(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 bejustifiable. 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.
Conclusion

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, non-violent 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.