US Prez candidate renounces his citizenship

Introduction:

The following is a document I submitted by which I renounce my US citizenship, but…in a very unusual way.

How strange! A candidate for US president renounces his citizenship, and yet insists that he is still running for that office in the upcoming (2012) election cycle. You will see, though, that the manner in which I renounce does not bar me from running nor bar me from holding that office should We-the-People (of the USA) actually elect me.

As usual, everything I do is for a reason, which I hope will become clear as you read on.

DOCUMENT BEGINS:

For consideration by the Court

in the matter of Discover Bank vs. Steven Searle:

Case Number 10-M1-172401

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

SUBJECT: Status of Steven Searle’s citizenship.

PURPOSE:  This document stands in support of my Fourth Motion to Dismiss. Dismissal is sought due to Mr. Searle no longer being a US citizen, and therefore no longer under the jurisdiction of this Court.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT:

1. Declaration of Searle’s citizenship

2. Aspects and implications of Searle’s citizenship claims

3. Rationale for renunciation

4. De Jure vs. De Facto renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

I. Declaration of Searle’s Citizenship

On this date and time – March 18, 2011 at 12:01 AM – I hereby declare:

·         I am no longer a citizen of the United States of America;

·         I am no longer a citizen of the State of Illinois;

·         My personal sovereignty (a sovereignty equal to that of the United States or of any other independent nation, entity, or person) and therefore pledge allegiance only to myself and to my own values, thereby being, in a manner of speaking, a citizen of a “country” having a population consisting of one, single, solitary individual;

·         As for allegiances beyond my self and my values, I don’t declare adherence to any particular faction but instead dedicate myself to the betterment of Greater Terra and all its peoples; in that sense, I am also a “citizen” of Greater Terra;

·         A king is alleged to have uttered these famous words: “The state? I am the state.”  I (a commoner) offer a refinement: “A state? I am a state.”

II. Aspects and implications of Searle’s citizenship claims

·         ONE: I was a natural born US citizen, though I haven’t been a de facto US citizen for years.

·         TWO: The practical effects of this document will be hard to predict, since I did not (and will not) follow any of the statutorily-established protocols for renouncing my citizenship. That is, I am not renouncing in a manner recognized by statute.

·         THREE: I base my renunciation on the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution: “The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” A fundamental right must be the right of self-determination – specifically, a right to choose one’s citizenship and one’s allegiances without being unreasonably burdened by rules imposed by a state one no longer even recognizes (one such burden: being compelled to bear the expense of traveling abroad in order to renounce “before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States”);

·         FOUR: I maintain that I – by means of this declaration submitted to a court of law in defense of a lawsuit brought against me by Discover Bank – am effectively renouncing my citizenship in such a manner as would gain the assent of any reasonable man upon a fair and open-minded examination. Such declaration in open court must be considered sufficient to validate such renunciation.

·         FIVE: Since I can no longer “Pledge Allegiance to the United States of America” or abide by the terms of the Oath of Citizenship (affirmed by naturalized citizens), I can no longer be considered a US citizen.

·         SIX: Since I hereby withdraw my “consent,” the US government can no longer claim to be (in the words of the US Declaration of Independence) “deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed.” Since, without my consent, the government can no longer govern me, that government can no longer count me among its citizens.

·         SEVEN: Will I vote? No, even though I have a currently active voter registration card. That card was obtained by affirming that I was a United States citizen. Since I am now renouncing that citizenship in such manner that I and any reasonable man should deem proper, I cannot in good conscience continue to vote.

·         EIGHT: I declare that I will not file tax forms due to my status as a “self-contained sovereign entity” entirely equal to the United States. For example, would Congress pretend it could tax France? No, because Congress has no authority over France.

·         NINE: I will continue, as I have for at least the past five years, to refuse to file income tax forms for yet another reason. Since I had always discovered, after completion of my tax forms, that I owed more than what was deducted from my income, I will continue to deny those extra amounts to a state which is hopelessly corrupt and wasteful of my taxpayer dollars (Illinois) and to a nation (USA) which is currently engaged in two illegal wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan).

·         TEN: What about payment of taxes? I briefly considered resisting the extraction of taxes from my income. However, since I in fact reside in the United States and benefit from that residency, I am more than willing to pay my fair share. For that reason, I will not contest withholdings from my income. In addition, since there is no mechanism in place by means of which to assess the amount of my fair share, for the time being I will consider current amounts withheld to be my fair share.

·         ELEVEN: My treatment under the law. Seeing how poorly US courts and other institutions treat US citizens in general, I’m hoping my newly-adopted form of citizenship might constitute one small step in the right direction toward changing that treatment – both for myself and for my (former) countrymen.

·         TWELVE: Will I serve on a jury if summoned? No, for several reasons, the chief of which – I am no longer eligible since I am no longer a US citizen. Other reasons: I do not believe it is possible for a defendant, especially if poor or (increasingly) if middle class, to obtain a fair trial in this country, which makes it morally repugnant for me to participate as a member of a jury; forced participation in a jury violates the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against “involuntary servitude.”

·         THIRTEEN: Will I sue to attain formal recognition of my self-defined citizenship? No, since I don’t want to be bothered to undertake the initiative. Will I defend if others try to sue to strip me of US citizenship-as-defined-by-statute? Maybe, if they would thereby try to deport me. As a world “citizen” and “self-contained” citizen, I claim the right to live anywhere on the planet I so desire and to try by all reasonable and creative means to do so, while striving to always be a good neighbor.

III. Rationale for Renunciation

Citing the US Declaration of Independence:

I hereby paraphrase the two opening paragraphs of this renowned document:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve the political bands which have connected him with others, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Karma entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the causes which impel him to the separation.

I hold these truths to be self-evident:

·         ONE: That all humans are not created equal, and in fact are not created at all but come into their various incarnated forms – either superior or inferior to those forms manifested by others – due to the dictates of the Law of Karma;

·         TWO: That all humans possess widely varying degrees (rarely equal to those of his fellows) of karmically-earned and –bounded opportunities for the maintenance of Life, expansion of Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the major restriction being “not at the expense of others;”

·         THREE: That all humans, possessing Buddha-nature, have a most fundamental right – the most fundamental right – to seek Enlightenment and to take action which will lead to that goal for themselves and for others allowing only for the minimal and absolutely necessary restrictions imposed by the state or any other type of community;

·         FOUR: That to secure these rights or any other “rights,” the necessary evil of government is accepted by humans, claiming to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed – though that “consent” is generally assumed to derive from 50% plus one of the body politic;

·         FIVE: That whenever any form of the sovereign state becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the individual person (by declaring himself to be a sovereign entity) to remove himself from its influence to the greatest degree possible, and to encourage others (and to himself act) to eliminate that influence world-wide.

Experience indeed has shown that long-established national sovereignties inevitably and increasingly ignore the Law of Karma and provide proof against the wisdom of continuing to support such macro sovereignties. In particular, I cite the following causes which impel me to my separation, effectively withdrawing the “consent of the governed [that is, my consent]” considered so necessary as the source of the just powers of government:

·         ONE: A continued and increasing transfer of power and wealth to elites and interest groups to the detriment of the majority of common citizens;

·         TWO: The establishment of a system of justice inaccessible to the poor and to vast segments of the middle class unwilling or unable to finance accessibility;

·         THREE: The establishment of a political and judicial system which seeks to systematically decrease the power of the average citizen and transfer it to the state and its various institutions which include its two major political parties;

·         FOUR: A continuing indulgence in a highly unconstitutional practice of the United States Senate which denies the principle of One Man, One Vote – the filibuster;

·         FIVE: The overwhelming and disproportionate influence of moneyed interests and groups over our electoral processes;

·         SIX: Participation in two illegal wars of aggression – in Iraq and Afghanistan;

·         SEVEN: A Congress organized in such a manner as to grant greater influence to some of its members – specifically committee chairs – at the expense of others, a violation of the One Man, One Vote principle;

·         EIGHT: An environment in which the issue of usury cannot even be broached by lawmakers;

·         NINE: A refusal to make reparations payments to Black Americans who are victims of a crime against humanity – the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade;

·         TEN: Unconstitutionally permitting the following states to be admitted to the Union: West Virginia and Maine;

·         ELEVEN: Insisting on the legality of military conscription, though the Thirteenth Amendment bars involuntary servitude;

·         TWELVE: Allowing a system of taxation by which churches are exempted from paying taxes, which increases their influence (thereby diminishing the influence of agnostics and atheists) and increases the tax burden on everybody else.

Citing The Pledge of Allegiance:

I hereby quote the Pledge of Allegiance, after which I demonstrate why I cannot pledge this allegiance:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

·         ONE: I cannot pledge allegiance to “the flag” or to any flag, since that would be a form of idolatry. In my view, it is impossible to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth – since I value any pledge I make or oath I offer as assignable only to something much more profound. [NOTE: Concerning the issue of idolatry, I don’t see how any adherent to the Abrahamist faiths could Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.];

·         TWO: I cannot “pledge allegiance to…the republic,” since that republic is only an assertion, not a reality. We-the-People are not in control but continue to lose ground to the Two-Party System and the wealthy special interests and oligarchs who support that System; an Oligarchy is not a republic;

·         THREE: I cannot “pledge allegiance to …one nation under God” since I am a Buddhist who does not believe in the existence of God. Furthermore, the insertion of the words “under God” into the text of the Pledge served only to delegitimize a government all too willing to forget a necessary and fundamental religious neutrality in favor of seeking advantage during the Cold War over “Godless Communism;”

·         FOUR: I cannot “pledge to … one nation [the United States]…with liberty and justice for all,” because that nation pays only lip service to “liberty and justice for all” while moving farther from “all” in favor of “the people who really count – the privileged and influential.”

Citing the US Oath of Naturalization

I will now quote this Oath, after which I will demonstrate why I could not so declare had I been, by circumstance of birth, in a position to seek US citizenship by means of naturalization. I also note my belief that such an Oath (in the name of consistency) should be required of natural born citizens, though it isn’t.

QUOTE:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

:UNQUOTE.

·         ONE: I pledge allegiance to a foreign prince – that being Shakyamuni Buddha who, in spite of common belief to the contrary, is still alive and in this world; in relation to the sovereign entity which is I, Shakyamuni is an ally;

·         TWO: I also pledge allegiance to Greater Terra – that is, to the whole Earth rather than just to the particular part of it known as the United States, which would prefer that I act in its local interests even at the expense of the interests of Greater Terra;

·         THREE: I do not support the Constitution since that document is only nominally supported by the US government itself and which is holding back the progress of the American people and the other peoples of Greater Terra;

·         FOUR: I can consider supporting only a new Constitution developed by a Constitutional Convention – as long as that does not work against the interests of Greater Terra; my preference being for a system of governance based on Cross-Sectional Representation. [NOTE: Cross-Sections are created by randomly assigning individual voters from a master list of all eligible US voters; the 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections to replace the currently existing 435 congressional districts.];

·         FIVE: I will bear arms on behalf of the United States, perform noncombatant service or perform work of national importance not when required by law, but only if the prerogatives of my personal sovereignty and the concerns of Greater Terra demand it;

·         SIX: I could not make any oath containing the words “so help me God,” since saying “so help me” should be sufficient. I also object that I could only avoid saying “so help me God,” if I were to (as currently required by law) “provide enough evidence that [my] religious training and beliefs prevent [me] from saying [this] language within the Oath of Allegiance.” I refuse to submit myself to any authority arrogant enough to assert that it could determine how much is “enough.”

IV. De Jure vs. De Facto Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

De Jure Renunciation

QUOTE [note my emphasis in yellowed bold italics]:

Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) governs how a U.S. citizen shall lose U.S. nationality. Section 349(a) states:

A person who is a national of the United States whether, by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality:

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(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; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense.

:UNQUOTE [source: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html]

COMMENT:  Concerning the portion above, in yellowed bold italics: There can be no doubt that it is my “intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” However, intention (as indicated above) is not enough to cause loss of citizenship; also necessary is the “voluntarily performing” of any of certain specific acts. Most relevant to my case, it can’t be argued that I am “pledging allegiance to a foreign state” by pledging allegiance to Greater Terra since that is not “a foreign state” – it is the whole world.

My intention is to encourage all citizens of all nations to relinquish their citizenship to their specific countries. Only by such a denunciation of the evils of state sovereignty can world peace be assured. Only a world without political borders can survive.

I can understand why the United States would take a dim view of its citizens pledging allegiance to “a [specific] foreign state.” That could pose a conflict of interest between two states competing for the same resources. However, since the instances of (1) declaring allegiance only to oneself or (2) to the world as a whole have not been addressed by means of statute, any possible conflict of interest could not be considered by a court of law based on any statutory considerations.

QUOTE [two quotes from Form DS-4080, US State Department]:

I desire and hereby make a formal renunciation of my U.S. nationality, as provided by section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, and pursuant thereto, I hereby absolutely and entirely renounce my United States nationality together with all rights and privileges and all duties and allegiance and fidelity thereunto pertaining. I make this renunciation intentionally, voluntarily, and of my own free will, free of any duress or undue influence.

[and]

Note: A renunciation of United States nationality/citizenship is effective only upon approval by the U.S. Department of State but, when approved, the loss of nationality/citizenship occurs as of the date the above Oath/Affirmation was taken.

:UNQUOTE.

Comment: The US State Department (as stated in the preceding sentence) or the US Attorney General (as stated in Section 349(a)(6), quoted earlier) insist that lawful renunciation can only be accomplished on their terms: As sworn before their officials and using their forms. However, since I have withdrawn my consent to be governed, I do not recognize the legitimacy of either authority in this or any matter.

De Facto Renunciation

I base my renunciation of US citizenship, and the parameters of my newly-embraced citizenship on the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution. However, I doubt that any US court would uphold this application of the Ninth. Therefore, I also base my assertions on an appeal to commonsense which transcends written statutes. Since I cannot Pledge Allegiance to the Flag or to the United States, or embrace the conditions specified in the Oath of Naturalization; and since I embrace another sovereign (Shakyamuni Buddha), how can any reasonable man maintain that I am a US citizen?

My newly-defined citizenship is De Facto, not De Jure, a fact which is reinforced by this written declaration submitted to a Court of Law. And that might be cause for concern among the various US institutions. I shall deal with their responses to such concerns as best I can as they arise. Meanwhile, however, I will proceed in my daily life as if I were (as I claim) a sovereign entity with a standing entirely equal to that of the United States.

:DOCUMENT ENDS.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“As time and design unfold, I could well end up being considered the Father of a Movement.”