Limitation. Since there was no opportunity for disclaimer at the time when the 14th Amendment forced citizenship upon the slaves, that disclaimer Limitation, Dr. Brock filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Los Angeles Central District, on December 10, 1965 to stop the Statute of Limitation on slavery, thereby gaining time to exhaust the legal remedies and gradually inform the slave descendants of the legal issues. After Mr. Ashton delivered the disclaimer in Court, Dr. Brock was able to argue that since the Plaintiff disclaimed the Constitution on the grounds that no mutuality ever at any time existed between the United States and Plaintiff, it is the duty and law of the United States to overcome this disclaimer by proof of mutuality or consent, showing that the Plaintiffs are by mutual law subject to paying taxes as free people.
Determining the Domicile of Slave Descendants: Can domicile be forced? Dr. Brock states the following: “The domicile gained by free birth of Africans in Africa cannot be changed by a slave birth in the United States, and the Rules are: (1) It lies upon the other side (the U.S. and IRS) to show that the clear unquestionable domicile, gained by birth of Africans in Africa was abandoned and given up; (2) That the domicile of origin is the domicile of every Person, until that is abandoned, and another gained; (3) That no domicile can be acquired until the Person is free and sui juris.” The conclusion is that slave descendants don’t have domicile as of yet until they take it out, and they can’t take it out because they are slaves. (Remember Dr. Brock’s argument that because there is no mutuality, and a disclaimer exists, slave descendants are in involuntary slave status until the Government offers mutuality, reparation and self-determination.) Denying U.S. Jurisdiction: Dr. Brock asks, “If the Government does not have the prerequisites to jurisdiction, such as mutuality and domicile, then how can it have jurisdiction?” The argument states that there can be no jurisdiction and venue over all U.S. Slaves’ Descendants of African National Ancestry unless the Defendants IRS and the United States overcome the disclaimer and the two rules.
RULE 1: That in view of the true and legal status of Petitioner/appellant Leonard Ashton, and all of the forty-nine millions of Appellants’ class or group identified as
“United States Slaves and Slaves’ Descendants of African National Ancestry Origin and Ethnic Group resident in the Territory of the United States, as per their contract of citizenship and association, no indictment can lie in absence of proof of crime.
RULE 2: The Government of the United States must have jurisdiction of United States Slaves’ Descendants of African Origin, and that there is no prosecution in the absence of jurisdiction, and before a crime by United States Slaves’ Descendants of African Origin, there must be a violation of the law and the violator must be a subject of the law, and the Court must have jurisdiction.
The government of the United States has not paused for one moment and said “You are free, and you are human.” Therefore we do see a continuous act of force (physical and psychological) applied by the U.S. Government against Blacks to this day. It is fear that has kept the U.S. Government from confessing to slavery and recognizing the full humanity of slave descendants. That fear has given grounds for rebellion and retaliation.
Following are the suggestions of Dr. Brock:
a. Do not comply with the illegal laws to pay taxes to the IRS and the U.S. on April 15th of each year. b. Recover all illegal paid taxes.
c. Organize and support actions for self-determination, liberties and reparations.
d. Use all means of International Law and law of self-defense to obtain these rights.
United Nations Intervention In the United States, due to the efforts of Dr. Robert Brock, and of Congressman John Conyers, both the Judicial and Legislative remedies have apparently been exhausted. The Legislature has refused to take the first step toward considering a remedy (HR 40 tabled since its introduction in 1991), and as we have read, the Judicial remedy is exhausted. The references to International Laws, covenants and Treaties in the legal brief of dr. Brock, along with the opinion of an expert in International Law, Dr. Y.N. Kly, in his book, A Popular Guide to Minority Rights (p. 70-73), seem to verify that salve descendants have legal grounds and the United Nations has an obligation. Members of C.U.R.E./A.F.R.E. suggest that Blacks are correct in taking the legal, nonviolent actions suggested by Dr. Brock, and they deserve the assistance of the world community. We urge the members States of the United Nations to respond to communications from the Honorable Silis Muhammad and the government of the Lost Found Nation on behalf of slaves’ descendants.
Readers can contact Dr. Robert Brock and join in the
Black Tax Rebellion by writing to the Self Determination Committee, P.O. Box 15288, Washington, D.C. 20003.
Support Carolyn Yvonne Worsley
Carolyn Yvonne Worsley’s victory is your victory. She stands alone fighting our war our battle. Carolyn Yvonne Worsley has made her demand. This is the battle that may finalize Reparations. If the Carolyn Yvonne Worsley and The Self Determination Committee does not receive support from the people (you and I) the real reparations battle will be lost.
Carolyn Yvonne Worsley has taken the War for
Reparations to the Master’s door step. What will we do to help her?? She is depending on your support.
Carolyn Yvonne Worsley has a case in court which has the potential of bring the Master Down to his knees. She is fighting the real reparations battle and she is winning. Any Organization working for Black Reparations who does not understand this case cannot be working Toward Real Reparations. Understanding this Case will place you into the only real battle for Black Reparations. All other organizations must understand Carolyn Yvonne Worsley’s case to understand the real Reparation battle is in court. Direct Black Action is the Only way the Black Reparations battle can be won.
Carolyn Yvonne, ; Worsley in Propria Persona In the district court of the united States for the united States of America (Article III jurisdiction, pursuant to the constitution for the united States of America, effective 1789.) for the eastern district of North Carolina State, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Et al.
(in recognition of Defendant Carolyn Yvonne Worsley’s Federal juristic article person citizenship by legislation of Article 1, of the 14th Amendment, the Plaintiff’s listing should be “UNITED STATES” ) Plaintiff, VS. Carolyn Yvonne, Worsley, US. Slaves’ Des Defendant. Disclaimer: Constitution, Laws
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR REQUEST AND ORDER FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
OF CITIZENSHIP NOT VERIFIED; MEMORANDUM AND DECLARATION
Federal Rules of Evidence Manuel, Article II. Judicial Notice. Rule 201.
Chief Judge: JAMES C. FOX
Defendant’s Plea To The jurisdiction Based on the International Law Crime / Treaty Prohibiting Slavery
That No Court of Plaintiff United States, The Internal Revenue Service has Jurisdiction. Treaty Provisions
TO: Chief Judges James C. Fox AND THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, with the status Of United States slaves, Descendant, files this MOTION OF MYSELF AS THE INJURED PARTY, FOR REQUEST AND ORDER FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CITIZENSHIP, NOT VERIFIED: MEMORANDUM AND DECLARATION Federal Rules of Evidence Manuel, Article II, judicial Notice, Rule 201.
Defendant here files Memorandum; a Disclaimer of the Constitution for the United States of America, its laws, statutes. Rules, regulations
Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, Defendant Herein Complains here in this Motion for Judicial Notice; Disclaimer, and Memorandum in support, of the Plaintiffs: and each of them in their individual capacity and collectively, and the Internal Revenue Service as an Agency, JOHN R. STARKEY, GEORGE A. MUENCH, MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON, and the UNITED STATES (not United States of America) and shows the Court and alleges herein by Paragraphs the facts in supporting the Judicial Notice Request; the Disclaimer and Claim for Relief:
FACTS The Facts are included herein as Attachment #1. Shows that I, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley was arrested, held, hauled away in irons of handcuffs, by force of arms
(Vietnamese) and imprisoned in jail. For pretended felonious crimes on taxes owed to the plaintiff United States in violation of a law: 18 U.S.C. Sections 287 and 2 of the United States in a two count indictment, here as Attachnent #2.
A review of the facts in the above Attachment #1, will show that the Plaintiffs George Muench, a White Jane Doe, and the Black Jane Doe, Dana Dailey, and U.S. Attorney (Black female Jane Doe 2 used their official power and positions to threaten, coerce detainment if I did not challenge their jurisdiction by talking answering question. This forced information was used to defame by Plaintiffs contacting my college, church and news releases, here
A review of the facts in the above Attachment #1, will show that the Plaintiffs George Muench, a White Jane Doe, and the Black Jane Doe, Dana Dailey, and U.S. Attorney (Black female Jane Doe 2 used their official power and positions to threaten, coerce detainment if I did not challenge their jurisdiction by talking answering question. This forced information was used to defame by Plaintiffs contacting my college, church and news releases, here
Also included herein as part of the FACTS. And NOW as a Motion, here with this Motion Request of Judicial
Notice of Citizenship is the: NOTICE To THE COURT
Judges of the Eastern Division, filed July 3, 1997 consisting of six pages and the following listed six Attachments:
a. Affidavit Of Facts Opposing venue, (Attachment #1)
b. Proof Of Service Return Receipt, (Attachment #2)
c. Order Setting Conditions of Release, (Attachment #3)
d. Two Count Indictment against Carolyn Yvonne
Worsley, (Attachment #4)
e. Judicial Review of Agency Actions Under Title 5,
702, filed May 5, 1997 in the Eastern Division
f. Black Tax Case of Two Citizenship, By Robert Brock,
Additional facts are that Carolyn Yvonne Worsley did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Court, but stood mute, and that my personal appearance was by force of arms.
Robert Brock. Counsel and “Advisor” to Carolyn Yvonne
Worsley, addressed the Court that Ms. Worsley was not a “tax protestor” but was challenging jurisdiction based on negro slavery, disclaimer, with no “mutuality’, however. Susan Seahorn, in violation of Ms. Worsley’s human and civil rights, attempted by force to represent and to plead to lesser charge. – In every social system there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Fortunately for the South, she has found a race adapted to that purpose at her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and we call them slaves. Senator, Jams Henry Hammond, South Carolina, 1861.
Comes now Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, in my own proper person, of my own right, under the protection, charges herein alleged as having been violated and committed by the above listed Plaintiffs, including the UNITED STATES and Internal Revenue Service (and not United States of America), falling within the ‘core’ of Ms.
Worsley’s Human Rights violation, such as:
B. Negro Slavery,
D. Non-Self-Governing Peoples,
E. Forced Association with White and Jew Slave masters,
F. Crimes Against Humanity, AND
G. “acts infringing principles of law creating rights, theeneficiaries (Carolyn Yvonne Worsley) of which do not have legal personality as required by Article 2,4, and 6, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article
16, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, Gen.Assm, R.2200, and Ms. Worsley, as a stateless person and as an ‘international person’ can use the treaties, and more correctly do not have presently effective means of protecting their rights. and all of the ‘core’ of human rights of Ms. Worsley and those of this Black Class of U.S. Slaves’ Descendants are now violated, now under jus cogens, which are by their nature international law, and here gives rise to Federal jurisdiction through treaty and customary international law, all pursuant to Charter of the United Nations, arising under, as well as by Article VI, Section 2, Constitution for the United States of America, Treaty of the United States with the United Nations, as hereinafter
-4- more fully appears 59 Statute 1035, chapter VI, Articles 33, 34,35, 36, 37, and 38; chapter VII, Articles 39 through 50 and 51; chapter IX, Article 55; Chapter XI,
Articles 73 and 74; The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, and 19; The
International convention on Slavery, Resolution of 1926,
Resolution 535A XVIII of 1954, 564 XIX of 1955, Resolution of the 1956 Slavery Convention, adopted in conformance with Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Text convention On The Prevention And punishment Of The crime Of Genocide ‘An Act;” Public Law 100-606, 102 Statute 3045; International convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Part I, Article 1; and Part II, Article 2, and also Section. 3(a);(b);(c); Articles 3,7, and 8, in which Carolyn Yvonne Worsley is in the Territorial Jurisdiction of United States, herein as Plaintiff as an enemy alien in a war of negro enslavement, however, the United States by unilateral legislation, and force of arms, called Carolyn Yvonne Worsley and class of 49 millions of U.S. slaves Descendants “residents” in Section 1 of the l4th Amendment, and all without choice, consent, and without mutuality. And Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, the injured Party, and Defendant herein, Notice the United States as following:
(7) DISCLAIMER It has NOW come to the attention of Carolyn Yvonne Worsley from information, lectures, literature, research, reading, complaints Los Angeles
April 2, 1993 by Leonard Ashton, Affidavit of Facts
-5 that I am a captive and slave.
(8) I, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, NOW fully understand my status to be that of a captive slave of African Origin Ancestry from the facts alleged herein, and call upon the United States and the Internal Revenue Service to rebut the same in writing in open Court. (9)
That I, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, supported by the Facts alleged herein, has never at any and all times to the present date, and whether through my ancestors of U.S. Slaves’ Descent or their antecedents before them, been or mutually accepted the legislative ordered association with and in the United States as stated in the l4th Amendment to the United States Constitution by being “born” in captivity and slavery as a condition used for association.
So that silence, performance, baring the statute of limitation, will not give consent, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, NOW with such knowledge and understanding of the association, and manner of inclusion of myself and ancestors into the Political society styled “United States of America” by force, slavery, no mutuality, now in the following words disclaim such association, and said manner of association in and with the United States forcing Ms. Worsley and Black Class of Slaves’
Descendants into forced obedience to its Internal Revenue Service Rules and Regulations of Title 26, is also a violation of Article 73 of the Treaty of United Nations.
Further there are TWO CITIZENSHIPS: one for whites who are Citizens of the United States of America-a nation1 and U.S Black
of Slaves’ Descendants who are citizens of the United States, with the distinguishing differences being: FOR WHITE CITIZENS: Under the Declaration of Independence, the free white Citizens of the independent nations (formerly thirteen colonies) came together and formed what is called a body politic. The purpose of this body politic was to form a national Constitution. This body politic possessed a limited sovereignty by their citizenry of the thirteen nations they were Citizens of. In other words, these free white people were already Citizens predated their adoption of a constitution. By forming a body politic (national) made up of the citizens from the thirteen nations (states) did not abolish their citizenship in the thirteen nations (states).
Nor did the creation of the national Constitution abolish their previous citizenry.
This structure is important to understand because it shows where the citizenry of the white people is established. The national/ federal Constitution did not establish citizens. Citizens established the national Constitution. These same white Citizens established the thirteen nations that formed the United States of America, which means citizenry is established by the several state, not the national/federal power. Nowhere in the original Constitution did the free white body politic give Congress the power to establish a citizenry. Any establishment of a citizenry by the Congress is done without the authority of the original/national/federal Constitution. The citizenry then, becomes a birthright issue. Who establishes the birthright? Those free white Citizens of the several States. Under this rule of birthright, you first had to be white and second a member of one of the United States (state). Then, and only then, were they termed Citizens of the United States (The term united State. meaning only States united). See White Citizenship Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution for the United States of America. Those white citizen by naturalization is by consent and mutuality.
FOR BLACK CITIZENSHIP: Unlike White Citizenship, which are citizenship of United States of America, Black citizenship is of the UNITED STATES, by legislation and not by mutuality of the 14th Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…’ Notice there is no relation to race and there is no definition of person, other than the “p” in person is not capitalized, indicating the word would not mean a Natural Person, but a juristic person.
As the courts have said, the “due process” and “Equal protection” clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment apply to corporations which ARE JURISTIC (artificial) persons. Compare this with
Article II, section 4 of the Constitution of the united State. of America: “No Person except a natural born Citizen,…”
-7- Notice the “N” in no, the “P” in Person and the “C” in Citizen. All of the capitalization is on the object to be distinguished as to who is a Natural Person. This is further clarified in Amy V. Smith, 1
Litt. Ky. R. 326, and Crandall V. Connecticut, (1834)
10 Conn340-358 which shows that not only Article IV, but all other Articles, I through VII of the National Constitution, were written only for the government of and for the white race, thereby barring Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, U.S. Slaves Descendant and Black Class from coming under their protection, THUS International Law must now be used By Ms. Worsley. See Neal V. Dalavare, (1880) 103 U.S. for nullification of white only State constitution, such as following: “In all elections not otherwise provided for by this #1 constitution, every white ma1e citizen of United State., ” Oregon Constitution, (1859)
Article 2. Section 2. “The electors or members of the general assembly shall
#2 be free white male citizens of the State,… ” Georgia Constitution, (1865) Article 5, Section 1. “Every free white male at age of twenty-one years #3 being a native or naturalized citizen of the United States,… ” North Carolina Constitution, (1856 Article 1, Section 3, clause
2. “All elections of governor, senator, and representatives #4 shall be by ballot. And in such election every free white man of the age of twenty-one years,… ” Delaware Constitution, (1792) Article 4, Section 1.
FURTHER, the Black Citizenship is Regional, unlike white State and Judicial Districts in that Federal citizens were and are governed by law martial agencies since the 14th Amendment was established. The first federal regional agency was the Freedman’s Bureau. (See an Act to establish a
Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees, approved March 3, 1865, 13 Statue 507 and An Act to continue in force and to amend “An Act to establish a bureau for the Relief of Freemen and Refugees”, and for other Purposes, approved July 16,1866, 14 Statute 173) Military power was used to enforce the regulations of this federal regional agency, however, White people were tricked frauded or volunteered into the Social Security scheme and 1040 IRS Forms, since Social Security is an act established under the
-8 jurisdiction of the law martial which establishes its membership under the jurisdiction of the law martial, THUS white citizens of a State cannot then use the Bill of Rights 10 Amendment, but go to regional tax court FURTHER, in Black Citizenship (Artificial persons is that of taxing all Blacks of U.S. Slaves’ Descendants as excise taxes. Go back to July 12, 1890, when Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment to the legislatures of the several States, who’s ratification was completed February 3, 1913 Soon afterwards suits against the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment were filed; The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power and the Court ruled the 16th Amendment was and is an excise tax, and excise taxes are allowed under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, See Long V. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238 (1922)
Here Carolyn Yvonne Worsley is being prosecuted for a crime for not paying taxes as an excise and she is also being taxed as an artificial person which follows her citizenship of 14th Amendment as can be seen from following: The above Supreme rulings established that the tax imposed under the 16th Amendment is an excise tax. The point everyone missed is what the 16th Amendment taxed. An excise tax under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution placed an excise on goods and Commodities, but had no power to impose an excise tax on the Citizen’s labor. It is the law martial that allows for Title 26 USC. Treasury Regulation 1.1-1(c) define the citizen of the United States to which the income tax laws apply as: “one subject to its jurisdiction. “ which is racial and slave two tier taxing structure for Black and white, also see same in Social Security Act,1935, 49Statute 620 as one subject to the jurisdiction; 26 USC 7701(a).
The Plaintiff United States, herein, and the Internal
Revenue Service used “law and Motion” against Carolyn Yvonne Worsley by them filing and charging Ms. Worsley with a crime on two counts for taxes, to which she now disclaim and for forcing her to execute a release form to get out of jail, to which she now also disclaim as following & making of Carolyn Yvonne Worsley as an artificial person citizen without mutuality subjecting her to the United States jurisdiction by force of arms and slavery: Disclaimer: Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, a Black Female of United States S1aves’ Descendants, seeking protection under international law, self-preservation, God Law and Law of Nature of self-defense from the herein alleged crime of the united States, JOHN R. STARKEY,
GEORGE A. MUENCH, MARGARET MILNER
RICHARDSON, ROBERT RUBIN, AND Others for the following reasons, among others:
1. Charging Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, with the status of slave with a crime without there ever at any and all time being any mutuality with the United States, it’s Laws,
Statutes, Title 26, its Constitution and its Fourteenth
Amendment and ITS Sixteenth Amendment
2. Imprisoning Carolyn Yvonne Worsley in jail by force of arms and threats to continue the imprisonment unless she agree to the United States jurisdiction and sign papers to get out of JAIL. 3. Exercising physical and personal jurisdiction over I, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, using the following word in the Fourteenth Amendment“… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” This jurisdiction, as in Dred Scott V. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 is slavery jurisdiction, there being even to date no mutuality
-10- I, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, a slave; held by the
United States as in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. constitution in my own proper person, seeking to presently be sui juris, for my protection under International Law from slavery and crimes by the UNITED STATES and the INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE and here the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT makes the following Disclaimer for the foregoing reason and for the hereinafter reasons alleged in this Judicial Notice and also in support of this Judicial Notice: I claim and charge that the UNITED STATES, plaintiff herein, and its Agency and Nominee the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, well as the United States of America, do not, except as a slave, have no, none, not any jurisdiction by statute, code, rule, regulation, law based on mutuality—the basis of all law, and I, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, here now Disclaim all said and such jurisdiction, statute, code, rule, regulation, and FURTHER, I Disclaim the Constitution for the United States and the United States of America, its Amendments, including the 13th, l4th, l5th and 16th Amendment and Civil Rights Statutes and, law and Titles thereof. and FURTHER I Disclaim any association, all in violation of Article 73 of the Treaty with United Nations, with the United States as a legislative, artificial citizen/person and as property, and FURTHER I Disclaim any association with the United States political society, by whatever name, organs, with or over, or by direction on the physical body of I, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, and FURTHER I Disclaim any association with the Political jurisdiction and VENUE of the United States and claim that as a slave that I, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley is in the Territory of United States, without ever having a Domicile, and that this present jurisdiction in the United States is based and cause by the unilateral aggression and war
-11- of enslavement as a commercial slave trading enterprise with a “public” status of: “enemy alien in a state of war”, as seen in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, and then reduced, after slave birth and training to that of a “private” status of: “slave”, and still further while under these two statuses, by legislation of the United States Congress reduced to another “private” status of: “citizen of the United States(and not Citizens of the United States of America) “or State Citizen as in: Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution in the same manner as White Citizens by the unilateral enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment legislation as a legislative artificial citizen/person with a grant bestowed for good behavior periodically of civil rights, special privileges and immunities, one of them being the burden of taxation under the 1040 adhesion and 14th Amendment contracts, all to which Carolyn Yvonne Worsley object, challenge, and Disclaim as they are based on negro slavery and captivity status, which also include all 49 million Blacks of slaves’ descent as following FURTHER Disclaimer:
1. Even from the very beginning, the mental thought, organization, scheme, crafty planning, evil, fiendish, immoral design, to capture and enslave African Nationals, as an economy in North America, was a unilateral act by White people;
2. Starting with Invasion, the preparation and direction thereof, of the Continent and Lands and Jurisdiction of
Africa, was a unilateral act by White and Jewish or
3. A war of armed struggle to repel the invasion of African
Homelands, was also caused as a unilateral act by
White and Jewish people;
4. The killing and Murder of African National to enslave – 12- their bodies by provocation, aggression, offensive force, and violence, was a unilateral act by White and
5. The aggressive war to capture African Nationals was a war of enslavement and a unilateral act by white and Jews:
6. The War of Enslavement of African Nationals was caused-by white women and white women, Queen Elizabeth. under Act of George 23, issued a Warrant in 1555 to Sir John Hawkins and in 1618 a Charter was granted to Sir Robert Rich and other Jewish Merchants to establish a regular slave joint stock Company, from which we get the present day Wall Street Stock Market, and whether they had English, Dutch, French, Jewish, Spanish or Latin Surnames, Portuguese Names was an unilateral act, by these white people;
7. The African National were defeated and lost the war of-enslavement to white or Europeans. A bilateral act, thereby is losing their African liberties, freedom and moral expressions and self-determination, and then taken into captivity and enslaved by white people, a unilateral act;
8. The Nationals of Africa were forcibly expatriated from the Landed Jurisdiction, laws, culture, and citizenship of African Nativity as unilateral act on the part of white and Jew European people;
9. The forced expatriation was accomplished by Importation of Africans by an act of war and naval and army support of the United States by the use of Slave
Clause Article I, Section 9 clause 1, by white
Americans as a unilateral act;
10. The captive Africans were thrust into international law -13as stateless persons when they were carried away as exports for commercial purposes in ships over waters, oceans, seas, thereby internal law, LAW OF MERCHANT, admiralty law, and natural law attached to the bodies of Carolyn Yvonne Worsley’s ancestors and antecedents before them all as a unilateral act by Europeans; ll. The captive African Nationals were brought as Imports of property with an excise tax of $10.00 on their head as seen in Article I. Section 9, Clause 1, into the United States without mutuality or migration papers or passport into the Territory and not political jurisdiction as an act of war, with the status of: “Enemy Aliens” as a unilateral act by white and Jew people:
12. NEXT, the U.S. Constitution, so adopted contained many Provisions on enslavement of slaves, the unilateral act of whites and Jewish people. These slave provisions were inserted in the Constitution on the subject of Negro slavery to either increase it, strengthen it, or protect it
13. up to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. slaves’ descendants were treated as a class without the operation of law or their consent and mutuality in all matters listed here in items 1 through 13 above, which is a class based war and arms, unilaterally causes by whites. THUS it follows, that any and all actions of Carolyn Yvonne Worsley on taxes, also apply to all other U.S. Slaves’ Descendant who sign on by Petition.
-14- The following U.S. Constitution Slave
Clauses/Legislation was caused by unilateral act of white and Jew Americans:
(1) – Slave Clause: Article I, Section 9, Clause 1;
(2) – Slave Clause: Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3;
(3) – Slave Clause: Article IV, Section 4;
(4) – Slave Clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 15;
(5) – Slave Clause: Article V, … Provided that…;
(6) – Slave Clause: Article I, Section 9, Clause 4;
(7) – Slave Clause: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3;
(8) – Slave Clause: Article of Amendment Thirteen;
(9) – Slave Clause: Article of Amendment Fourteen;
(10) – Slave Clause: Article of Amendment Fifteen; (11) – Slave Legislation: 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Statute 27:
(12) – Slave Proclamation: Lincoln’s Emancipation, 12
(13) – Slave Legislation: Fugitive Slave Act, 1 Statute
(14) – Slave Document: Constitution of United States
(15) – Slave Legislation: 1964 Civil Rights Act, 78
The United States, Plaintiff herein, is called upon in open to bring Carolyn Yvonne Worsley into its jurisdiction by non violent law, as opposed to the forceful action of Plaintiff IRS Agent George Muench in the arrest of Ms. Worsley, to overcome her disclaimer by providing physical documentation such as documents showing mutuality, consent: document showing whether or not through Judicial Notice that Ms. Worsley’s Citizenship can be Verified by documentation, otherwise any future “law and motion” used, served upon Ms. Worsley is an act of slavery and war, and any future appearance of Carolyn Yvonne Worsley in Court is a “special Appearance” only to challenge jurisdiction, and not occasioned by ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, which was by force of arms. and this is Cruelty, FILARIGA V. Pena, 630 F2d 876.
DOMICILE AS to Domicile, a residence and official place/location by choice and mutuality, has never been obtained by Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, having been brought into the United State. Territory and slavery jurisdiction without passport from African government, visa, not even a green card or work permit to work on Plantations, therefore; the domicile of Carolyn Yvonne Worsley is still in Africa, and a slave birth “All person born in the United States… ” by force and war does not show domicile or mutuality. The domicile gained by free birth of Ms. Worsley in Africa cannot be changed by a slave birth as “born in captivity and slavery.. in the United States” The Rules on Domicile are: 1. It lies upon the other side to show, that the clear, unquestionable domicile, gained by birth…, was abandoned and given up, Sommerville V.
Sommerville (lord) 5 Vesey Junior, 756, (1801) (Vol. XXXI,
2. That the domicile of origin is the domicile of every person, until that is abandoned, and another gained. The domicile every child has on its birth must remain, until that is loss, and another acquired. Until another is acquired, that one cannot be lost. Somerville, 751. 3. That no domicile can be acquired, until the person is sui juris, Sommerville, 787, c/f The L’Amistad Case (Cinque) Peters Reports XV, page 593.
Having present the defenses to jurisdiction as of now being mutuality “Disclaimer” and here ” domicile”, we now turn to that of Jurisdiction and the two Rules. (14)
The 13th Amendment simply abolished chattel slavery. But it
-16did not repeal the Slave Clauses, nor did it end captivity and Physical Negro slavery, and the following which is shown as following to exist on all 49 millions of U.S.
a. Invasion and War Of Enslavement in Africa;
b. Captivity in Africa.
c. Imported into landed Territory of the United States as a physical slave, see U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 9,
d. Labor, and then have value and products of such labor due, stolen, taken without consent, contract, due to White and Jewish people without wages, payment of reparations to end slavery, and see Slave Provisions allowing by law Article 1V1 Section 2, Clause 3. e. The above a, b, c, and d, defines continuing Negro slavery now physical on and over all 49 million of Blacks.
In view of the above Carolyn Yvonne Worsley challenge the jurisdiction of the United States and Internal Revenue Service as being based on captivity and physical slavery, and will not appear unless to challenge jurisdiction of plea going to said jurisdiction, and the United States is here called upon in open Court to present physical evidence in the request for Judicial Notice to overcome Ms. Worsley’s jurisdiction challenge, otherwise the case should be Abated.
TWO RULE ON JURISDICTION RULE 1: “That in view of and according to the true status of Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, the injured Party, with the status of slave, along with the 49 millions of United States
Slaves’ Descendants of African National Origin,
Resident in the
-17- United States as Aliens as per their contract of citizenship, wherein there is a disclaimer of said citizenship or manner of association. No indictrnent can lie in the absence of proof of crime. ” RULE 2: “The Government of the United States must have jurisdiction of Blacks, Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, of slaves’ descent, and that there is no prosecution in the absence of proof of jurisdiction, and before a crime, by Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, there must be a violation of the law and the violator must be a subject of the law and the
Court must have jurisdiction’
(16) The war of enslavement is one act and one continuous act to the present date, and all unilateral acts as shown in above paragraph (12) which negates mutuality and liberty. (17) The Court, Chief Judge James C. Fox, is here now called upon to answer this disclaimer before any further “law and motion” is forced or committed against Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, a slave, including the Order Set For Release, otherwise Carolyn Yvonne Worsley will not appear for hearings, except as “special appearances” only for the purpose of challenging the United States and Courts jurisdiction.
Please inform as to date of hearing for Judicial Notice.
Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 5, 1997
Carolyn Yvonne Worsley, U.S. Slaves’ Descendant