Service does not end at Expatriation Alone!

[jeagas68]

Ok, so you went through Expatriation running all your processes on the instruments that the gubermints had no claim or interest, then had it signed off by a common law court and now have your Apostille. Unfortunately that is not all your going to need, you will need to put in a "Notice of Cancellation" on the instruments based upon the evidence you just collected, find out why below, more information and a court case to follow: ----->>>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: We The People for Independent Texas <wtpfit@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Subject: Misc RM 61 Misc reference material Part 2.
To: wtpfit@gmail.com


Dual Citizenship and Political Question
Likely some readers may have sought out "some solution" to the political and legal complexities faced daily. Some readers may have had a suspicion that political questions of citizenship are central to proper analysis of certain facts of which they may have concerns. For example, various approaches to "expatriation " have been attempted with mixed and easily predictable results (see definition of territorial law32). The failure to accurately analyze the jurisdictional foundations of both political and legal relations, here under discussion, has under relevant circumstances lead to mixed but usually unfortunate results. The devotees of "expatriation" are likely unable to answer the questions of "just what are you expatriating from?" and "where are you expatriating to?" Expatriation may not be a solution if the problem is accepted as self determined selection of citizenship. A reason "expatriation" may not be a solution is because citizenship is not easily separated from a person, except by specific conduct. A state Citizen, "an inhabitant", with permanent allegiance to one of the Several States of the American Union, will likely have created the "appearance" of having voluntarily accepted federal citizenship i.e. "U.S. citizen", "citizen of the United States." The solution for a reader may be to sever the political and the legal relations between a state Citizen and the "United States", a federal corporation. 33 As the reader may now have considered, built into certain legal relations is a political presumption the actor, perhaps as an applicant, has self determined to be a federal citizen.

32 territorial law, The law that applies to all persons within a given territory regardless of their citizenship or nationality. Black's Law, 8th Edition, page 1512

33 Note: The "United States" is sometimes deceptively referred to as "United States of America." This term refers to a corporation used by the government for commercial purposes. This corporation has no included body politic of the people of the Several States. This corporate form, "United States of America" lacking the body politic of the people of the Several States, does not represent the Nation.

The severance process is by way of self determination or self will and involves a political question. A choice only the reader may make. Ultimately, no "person" can make the political choice of citizenship for another person. As used in the previous sentence the word "person" may include government acting in corporate capacity. Various presumptions in relation to the facts of citizenship will be discussed in this and following chapters.

Most Americans, in this day and age, have created the "appearance" of being a citizen of the United States, a federal citizen, and thereby subjected themselves to the territorial legislative jurisdiction of Congress. They take on the "appearance" of that citizenship by means unknown to them. As the reader has learned, most persons have accepted the "appearance" of "U.S. citizen" beginning in the 1930's by appearing at certain government offices and making an application for benefits, such as a deferred retirement plan, through the Social Security Act as amended in the private law of Title 42. Other persons under the age of 18 were told they could not work without the social security number. Where upon, the parents signed and accepted the agreement for a social security number on their behalf. Some simply were given the social security number at birth, before leaving the hospital, upon a signature by their parents or parent.

The acceptance and use of the social security number not only made out an "appearance" that person intended to be politically treated as a U.S. citizen, a federal citizen and subject to the territorial legislative jurisdiction of Congress, it also did something of far more consequence than the reader may think. Most Americans in the 1930's and, arguably, fewer now rely upon the government to tell them the truth of the legal and political effects associated with the social security number. Today, the truth is, after the 1970s not even many government workers in the social security offices know the truth. The truth is, the discovery of presumptions in relation to political and legal truth, is purposely left to each man or women.

Next will be shown some political and legal facts associated with the presumed facts regarding how the social security number and account are established. This fact of the established social security account and resulting commercial relations may be viewed as a rebuttable presumption.34

[jeagas68]

Part 2

34 rebuttable presumption, In the law of evidence. A presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a "disputable" presumption. A species of legal presumption which holds good until disproved. Best, Pres. § 25; 1 Green!. Ev. § 33; Beck v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 48 S.W.2d 213,215. It shifts burden of proof. Helnew v. Donnan, 52 S.Ct. 358,362,285 U.S. 312, 76 L.Ed 772. And which standing alone will support a finding against contradictory evidence. Leiber v. Rigby, 34 Cal.App2d 582, 94 P.2d 49, 50. Black's Law, 4th Edition, page 1432.

rebuttable presumption, An inference drawn from certain facts that establish a prima facia case, which may be overcome by the introduction of contrary evidence. 89. C.J.S. Evidence §§ 131, 135,152-156, 160. Black's Law, 8th Edition, page 1224.

The readers' attention is drawn to the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 found at Title 5 USCA Section 552 et seq.

These code sections were designed under certain presumptions to enable the functioning of a "New Deal" federal government and related executive agencies, i.e. a corporate federal government by administration. Under what premise is the democracy presumed to be voluntarily accepted as the general theory of government? The authors suggest by the use of presumptions a Republic is eliminated and an experiment in corporate legislative democracy is substituted. In effect, a democratic experiment is substituted for a Republican form as the presumed theory of the government.

As proof of this vital change in circumstances, please reader; pay particular attention to 5 USCA Section 552a §§ (a)(2) and (a)(13). This specific portion of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 supra, allows the "appearance" of a condition precedent to exist which supports the presumption the people have in fact voluntarily separated themselves from their Republican government. The effect is to create an "appearance" the people have voluntarily, individually, but en mass collectively politically created and accepted a legislative democracy, but with a severe sting attached. This is The Political Presumption made by an "appearance" of self determination, i.e. to be treated as a federal U.S. citizen. This rebuttable presumption of a voluntary "acceptance" of a legislative democracy in the person of a federal U.S. citizen operates as a condition precedent. This federal U.S. citizen is subject to the territorial legislative jurisdiction of Congress. What follows is an explanation of how this presumption appears.

The portion of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USCA Section 552a §§ (a)(2) and (a)(13) supra, combined with the Social Security Act and the person's use of the account and social security number create the "appearance" of political and legal relations to the corporate federal United States. That person animated an application for SSA and therein presumably intended to voluntarily grant exclusive legislative control over his person by the federal government i.e. Congress. Of course, all this is in the context of a political experiment in legislative democracy principally operated by administration. Today, administrative operation of the United States in the capacity of a federal corporation is the entity with which the U.S. citizen has contracted political and legal relations. The political capacity of a U.S. citizen is a contracted political capacity as viewed from the political capacity of a Citizen of the Several States of America. The reader's constitutionally protected and unlimited "right to contract" has been deceptively used with prejudice against the reader.

[jeagas68]

Part 3

Take note, for most persons, the "appearance" of a fact, the SSA account and number and the "appearance" of the associated fact of the presumed intent to grant the federal government exclusive control over the applicant's person, exists. The fact of the use of the Social Security account and number leads to a fair inference the person intends to participate in the legislative democracy with the attached severe sting of federal governmental control over the applicant's person. It is also then a fair inference that the person has a duty of allegiance to the political legislative democracy government, namely the federal U.S. government. It is also then a fair inference the person has agreed to accept the jurisdiction of that government and obey its "exclusive" territorial laws. It is also then a further fair inference the person has duties under those same "exclusive" federal laws. How else can the federal government manage, fund and administer the welfare benefit program (state) if the control function mechanism over a person is lacking?

Here, in part, is how this "System" based upon presumptions was accomplished. Remember reader, what follows are, in part, core components of what is actually referred to as the "System", i.e. the corporate, legislatively created, statutory commercial enforcement system.

5 USCA Section 552a, § (a)(2) to wit: "the term 'individual' means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence."

In the above mentioned title and section the term "individual" means a "citizen of the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as that term is used in the federal Constitution of the United States at the purported Amendment 14, i.e. a federal citizen as distinguished from a Citizen of the Several States. The reader might be thinking, "So what does that have to do with me"? Here likely, is what it has to do with the reader.

At 5 USCA Section 552a, § (a)(13) to wit: "The term "Federal personnel" means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits)." [Author's emphasis]

In the above-mentioned title and section "Federal personnel" means: "individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States, (including survivor benefits)." The authors draw the readers attention to "deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States" does that sound like Social Security, of course it does. The Social Security Act did a lot more than meets the eye, which the diligent reader will discover. So, now that the reader has been given notice of the above political and legal relations, by "appearance", (rebuttable presumptions, presumed), only that person can change the presumed political and legal relations through self determination. Only that person can change the "appearance" of presumed legal relations with the federal government of the United States. Notice, the above code section did not say Government of the United States of America. Of course, as a U.S. citizen, presumed legal relations with government of the United States would be with the federal government. The reader is well aware that Congress, under constitutional authority, does have jurisdiction over its persons, places and territories.

The federal government nexus between "individual" means "citizen of the United States", 5 USCA § 552a (a)(2) and 5 USCA § 552a (a)(13) means "Federal personnel", "individuals... entitled..." has been examined. Additionally, at other locations within Title 5 other federal nexus' are shown, to wit: Title 5 "Government Organization and Employees" at Section 101, Persons Required to File, (f) the officers and employees referred to in subsections (a), (d), and (c) are (1) the President, (2) Vice-President. Please note the President and Vice-President are both officers and employees of the answer given in the title of the act "Government Organization and Employees." The question is how are these "officers" related to the United States, a federal corporation? The answer is they are "employees." As the reader has noted from 5 USCA § 552a (a)(13) supra, the term "Federal personnel" means officers and employees of the Government of the United States... and individuals." So here is an explanation of a path and nexus, likely a path by which the reader has taken on, as an individual, the capacity of a "Federal personnel."

How may the reader be a Federal employee? At 8 CFR Chapter 1, section 214.2 (using the 1-1-92 edition) at (F) "United States employer means": (1) a person, firm, corporation, contractor, or other association, or organization in the United States which suffers or permits a person to work within the United States; (2) which has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee; and (3) which has an Internal Revenue Service Tax Identification Number. Generally, the IRS Tax Identification number is the Employer Identification number (EIN).

The EIN is only territorial and in relation to the United States, a federal corporation. The United States employer with an EIN may have employees that are "federal employees" in respect to 5 USCA § 552a (a)(13). For such class of Federal "Employees", a potential "Employer" is required to have a Federal EIN with which to transact federal "Employment" with federal "Employees" via the federal Employee's SSN in respect to 5 USCA § 552a (a)(13).

The person, with SSN, who is self employed is treated as both a federal "Employer" and federal "Employee."

The Federal "Employee" in respect to 5 USCA § 552a (a)(13) is required to make application for "Employment" via a "W*2" which is presented to the federal employer as defined at section 214.2 (F) (1)(2)(3). This W-2 form establishes, in part, a legal basis for the federal "Employer", federal "Employee" "Employment" transaction. All such transactions are deemed territorial to the United States. All persons, President, or common laborer, as noted above under the non-positive law of Title 5 voluntarily make application and place themselves as "Employees" under federal territorial jurisdiction. The process is by the explicit act of placing signature on the various forms noted with respect to the noted relevant applications. For example, within the application to run for elective office, in relation to Title 5, the applicant is required to submit an SSN and territorially agree to territorial U.S. employment. The federal citizen political presumption is accepted by the application.

Self determination is defined as; first, the word "self" needs no elaborate definition, in this case it could be the reader. Second, the word "determination" means; "to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities." Blacks Law 6th Edition, page 450. [Author's emphasis] In Blacks Law, 8th Edition, the word "determination" is not used in the same context as the sixth. Please see the following concerning the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for an explanation as to the use of the legal term "determination" in today's legal context.

In recognition of the above, please note; in Castro v. U.S., 540 U.S. 375, 124 S.Ct. 786, (2003), it was held that: "Our adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief. Re-characterization is unlike "liberal construction," in that it requires a court deliberately to override the pro se 35 litigant's choice of procedural vehicle for his claim. It is thus a paternalistic judicial exception to the principle of party self determination, born of the belief that the "parties know better" assumption does not hold true for pro se prisoner litigants. I am frankly not enamored of any departure from our traditional adversarial principles. It is not the job of a federal court to create a "better correspondence" between the substance of a claim and its underlying procedural basis. But if departure from traditional adversarial principles is to be allowed, it should certainly not occur in any situation where there is a risk that the patronized litigant will be harmed rather than assisted by the court's intervention. It is not just a matter of whether the litigant is more likely, or even much more likely, to be helped rather than harmed. The overriding rule of judicial intervention must be "first, do no harm." The injustice caused by letting the litigants own mistake lie is regrettable, but incomparably less than the injustice of producing prejudice through the court's intervention." [Author's emphasis]

[jeagas68]

Part 4

In other words, if the reader made a self determination not to be a "citizen of the United States" (purported Amendment 14) and self determined not to contract into the status of a U.S. citizen and further made the claim, properly and timely, in the "courts of today" for jurisdictional purposes, a "controversy" would be possible. The party (respondent) better be able to back up the claim by facts. "Where is the evidence of the facts"? The court may ask in a long round about way, which may confuse the person making the claim. For example, please re-examine the ruling in US v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (1982). Slater is discussed in more detail later. From reading the case it appears Slater thought he knew his status and capacity. It also appears Slater had no method of presenting evidence and proof of self determination.

Evidence on citizenship status (the fact) involves a political question and must be self determined The courts cannot hear political questions. Only the reader can make a political choice and therefore create a fact of self determination of citizenship status. The courts have little choice but to accept as a fact a proper claim of "Citizenship" status. Under the Rules of Evidence, Rule 902(4) indicates a procedure in respect to citizenship status. This citizenship status as a fact must be timely offered for evidence. This fact may be offered in rebuttal to presumptions that may not all be contained within the Social Security question.

Consider the "appearance" by an applicant to have made "an election", by signing an SS5 application, to be treated as a "US citizen" and receive benefits. In that context, consider the following holding in, Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216, 104 S.Ct. 2312, 81 L.Ed.2d 175 (1984): "Rationale behind the political function exception to strict judicial scrutiny on equal protection challenge to laws that discriminate on basis of alienage is that within broad boundaries a state may establish its own form of government and limit the right to govern to those who are full-fledged members of the political community, and some public positions are so closely bound up with formulation and implementation of self-government that the State is permitted to exclude from those positions persons outside the political community, i.e., persons who have not become part of the process of democratic self-determination." U.S.C.A. Const. Amendment 14. [Author's emphasis]

As the reader may conclude from cases previously mentioned, if the reader does not elect to be involved in the U.S. political community, then he or she cannot expect to derive a benefit there from. If a person claims to be outside the U.S. political community, but accepts benefits in relation there to, such as social security, "residence" or a drivers' license, he or she is presumed by such acceptance and resulting conduct to be a part of and owe permanent allegiance to the U.S. community. That person may be both an applicant and a voter in respect to the "political community."

[jeagas68]

Part 5

The courts of that "political community" state may lack jurisdiction in any case where self determination of "Citizenship" status and the admissible evidence of that political choice as a fact are properly before the court. The reason is that particular claims of which the court has subject matter jurisdiction are bound up in the agreed or contractual legal relations of the parties. If there is no presumption of U.S. community political relations, then an inference of the existence of legal relations may not be possible. In fact, there may not exist under these circumstances a duty for which a claim may be properly before the court, i.e. as "failure to state a claim" or as failure of "the institution of the prosecution." However, if a person claims "state Citizenship", but in fact, accepts the benefits of a federal territorial government, (legislative democracy, U.S. community), that person's claimed citizenship is contrary to prior demonstrated legal relations.

As the reader has observed, in this country, a "state Citizen" may not be a federal U.S. citizen and may not be generally subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. If the reader presents as a fact self determination of his or her "state Citizenship", and a denial of political and legal relations to the federal democracy, under the rules of evidence, the courts have little say otherwise. However, a real question is involved regarding any conduct in relation to these activities, as to what is the "Will" of the person? Does the person's alleged "Will" comport with the facts of the observable conduct? Is that person's conduct reflective of that person's will? The facts of that person's actual conduct may become evidence the court will consider. This is also known as the "center-of-gravity" doctrine. 36

36 center-of-gravity doctrine, Conflict of laws. The rule that, in choice-of-law questions, the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the transaction or event applies. Black's Law, 8th Edition, page 237.

The choices and possibilities of citizenship are; (1) A "Citizen", in the geographical and political sense, being a "Citizen" of one of the Several States of the American Union, for example properly as Texas, Michigan, New York, etc., or; (2) a "citizen" of the United States, a federal citizen, and recognized as such by what appears to be a political status as a citizen of the incorporated states.

Once a person has made a self determination or allows a presumption to exist as to his which "citizen" or "Citizen" he or she "wills" to be, that self determined status is a political question. Once a person has made the "appearance" by application (agreement, contract), of a choice of federal "citizenship" in relation to Social Security and the Administrative Procedures Act supra, that person is treated as a federal U.S. citizen. Permanent allegiance and duties with respect to that territorial federal legislative jurisdiction is enforced. This jurisdiction is under the authority of Congress at Article I, Section 8 and Article 4, Section 2, paragraph 2. Later, if the person makes an alternative self determination that is contrary to the political self determination previously described in number 2 above, i.e. U.S. citizen, but desires to be treated within the first definition, then both political and legal relations need to be severed with the Executive Department of the United States. In addition, similar political and legal relations also need to be severed with respect to the state in which the "appearance" of the second defined US citizenship above appears to exist. Questions in relation to the procedure to accomplish the political and legal recognition of this alternative self determination will be discussed later.

A Political question cannot be heard in the courts as some form of declaratory judgment or other form of complaint. The court simply will not hear it or will determine the nature of the case on a case-by-case basis. It was held in" Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 66 S.Ct. 1198, that; "A complaint under Federal Declaratory Judgment Act for a decree declaring Illinois statutes apportioning the State of Illinois into congressional districts invalid in that such districts lacked compactness of territory and approximate equality of population, was dismissed for want of equity in that the issue was of a peculiarly political nature and therefore was not meant for determination."

[jeagas68]

Part 6

And Further in, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, that:

"In the instance of nonjusticiability, consideration of the cause is not wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather, the Court's inquiry necessarily proceeds to the point of deciding whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded." "We have said that `In determining whether a question falls within (the political question) category, the appropriateness under our system of government of attributing finality to the action of the political departments and also the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination are dominant considerations.' Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 454--455, 59 S.Ct. 972, 982, 83 L.Ed. 1385. The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers. Much confusion results from the capacity of the 'political question' label to obscure the need for "case-by-case inquiry." Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. To demonstrate this requires no less than to analyze representative cases and to infer from them the analytical threads that make up the political question doctrine. We shall then show that none of those threads catches this case." [Author's emphasis]

In the above case, and within the emphasis indicated by underlined text, the authors demonstrate that the Political Question will be determined on a case-by-case basis. If it is determined that a claim under court consideration is political in nature, there would be a separation of powers problem between the court and the political body. To deal with a separation of powers problem, if the question is properly before the court and if the question is found to be one of a political nature, the courts will refrain from hearing the case. It therefore is incumbent upon any person "willing" to change the "appearance" (rebuttable presumption) of federal U.S. citizenship to remove the possibility of a court's presumption of a non-justiciable political question. In other words, to prevent a presumption of federal citizenship before a court, a timely denial is required. This is accomplished by a timely presentment of admissible evidence of facts. One might ask, whose duty is it to provide the evidence? That depends on the presumption a party is "willing" to have before the court. Likely a duty will fall on the respondent. Will the question of status be self determined by a person directly or will the government use a presumption of status? The answer to this question is determined by the conduct of the person. The operative definition of conduct is, "those things done and those things not done."

Citizenship is of a political nature. One's citizenship is between the person making a claim of citizenship, no matter what that citizenship, and the political body in which that person may be recognized as a citizen. If a person seeks to sever the political and legal relations in relation to a citizenship, he or she can accomplish that end. That person has a burden to establish as a legal fact the act of self determination.

A "Citizenship" in relation to one of the Several States is invested with more self responsibility than a federal U.S. citizen who is subject to the territorial legislative jurisdiction of the United States Congress. Among those responsibilities is being able, by admissible fact, to show a state Citizenship as was not shown in the case below. The question is open, will a person timely exhibit the facts of status, or will a government agent presume status? In the case below, in relation to the presumption of federal citizenship, the government attorneys prevailed based upon the failure of Mr. Slater to properly rebut the legal presumptions.

In U.S. v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179, William M. Slater argued:

"I am not a person described as a "TAXPAYER" and defined in the administrative section 7701(a)(14) of Title 26 CFR *Internal Revenue Code of 1954-68A Stats at Large; or as that section was first written by the 65th Congress in 1919 in 40 Stat 1057 in the Revenue Act of 1916 to wit: "The term `taxpayer' includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by this Act." I am not subject to any tax imposed by this Act, because I do not have any governmental granted benefit, franchise, license, or special commercial privilege that renders me "subject to a tax imposed by this Act." The US IRS does not have primary jurisdiction over me in personam or in rem...."

The Court said in Slater supra:
"Slater attempts to distinguish, for purposes of establishing tax liability, between an "unencumbered, unfranchised, freeborn, living individual 'person' with unalienable rights," such as himself, and an "enfranchised and licensed organization 'person' (such as a corporation) which owes its very existence to the state and could not exist without the state's allowance." The defendant concludes, "THE GOVERNMENT HAS JURISDICTION OVER LICENSED, FRANCHISED 'PERSONS' BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A FREE, LIVING, ME `PERSON'." Defendant's Answering Brief at 2-3.

The court concluded that: "The defendant's argument is without merit. Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability." [Author's emphasis]

The court in Slater supra, is bluntly pointing out, as viewed by the court, a real duty upon Slater. That duty is that unless a certain Person can prove that he or she is not a contracted U.S. citizen, then he or she is subject to the laws of the United States Congress including the federal "extra territorial" tax laws. Again, the question is asked, who will "establish"37 the facts?

37establish, 1.To settle, make or fix firmly; to enact permanently. 2. To make or form; to bring about or into existence. 3. To prove; to convince. Black Law, 8th Edition, page 586

By the time of trial the court had notice of a duty, self imposed within Slater's SS application, to prove a negative fact, that of not being a federal U.S. citizen. How does a person prove a negative fact? A person must create admissible evidence of a denial of that negative fact. While at the same time, that person should show a lack of admissible proof of a counter denial of that fact. Alternatively stated, a person must create admissible proof of a denial of that negative fact (not a U.S. citizen) without there being present a showing of an admissible fact of a counter denial (being a U.S. citizen). These ideas will receive additional discussion later.

The cases mentioned above in relation to self determination and the fact of a person's citizenship were decided on legal relations. The cases appear to be decided on legal issues; however, by now the reader should understand that there were answers to political questions presumed by the prosecution and the court and un-rebutted by the defendant. The reader is advised of the duty of diligent self education in this area of political and legal relations, and the law thereof, before making any self determination on "Citizenship." Certainly, self education is a necessity for a person claiming as a fact state Citizenship, before any attempt is made to sever political and legal relations. Severing the appearance of "facts" associated with the political and legal relations and the establishment of admissible legal facts, in regards to self determination, must also be considered.

[jeagas68]

Part 7 (last part)

************************************************** ********
That process could very well be shortened up along with at the end
giving a "Notice of Acceptance" they had no claim by also sending in the "Notice of Cancellation" along with it. This may also be identified by going through the rest of the Expatriation process there is something called a "Scope" which leads to at least 75 other items to be completed last I heard.
See also 13 Am.Jur.2d Cancellation of Instruments § 23 (1964); 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds § 67 (1965); 12A C.J.S. Cancellation of Instruments § 28 (1980).

Additional case relating to the the applications of adhesions(Private Agreements) applied for:

Other writings, or matters contained therein, which are referred to in a written contract may be regarded as incorporated by the reference as a part of the contract and, therefore, may properly be considered in the construction of the contract. 17A Am Jur 2d, Contracts, § 399 at 426. Where a written contract refers to another instrument and makes the terms and conditions of such other instrument a part of it, the two will be construed together as the agreement of the parties. Id. However, if in a written contract, a reference is made to another writing for a particularly designated purpose, the other writing becomes a part of the contract only for the purpose specified, and is foreign to the contract for all purposes other than the one specified. Id. at 426-27.
I.C.C. PROTECTIVE COATINGS, INC. vs. A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING ) COMPANY, Ind. Sup. 79A05-9612-CV-531

Also see:
Richmond Postal Credit Union v. Booker, 170 Va. 129, 134, 195 S.E. 663, 665 (1938)) (" '[N]otes and *169 contemporaneous written agreements executed as part of the same transaction will be construed together as forming one contract.' ").