[COMMENTARY FOR THIS FILE: There is some real heavy-duty data
in this one. Lots of food for thought. Some of it is buried in
the religious oriented passages, so don't avoid or ignore those,
lest you miss out on some real gems. There is also some
extremely interesting passages regarding the impending (and
planned) Great Depression II of the 1990's, even more
interesting when one considers these passages were written over
7 years ago, and yet they are so accurate and hit the nail on
the head as to current unfolding events regarding the economy.]
GEORGE MERCIER
December 31, 1985
DEAR MR. MAY:
I was intrigued to see that you have retained an interest in my
Letter to Armen Condo, even if that Letter was intended to be
the isolated private correspondence between two people. After
receiving numerous inquiries about that Letter, I have been
quite surprised at the extent to which that Letter has been so
widely disseminated. At the time I wrote it, I was under the
assumption that most folks already knew of the underlying
evidentiary Commercial contract factual settings that Title 26,
Section 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE prosecutions are built on
top of.
In your Letter you state that you have some questions about the
bank account contract as being the exclusive Equity instrument
that initiates the attachment of liability for the positive
administrative mandates of Title 26.
Please be advised that your reservations are well founded and
quite accurate, that is, if you did read such an element of
exclusivity out of the Letter. The reason why your reservations
are accurate is because I did not mean to state or infer any
such thing; however, that is not the problem here. Armen Condo's
bank accounts were sitting in front of the Judge during his
arraignment and all pre-Trial hearings, and those Commercial
contracts are more than strong enough to warrant incarceration
on mere default therein. Since the nature of bank accounts
involves the evidentiary presence of written admissions,
together with the acceptance of Federal Commercial benefits
therefrom, the presence of reciprocity expectations contained
therein,1 and other factors, bank account instruments are
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of Taxpayer Status by virtue of
participation in the closed private domain of INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. And by these CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE fellows entering into
the Armen Condo factual setting the way they did, those bank
accounts were the only evidentiary items that I talked about.2
The other "evidence" the local situ United States Attorney
presented to the Jury was distraction evidence for public and
Jury consumption purposes only, and means absolutely nothing to
appellate forums (for purposes of ascertaining Taxpayer Status).
Bank accounts are the highest and best evidence "Cards" the King
has to deal with, even better than old 1040's, and so that bank
account evidence should be the very first slice of evidence to
go when an Individual has concluded within himself that a change
in Status is now desired.3
Like Irwin Schiff here in late 1985, Armen Condo's reluctance in
1984 to get rid of his bank accounts forecloses a teachable
state of mind one must have to understand multiple other
invisible contracts that our King is dealing with, and that are
more difficult to discern and appreciate the significance of. So
if a PERSON, seeking a shift in relational Status to INDIVIDUAL,
is unwilling to first get rid of his bank accounts, then talking
to him about anything else is an improvident waste of time.4
That Letter was intended to be the private correspondence
between two persons, or so I thought. Since no further
dissemination of the Letter was expected, no detailed
explanation of the factual setting otherwise relevant to the
subject matter content of the Letter was made, nor was any
detailed discussion of other limiting factors or peripheral
elements of jural influence made. Both parties already knew key
elements of the factual setting that gave rise to the Letter,
and the subject matter I addressed was intended to be a narrow
one, talking about bank accounts only as a point of beginning.
For that reason, now the expansive factual application of that
Letter to mean that a Person's contractual relationship with a
Federally regulated financial institution was exclusively the
only acceptable PRIMA FACIE Evidence5 -- or even CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE -- of that Person's entry into the juristic highways of
Interstate Commerce, is an erroneous and overly enlarged
interpretation, and falls outside the contours of the two narrow
questions that I thought I had addressed in that Letter:
1. What right does the King have to criminalize a conversation
two people have, just because the content discussed in that
conversation does not meet with the King's approval? (Relating
to Mr. Condo's civilly denominated prosecution where the United
States sought a Restraining Order silencing his YHPA ["Your
Heritage Protection Association"];
2. What rights does the King have to incarcerate a Person for a
mere circumstantial omission that is in want of both a MENS REA6
and a CORPUS DELECTI...7 the criminalization of a non-event that
never happened? (Relating to Mr. Condo's 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE
TO FILE prosecution).
You have me in such a position, Mr. May, that writing this
response to you makes me feel like I am the United States
Supreme Court, reaffirming a prior Opinion, yet turning around
and writing voluminous explanative text discussing the
implications to a slight twist to the factual setting.8
The narrow answers explaining why Mr. Condo was just plain wrong
in both of those questions were discussed in that letter --
because in both questions, the United States had written
Commercial contracts Armen Condo had entered into wherein Mr.
Condo agreed not to disseminate any erroneous tax information,
and additionally, where Mr. Condo agreed not to withhold or fail
to file any information the Secretary of Treasury deemed
necessary to determine Mr. Condo's Excise Tax Liability (with
the amount of tax being measured by net taxable income). Those
contracts the United States was operating on were Mr. Condo's
bank accounts.
Furthermore, to aggravate the just plain "wrongness" of Mr.
Condo's position, those contracts were entered into by Mr. Condo
in the circumstantial context of Mr. Condo's attempting to
experience monetary profit or gain through the operation of
those contracts. In other words, there had been an exchange of
financial Consideration (benefits) involved, and in Contract
Law, the exchange of valuable Consideration (benefits) is of
particular significance.9
This Consideration requirement is a correct PRINCIPLE OF
NATURE,10 because it is immoral and unethical to hold a contract
against a Person under circumstances in which that Person never
received any benefits from out of it.11
It has to be this way, otherwise the Judicature of the United
States would be working a Tort (damage) on someone else. So
simply giving the other party some up front Consideration, which
is generally $10 in cash, separately and in addition to any
other benefit the contract may call for, will vitiate and
deflect any attack against the future enforcement of that
contract on the grounds the other party never experienced any
benefit from it (the attack is called FAILURE OF
CONSIDERATION).12 This Consideration [meaning some practical
benefit being exchanged or some operation of Nature taking
place] can also originate from third persons not a party to the
contract.13
The word CONSIDERATION has so many different meanings that
anyone trying to use the word instructionally finds themselves
starting over from scratch in the presentation of a
definition.14 Under some circumstances, successive Promises
cascading down from existing contracts can be deemed to be good
and valuable Consideration.15
Harnessing the element of FRAUD to inure to your benefit is
powerful stuff in that it vitiates contracts whenever it makes
an appearance in a factual setting predicated upon contract;16
and likewise, when contracts are up for review and judgment, the
element of CONSIDERATION is also so important that the mere
absence of it nullifies the judicial enforceability of any
factual setting alleging the existence of contractual
liabilities. As the PRESENCE of fraud vitiates contracts, so in
a similar manner does the ABSENCE of Consideration nullify
contracts.17
In general terms, both American Jurisprudence and Nature that it
is modeled after are divided into actions that fall generally
under Tort Law and Contract Law.18 Numerous references will be
made throughout this Letter to the two great divisions in
American Jurisprudence: TORT LAW and CONTRACT LAW. Very simply,
Contract Law applies to govern a settlement of a grievance
whenever a contract is in effect. This means that only certain
types of very narrow arguments are allowed to be plead in
Contract Law grievances, since only the content of the contract
is of any relevance in the grievance settlement. The reason why
statutes are sometimes brought into a Contract Law judgment
setting, statutes that do not appear anywhere within the body
proper of the contract, is because the contract was written
under the supervisory Commerce Jurisdiction of the State, and
that therefore those statutes form a superseding part of the
contract.19
There are many subdivisions within Contract Law, such as
Securities Law, Estate Inheritance, Quasi-Contract,20 Statutory
Contract, Taxes, Copyright and Trademark Infringement Law,
Commercial Business Practice under either the Law Merchant or
the Uniform Commercial Code, Insurance, Admiralty and Maritime
Contracts, etc. Operating a business under a regulated statutory
juristic environment is very much a contract, since a numerous
array of Government benefits are being accepted by Gameplayers
in Commerce, as I will discuss later.
And in contrast to that, we have Tort Law. Think of Tort Law as
being a Judgment Law to settle grievances between persons where
there are damages, but without any contract in effect between
the parties.21 A good contrasting way to define a Tort is by
enumerating on the things that it is not: It is not a breach of
contract. Included under the heading of Torts are such
miscellaneous civil wrongs, ranging from simple and direct
interferences against a person like assault, battery, and false
imprisonment; or with some property rights, like trespass or
conversion; and various forms of negligence are Torts ("judge,
the defendant was negligent in maintaining his parking lot by
not fixing a dangerous and obscure crevice that was in it") --
but the final definition is a simple one: Any wrong that has
been worked by someone, where there is no contract in effect,
falls under Tort Law when the damaged person brings the
grievance into Court and tries to seek a judicial remedy.22 Such
an easy concept to understand as that, with parallel easy to
understand rules and judgment reasoning -- and lawyers are
actually baffled by it.23
Similarly, orthodox medical doctors here in the United States
are also blind, by replicating the advisory suggestions of drug
companies pursuing Commercial Enrichment, to exclude the
identification of simple nourishment deficiency as the true
seminal point of mammalian disease origin. Against that sad
background (of professionals not even knowing their own
profession),24 the actual identification of Tort Law as an
actual branch of the Majestic Oak is a relatively recent
recognition by American lawyers. Up until about 1859, Tort Law
was not understood as a separate and distinct branch of Law.25
The first treatise in ENGLISH ON TORTS was published in 1859 by
Francis Hilliard of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who was followed a
year later by an English author named Addison.26 Even as late as
1871, the leading American legal periodical remarked that:
"We are inclined to think that Torts is not a proper subject
for a law book."27
In 1853, when Mr. Joel Bishop proposed to write a book on the
Law of Torts, he was assured then by all publishers he surveyed
that there was no such call for such a work on that subject.28
Yet, the distinction in effect between Tort Law and Contract Law
was in effect during the Roman Empire.29
But in addressing Tort Law itself, if I were to hit you over the
head with a baseball bat or burn down your house, there is no
contract in effect governing the grievance, so Tort Law rules,
reasoning, and arguments govern the settlement of this type of
grievance. In addition to damages, judges always want to examine
the factual record presented to analyze the Defendant's
character, and make sure that the intent to damage was there (as
consent and accidental damages can vitiate liability).30 And so
hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat is called an
"assault," and there lies a Tort; however, there are many types
of Torts that do not have any names assigned to them.31
Some writers have attempted to uncover certain characteristics
that lie in common to all Torts as a starting point to identify
some Principles (yes, there may be some hope for a few of you
lawyers after all).32
One of the reasons why lawyers try and raise numerous
subclassifications of Tort up to the main level of Tort and
Contract (as they grope and search in the dark the way they do),
is because they do not see the invisible contracts that are
often quietly in effect, correctly overruling Tort Law
intervention, since an examination of the factual setting seems
void of any contract. By the end of this Letter, you will see
many invisible contracts for what they really are, and you will
see how to identify the indicia that create invisible contracts.
You may not understand the deeper significance of the
distinction in effect between Tort and Contract right now, but
after reading this Letter through a few times, the semantic
differential in meaning should become very apparent to you, as I
will give many examples of Contract Law and Tort Law reasonings
and arguments, as applied across many different factual
settings; as whenever there is a judgment of some type, there is
always in effect some rules and an exclusion of some evidence in
the mind of the judge a to what arguments will and will not be
allowed to be heard -- (even though this process goes on
unmentioned orally by the judge); and the real reason why there
is an important significance here that you might be interested
in taking PERSONAL NOTICE of [just like Judges take JUDICIAL
NOTICE of special items], in Tort and Contract rule
differentials in judgment settings, is because we all have an
impending Judgment with Heavenly Father -- where arguments then
presented will be judged under similar Tort and Contract rules;
a judgment setting where the pure magnitude of the consequences
renders unprepared incorrect reasoning injudicious and lacking
in foresight.
Like in Contract Law, there are numerous subdivisions within
Tort Law to place a specific grievance into, such as: Civil
Rights, Wrongful Death, Product Liability, Aviation Law,
Personal Injury, Accident Recovery, Professional Malpractice,
Unfair Competition, Admiralty and Maritime Torts, and certain
Fraud and Anti-Trust actions, etc.33
Based on the Status of the person involved and certain elements
in the factual setting, and certain types of damages asked for,
then what grievance normally would be under Contract Law, could
be changed to fall under Tort Law.
So there is the general distinction in effect between Tort and
Contract. Question: What if a grievance falls into an area of
grey where it could fall under rules applicable to either Tort
of Contract? Although my introductory remarks in this Letter
are necessarily simplified, numerous commentators have mentioned
that defining the line between Tort and Contract is sometimes
difficult.34 However, what is important is the reason why a
simple distinction became difficult: Because the parties to
what started out as a Contract Law grievance did not fully
anticipate all future events that could have occurred between
the parties in contract.35
Typically, all blurry factual settings that involve an area
between Tort and Contract have their seminal point of origin in
a Contract that did not completely define what would and would
not happen under all possible scenarios; and this is called
INCOMPLETE CONTRACTING.36
Once a determination has been made that Tort or Contract governs
the question presented, very important differences and rules
then apply to settling claims and grievances based on the
factual setting falling under Principles governing Tort Law, or
under Principles governing Contract Law; and as you can surmise,
the question as to whether or not a grievance belongs under Tort
or under Contract is often a disputed and hotly argued question
between adversaries in a courtroom battle, as the question as to
which Law governs can spell total success or total failure for
the parties involved. For example, see BUTLER VS. PITTWAY
CORPORATION,37 where to adversaries argued Tort Law or Contract
Law governance in a pre-Trial appeal, which was a product
liability/warranty case.38 In deciding whether to allow Tort or
Contract Law to govern, the Second Circuit mentioned that:
"This case falls into a grey area between tort and contract law
that has never been fully resolved."39
So, for the introductory purposes of this Letter, I will only be
discussing the differences between Tort Law and Contract Law in
general.40
This stratification of the Law into two separate jurisdictions
of Tort and Contract is quite necessary, and in so doing, the
Judiciary is no more than conforming the contours of American
Jurisprudence to more tightly replicate the profile of Nature;
and as you will soon see there will be very profound
consequences experienced by folks who try to outfox Nature by
using Tort Law reasoning in a Contract Law judgment setting. You
should also be aware that very often, we all occasionally get
ourselves into contracts that become invisible for any number of
reasons, and then erroneously use the logic of Tort Law
reasoning to try and weasel our way out of the contract we
forgot about.
Experientially well seasoned contractualists know that the
desires and wants of people routinely change with the passage of
time, and that it is quite common that contracts that are
entered into today are often unattractive and unappealing in the
hindsight of the future. So this Consideration rule is of
particular importance in those types of marginal contracts where
the benefit a Person experiences from the contract depends upon
some future efforts that same Person must make, or where the
benefits are qualified or otherwise conditional. For our
purposes, correctly understood, Consideration is a benefit.
Comprehension of the significance of Consideration is
fundamental to one's understanding as to why the Judiciary is
largely ignoring the IN REM CONTRACT RECESSIONS many folks are
filing on their Birth Certificates; and understanding
Consideration (the acceptance of benefits) is the Grand Key to
unlocking the mystery as to why some of the King's Equity hooks
are so difficult to pull out of you, as I will discuss later.
There having been an exchange of valuable CONSIDERATION, when
Mr. Condo entered into his bank account contracts, Mr. Condo was
in an extremely weak position -- he was just plain wrong with
his bank accounts and other invisible contracts (having
experienced hard cash benefits [Consideration] as a result of
the contract, as well as giving the King CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
that he was a participant in Interstate Commerce and the
acceptant of federal benefits) and so as a result, there was not
a lot of substance left over for Mr. Condo to argue about...
like trying to argue that the Earth's rotation about its own
axis is some type of an elliptical illusion, just somehow. Yes
Virginia, there are absolutes in both Nature and in Contract
Law; and Defendants in prosecutions can be plain and simple
wrong. When one is inside of a King's cage, one begins to
appreciate just how strong contracts can be. Additionally, Mr.
Condo was trying to argue the basic unfairness of the
proceedings against him, but that unfairness argument as well
was non-applicable to his Contract Judgment.41 Unfairness is a
concept that is related to moral Tort Law.42
Questions of damages, and lack of damages, of the MENS REA
criminal intent, of fairness, of risk assumption, of equity, and
equality are all reasoning and arguments reserved for a Tort Law
judgment setting. Remember that Tort Law doctrine governs the
settlement of grievances that arise between parties without any
contract being in effect. Tort Law is generally a free-wheeling
jurisdiction, and anything goes. The decision by the New Jersey
State Supreme Court to hold sponsors of parties responsible for
the acts of persons who drank in their homes is a Tort Law
grievance.43
In contrast to the elastic and expansive nature of Tort Law,
when Contracts are in effect, only the content of the Contract
is of any significance when the grievance is up for review and
judgment.44 Tort Law means that for every damage someone works
on you, corrective damages will be applied back to that person
as the remedy (call the retort). For example, in Tort Law, if
you burned down a neighbor's house out of a grudge and without
the owner's consent (since no Contracts are in effect, Tort Law
governs the courtroom grievance), pure natural moral Tort Law
requires that you be damaged in return, i.e., that a retort be
worked on you in order to satisfy the demands of Justice. As the
Sheriff or other neutral disinterested third party that
administers the retort (to perfect the ends of Justice), by
stuffing you in one of his cages, that encagement retort itself
is largely exempt from experiencing further retorts for his
damages on you.45
So the cycle of Tort and retort ends there by the Sheriff
jailing you for damaging your neighbor the way you did by
burning down his house. This is Tort Law, and this is a key
concept to understand, because numerous people throughout the
world have so deliberately and very carefully arranged their
affairs as to have all their murders and MAGNUM Torts executed
on their behalf under the liability vitiating and recourse free
operating environment of pure natural Tort Law, as I will
explain later. Think about this Tort and Retort Doctrine for a
while, as it is very powerful -- with it damages can be
justified in a judgment setting, if your damages occurred to
accomplish the ends of Justice.
These people, taking counsel from Gremlins, by arranging their
damages to be justified as a retort, believe quite strongly that
they are morally correct and that Heavenly Father46 is required
to support them and their abominations at the Last Day, as their
murders have in fact been executed under the vitiating retort
cycle of pure moral Tort Law, and therefore immune from further
recourse, just like the Sheriff is immune from further recourse
for the damages he worked on you when he stuffed you into one of
his cages for burning down that house.
And those people arranging their behavior to conform themselves
into a Tort Law judgment profile with damages immunization
reasoning are correct, because Tort Law is a correct and pure
operation of Nature, and their damages can very much be
justified before Father at the Last Day; but the question of
justification of damages is not going to be relevant at the Last
Day, and for the identical same reason as to why the question of
no damages being present in Highway traffic code prosecutions
and Income Tax enforcement actions is also not relevant. Because
just one tiny little problem for these Tort Law justification
imps surfaces, based upon an obscure, remote, and little known
Doctrine uncovered from the archives of the Mormon Church in
Salt Lake City. I'll explain all that later, but understanding
the original Tort and recourse free "Justice" retort concept,
and its appreciation as a true PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, is necessary
before we probe deeper into Lucifer's extremely clever
Illuminatti reasoning and Father's little known "Ace" that he
has up his sleeve; and then into the deeper meaning of this
Life, which involves (as you could guess by now), a Contract.
But Contracts, of and by themselves, are never the end
objective, they are only a mechanical and procedural tool used
to accomplish a larger objective: An objective to someday have
all of the rights, power, domain, keys, status, and authority as
our Heavenly Father now has.47 The Grand Meaning of this Life is
quite a story, and simply focusing in on the relevant material
is difficult by virtue of the large volume of distraction
material that is floating around out there. Nevertheless, as
strange as it may initially seem, people correctly talking about
it generally find themselves having to tone things down a bit.48
Tax Protestors, like their brothers in contract defilement,
Draft Protestors (as I will explain later), denounce the basic
illegitimacy of the United States -- our fat King -- silencing
speech, and of criminalizing something that just didn't happen
("How could not filing a piece of paper be a crime? Why, the
Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta be a witness against my self.
Common Law says there can be no Constructive Offenses..."; and
on and on). But unappreciated by Mr. Condo was the Contract Law
jurisdictional environment he was being prosecuted in: A
summary Commercial contract enforcement proceeding, up for
review and enforcement based on administrative findings of
fact.49 In these Equity contract enforcement proceedings,
questions of morality, of Torts,50 of basic reasonableness, of
pure natural justice, of fairness, of mental intent, of the
presence of a CORPUS DELECTI, of privacy rights, of equality
between this instant Defendant and other previous Defendants and
the like, are all irrelevant. And the only thing that is
relevant is the content of the contract that was entered into
some time earlier, in general, and the exact technical
infraction the United States, as your Adversary in a 7203
Action, wants addressed as the grievance, in particular. Under
some limited circumstances, Federal Judges will annul contract
enforcement actions where unreasonable and over-zealous statute
enforcement Tortfeasance has taken place -- what appears to be
"fairness" -- but such annulment is really only to preemptively
restrain such Tortfeasance from recurring in the future, and not
to benefit you at all. So whether in a driver's license contract
grievance setting of a highway speeding infraction, or in a
Commercial contract WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE grievance setting
with the King through a bank account and other contracts, the
only thing that is relevant is you and your contract. All other
previous persons, their cases of defilement, and their
grievances, and what arguments they made or did not make, is
irrelevant. Translated into the practical setting where a poor
Defendant is presenting a defense line, this means that all
motions that are made for dismissal, based on grounds relating
to anyone else's previous prosecution, are automatically denied,
as being irrelevant to the instant factual setting. Equality and
fairness are not relevant in settling contract grievances.
Equality and fairness are Tort Law arguments; they are definable
only along the infinite; and if the Judiciary allowed equality
or fairness to enter into the contract arena, then the effect of
allowing equality and fairness on one side is to work a Tort on
the other side -- so the Judiciary simple rules, very properly,
that when contracts are in effect, only the content of the
contract is relevant. Although this policy has the uncomfortable
secondary effect of making Federal Judges appear to be carefully
selected Commie pinkos when dealing with a Tax Protestor (as
Federal Judges go about their work enforcing invisible
contracts), restraining the subject matter that will be
discussed in a Contract Judgment setting to include only the
content of the contract, is a correct attribute of Nature, and
does correctly replicate the mind, will, and intention of
Heavenly Father (as I will discuss later on) in the area of
laying down rules for settling contract grievances. The very
common belief that folks have, that since 100 other persons
prosecuted for the same contract infraction got suspended
sentences, and therefore in equality you too should get a
suspended sentence, is in error. What other people do or don't
do, or what happens to or does not happen to them in their
contract judgment, is not relevant to you and your contracts.
This equality and fairness applicability is an important
principle to understand, because we all have an important
Judgment impending at the Last Day. Here is where Heavenly
Father is going to judge us at the Last Day along very similar
lines; because Father is operating on numerous invisible
Contracts I will discuss later. You Highway Contract Protestors
and Income Tax Protestors out there now have such a marvelous
advantage, if you would but use your valuable knowledge acquired
through such prosecutions and your study of the Law, to avoid
making the same Tort Law argument mistakes at the Last Day
before Father -- where unlike now, there will be no more going
back and trying some argument line out again. Today, you can go
back into a courtroom over and over again, throwing one
successive argument after another at the Judge as many times as
you feel like, until you finally figure out what legal reasoning
is correct, what is incorrect, and why. Such a repetitive
presentation of error is not going to be possible at the Last
Day -- there will be no going back to Heavenly Father a second
and successive times and throwing another round of defensive
arguments at Him. Your Tort Law reasoning of equality, fairness,
and of no damages and no MENS REA, when presented before Father
at the Last Day to justify your behavior down here will fall
apart and collapse, and for very good reasons that I will
explain later. This judicial enforcement, separating Tort from
Contract in WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE prosecutions, is but one
manifestation of the extent to which rare gifted genius rules in
the Federal Judiciary.51
Yes, contractual equity is a hard line to abide by, and people
who operate their lives with that smooth and envious SAVIOR
FAIRE always avoid entering into such tight binding regulatory
restrainments in their affairs that they know that their minds
just cannot handle in the future.52 Yes, experienced people will
forego some immediate benefits all contracts initially offer,
just to avoid the larger liability and cost picture later on.
Yes, it is better to forego experiencing impressive glossy
benefits and accept nominal benefits that accomplish the same
thing, and avoid a contract altogether. For example, this could
mean buying a used car for cash without an installment contract,
rather than a new one on installment payments, unless the
structure of your livelihood is such that enrichment is
experienced as a result of the gloss benefits, such as real
estate salesmen, who need the gloss to make a SUB SILENTIO
statement: That they are a very important person; someone you
should better start paying some attention to; someone you had
better start doing some business with.
There are folks out there, marvelous, bright, and otherwise just
great all around, but who are weak in some administrative
dimension; these types should generally shy away from difficult
and marginally feasible contracts they can't handle. In a
domestic family setting, marriage counselors report back
identical observations: That it was household mismanagement or
unmanagement originating from infracted contracts previously
entered into under a relaxed level of interest or inappropriate
budgetary environment that caused unnecessary secondary grief
sometime later on. (In other words, like Armen Condo, they
entered into contracts unknowingly incompatible with their
philosophy, and not appreciating the significance of the
contract's terms thereof. So the recourse significant became
invisible to them. Those are the contracts and Equity
Relationships they should have avoided all along from the
beginning, AB INITIO.)53 So, from a counseling perspective, a
general attitude might be to have a spirit of reluctance about
your MODUS OPERANDI before entering into recourse contracts.
Entering into Commercial contracts with anyone without careful
respect to the terms that the contract calls for is an
invitation for nothing but headaches and aggravations you don't
need, and could have, and should have, avoided at a lower,
pre-contract chronological level.
In order to appreciate just how wrong Mr. Condo really way, and
just how stupid and not very well thought out his sophomoric
badmouthing was of the presiding Federal Judge,54 one needs to
study and be brought to a knowledge of Contract Law -- its
majestic origins and history, and of recourse Commercial
contracts -- their enforcement and life in the contemporary
American judicial setting. What I am about to say may very well
surprise you, but the reality is that those seemingly unnatural
and artificial instruments we call Contracts are actually highly
and tightly interwoven into Nature and Natural Law.55 And it is
very rare that I have found any contract enforcement or
grievance proceeding to have been inappropriately adjudged,
based upon the factual setting presented, the issues raised for
settlement and the question addressed by the presiding
administrative or judicial magistrate.
Such strong enforcement of contracts improperly concerns some
people, who don't give too much thought to the consequences of
being able to have any Commercial contract simply tossed aside
and annulled judicially, just because one of the parties no
longer feels like honoring the terms of the contract.56 That's
right, under that line of reasoning, contracts should be tossed
aside and annulled just because one of the parties doesn't feel
like it anymore: Like Armen Condo no longer feeling like
sending in a 1040 anymore. His self declarations of lofty Status
are initially impressive ("I am not a slave anymore"); but
unilateral self declarations do not now, and never have,
annulled contract liability. By the end of this Letter, you will
know how to get out of a contract, but such a termination does
not involve self declarations of status. The reason why there is
such a tight adhesive relationship going on in American
Jurisprudence between contract enforcement and Nature/Natural
Law is because Contracts are very much on the mind of the Great
Creator who made Nature.57 And so when American Jurisprudence so
strongly enforces contracts, then the Judiciary, as an agent of
Nature, is merely replicating the mind of our Creator who wants
to have people learn to honor their contracts -- and yes, even
more so when those contracts contain philosophically bitter
terms, like the Bolshevik Income Tax. Learning the deeper
meaning of that Principle is a bit more important than some
folks realize: Because Contracts are very important to Heavenly
Father. And the design of Nature to so strongly enforce
contracts is inverse evidence to indicate that Father deals
extensively with Contracts, wants people to learn to respect
Contracts, and will honor his Contracts with you (if you can get
a Contract out of Father). Heavenly Father is similar to the
King in the limited sense that both of them want something from
us, and both of them use the same tools to get what they want.
Father wants our bodies, and the King wants our money, and both
use Contracts extensively to accomplish their end objectives. I
conjecture that the King is far more successful in gross
aggregate percentage terms by his manipulative adhesive use of
invisible contracts to get what he wants than Father is with His
invisible Contracts, as Father does not force himself on
unwilling participants. The King deals with people out of the
barrel of a gun and accomplishes through clever administrative
arm-twisting and adhesion contract wringing what otherwise
cannot be sustained in front of the Supreme Court in freely
negotiated contract terms; whereas in contrast Heavenly Father
deals with people very conservatively on the basis of their
wants, and where no Contract is wanted, I can assure you none
will be forced on you. The King has copied the MODUS OPERANDI of
Father to deal extensively in Contracts, and then has added his
own Royal enrichment twist to it: Unlike Father's altruism
(legitimate concern for the interests of others), our King is
only interested in himself, his own welfare, and in that Golden
Money Pot he passes out to Special Interest Groups who make
their descent on Washington when Congress is in Session, in
vulture formation.58
There are numerous reasons why Heavenly Father wants our bodies
-- one is so, for our benefit, we can be Glorified some day and
have a continuing association with Him again. Such a statement
is implicitly a status statement, since in order to associate
with Father, one's stature must be on a similar calibre to
Father.59 But Father first wants to patiently see who His
friends really are, under circumstances where his very existence
is difficult to see. Yes, these are Adversary proceedings we are
in down here (and when you take out a new Contract with Father,
you will know what I mean, as Lucifer the Great Adversary
("Great" in terms of ability), will suddenly start to take you
very seriously). If Heavenly Father has the Celestial
Jurisdiction it takes to Glorify a person into such an
indescribable state similar to his own Status, as people
entering into Father's highly advanced Contracts down here have
been explicitly and bluntly promised, then Father ought to be
very carefully listened to.60
There are a few people who have lived upon this Earth before us,
who now have such Glorified bodies under advanced timing
schedules, and FIRST PERSON EVIDENCE of that nature (an eye
witness) is difficult for Heathens to reverse or countermand
under attack, so they have no choice but to ignore it and talk
about something else.61 Although that retortional statement, of
and by itself, is not strong enough to irritate a hardened
Atheist, this statement might:
"No human has had the power to organize his own existence. That
there is one greater than we, the Father, actually begat the
Spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him... I
want to tell you... that you are well acquainted with God our
Father... For there is not a soul of you but what has lived in
his house and dwelt with him year after year... We are the
children of our Father in Heaven... We are Sons and Daughters of
Celestial Beings, and the germ of Deity dwells within us."62
Yes, both the mind of Heavenly Father and the mind of the Savior
are swirling in a vortex of Contracts.63 For a brief sizing
glimpse at the extent to which Contracts are constantly and
endlessly on the mind of Father and the Savior, open up either
the Old or the New Testaments to any place at random, and see
how many pages can be turned before the word "Covenant"
[Contract] reappears.64
Here in the United States, in a Commercial contract factual
setting, the word "covenant" is of an Old English Law Merchant
origin, and now means only a few clauses within a larger
contract;65 like when entrepreneurs sell their businesses, the
continuing restriction they take upon themselves within the
larger Purchase and Sale Contract, not to turn right around and
build up the same duplicate business all over again until some 5
to 10 years or so has first lapsed, is called a COVENANT NOT TO
COMPETE.66 But in an ecclesiastical setting, what all ancient
and contemporary Prophets and Patriarchs cal COVENANTS, are
really CONTRACTS:
"As all of us know, a covenant is a contract and an agreement
between at least two parties. In the case of gospel covenants,
the parties are the Lord and men on Earth. Men agree to keep the
commandments and the Lord promises to reward them accordingly.
The gospel itself is the new and everlasting covenant and
embraces all the agreements, promises, and rewards which the
Lord offers his people."67 In analyzing the Law comparatively
with Father's Plan for us, there are numerous facial changes in
descriptive names for things that are commonly known and
understood by everyone under other names. For example, what we
call a CONTRACT in our everyday Life, Heavenly Father calls
COVENANTS. And the financial enrichment one party receives under
a contract here in the United States (such as the financial
compensation a Landlord receives out of a Lease Contract from a
Tenant), is called a BENEFIT; and what is called a BENEFIT
arising under contract in a Commercial setting is known as a
BLESSING arising under Covenant in an ecclesiastical setting
with Heavenly Father.68
Coming down into this Life, this "Second Estate" we are now in
(as the ancient Prophets originated its characterization),69 our
memories were deflected off to the side and temporarily locked
away.70 Coming down from the First Estate into this World, we
all came here by Contract, and sometime in the third trimester
of our mother's pregnancy, our spirits entered these bodies
(called the "quickening" of the body). There came a point in
time back during the First Estate, when after Father revealed
his Grand Plans for us all, as the Sons of God we all shouted
for joy in ecstatic response.71 Whether this shouting for joy
took place before or after Father started extracting his
Contracts out of us, I don't know; talk in this area is limited
to generalities.72 But we do know that we are ones that Job
referred to as the Sons of God.73 Later on, after we have been
around down here for a while, by the careful honoring of those
other Contracts we can enter into down here, we can enlarge our
standing before Father and be like him some day, by ordered,
planned, and organized accretion.74 Some of those other
Celestial Contracts that are available to be entered into down
here are the introductory Contract of Baptism, and the more
advanced Endowment Contracts [which are entered into in
Temples], in addition to multiple other ecclesiastically related
Contracts.75 Yes, these Covenants that we can now enter into are
REPLACEMENT Covenants, because Heavenly Father already has
invisible Contracts in effect on us all, as we all entered into
Contracts with Father in the First Estate, all of us without
exception: Saint, sinner, Heathen, and Gremlin:
"In our preexistence state, in the day of the great Council, we
made certain agreements with the Almighty..."76 And the content
of those preexistence [previous existence] First Estate
Covenants are designed to remain largely withheld from our
present memory for a reason.77 Back in the First Estate, not
everyone entered into the same identical terms on their previous
existence Contracts. There was very much Contract customization
involved, when Father deemed it appropriate. For example, the
Noble and the Great Spirits, who excelled in valiance back then
above all others, had special addendums attached to their First
Estate Contracts with Father, just tailor made for their
missions down here:
"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences
that were organized before the world was; and among these were
many of the Noble and Great ones; And God saw these souls that
they were good, and [in a Conference] he stood in the midst of
them, and he said:
'These I will make my rulers.'
"For he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that
they were good, and he said unto me:
"Abraham, thou art one of them; thou was chosen before thou
wast born..."78
Although that brief account by Abraham does not describe
everything that went on in that Conference, what also transpired
in that Conference, in addition to the lofty Status
pronouncements from On High, was the extraction of additional
Contract Addendums out of the participants, just tailor made to
fit the Noble and the Great.
As we enter into and fulfill Father's Advanced Contracts down
here, the significance of those Contracts that we entered into
in the First Estate fades away until they are of no significance
whatsoever.79 These Contracts that we enter into with Father
down here supersede our previous Contracts, and if no Contract
is entered into with Father down here, then the governing
Contract at the Judgment Day will be the First Estate Contract.
People playing the Contract avoidance routine on Father's
Contracts are playing with fire and damaging themselves, because
knowledge of the content of those Previous Existence Contracts
is being withheld from us for a reason. This then raises a moral
question: What right does Father have to hold us to Contracts,
the content of which we have no knowledge of? Answer: Father
has our consent to do so as part of the game plan. Yes, we are
placed in this world measurably in the dark, necessarily so.80
And when you understand the benefits of the game plan, your
initial reticence will also fade away.81 And if it initially
appears to be unfair to penalize someone for their innocent
ignorance by being judged under invisible contracts they had no
knowledge of, then remember that in a Contract Law Judgment
setting such nice things as fairness and relative levels of
knowledge or ignorance of the Contract's terms are all
irrelevant factors; and this Tort Law argument of UNFAIRNESS, by
being made a party to such excessively one-sided and unequal
contract terms really falls apart when the temporary deflection
of the previous memory itself is made such an integral and an
important structural element in those First Estate Contracts.82
This means that if there had been no memory deflection taking
place, then the objectives Father has for us in this Life, to
live in a free-wheeling world for a little while by "starting
over" in a sense, would be infeasible to accomplish; and so
without memory deflection there would have been no reason for
this Second Estate Life and the numerous Contracts associated
with it -- Celestial Contracts that overrule our First Estate
Covenants.83
The unfairness aspect of this impending state of affairs that
gnaws at us -- of people being adjudged under invisible
Contracts -- causes some folks to want to shy away from such a
harsh Father; but such a reduced view of Father's Plans is
defective. In this world, we are conditioned to think that
penalizing someone means directly throwing something negative at
him, i.e., docking his pay, giving him a reprimand, having him
picked up, confining the fellow to barracks, giving the poor
fellow a spanking, or having him taken out and shot, and the
like. To be penalized by Father carries no such negative
circumstances being applied against us at all; a penalty levied
at us by Father is the mere absence of a possible prospective
Celestial Blessing that could have been ours -- if we had
buckled down tight and gotten serious when presented with
information to the effect that Contracts are governing at the
Last Day. So when Father places a Contract Law Judgement
environment in effect for us on the Judgment Day, and people
then start claiming unfairness for any one of several dozen
different reasons (and each argument has merit to it), their
arguments sounding in the Tort of unfairness will fall apart and
collapse, and properly so, as there is nothing inconsistent
about Father's selective withholding of any of his discretionary
Blessings from us that were waived by us, and the great
Celestial Grant of Eloha.84
Yes, the Third Estate we will enter into after the Last Judgment
Day is stratified into multiple different strata, and people
will go where they are most comfortable; yes, Father has many
mansions in his House.85 For example, if you simply cannot
handle a difficult Contract or do not want the responsibility
that such a difficult Contract carries along with it -- then
that is fine, as Father has a Kingdom for you; and if this idea
of spending Time and all Eternity in the midst of clowns who
also cannot handle Contracts intrigues you, then I would suggest
that you explore the possibility of terminating further interest
in this Letter. Maybe I am missing something somewhere, but I
think it is inconsistent for Tax and Highway Protestors to so
freely and willingly be criminally prosecuted for no more than
defining a new elevated Status relationship with Government --
but then for those same Protestors to turn around and say that
yes, they would somehow enjoy spending the rest of Time and all
Eternity on their knees licking someone else's feet as some low
level ministering angels. Therefore, we will settle for nothing
but the top -- and if we err along the way, then we erred while
expending maximum effort.86
When Contracts are in effect, the only thing that is relevant in
a Contract Law Judgment setting is the content of the contract,
the Person whose behavior the contract seeks to measure
compliance with, and the behavior that was being measured; and
as we traverse from a political setting involving Tax Protestors
to an ecclesiastical setting involving us all at the Last Day,
then nothing changes. The fact that Irwin Schiff and Armen Condo
never bothered to read the Commercial bank account merchant
contracts that they were adjudged to be in default of, and also
their invisible Citizenship Contracts, and then were penalized
under those contracts by being incarcerated in a Federal cage,
that ignorance of the contract's terms is neither a relevant
question nor excusable behavior under a Contract Law judgment
setting. Literally, the only thing that is relevant is: Did
they honor the contract or not. People who are unable to think
along these precise and very narrow ratiocinative87 lines of
Contract Law will find themselves being self-penalized for their
ignorance (penalized in the sense that prospective blessings
that could have been their's will be forfeited). If that sounds
excessively harsh, then momentarily picture yourself as being in
Father's position, and then consider what you would do
differently when confronted with a group of people who can and
do think precisely, and another group of people that do not
think so precisely, and another group who really could care less
about anything.88
And it will be on the Judgment Day that we will be judged by
Contracts, and under a Contract Law jurisprudential setting --
and not under the rights, justice, relative collective equality,
and group fairness of pure natural moral Tort Law. Interestingly
enough, also known to those Persons who have entered into
Father's Advanced Contracts down here is that the timing of the
Judgment Day can be accelerated into this life, thus removing
any lingering vestige of uncertainty someone may have about
their Standing before Father; there is no Last Day for these
special people to concern themselves with. When Father approves
of your Standing down here, you are going to know it under
rather strong circumstances.
Yes, Heavenly Father has contracts on us all going back into the
First Estate.89 And just like Federal Judges in 7203 WILLFUL
FAILURE TO FILE prosecutions quietly taking Judicial Notice of
contracts in their Chambers even before the Tax Protestor gets
arrested and the adversary criminal proceedings start, Father
too already has all the Contracts he needs in front of him
awaiting the judgment scene of Last Day -- First Estate
Contracts that were solicited from us before we were born into
this World, and this Second Estate proceeding started to collect
and assemble the factual setting the Last Day will issue out a
Judgment on. First Estate Contracts are now in effect on
everyone -- ON EVERYONE -- down here without any exceptions, and
Father is not interested in either any Tort or great thing we
accomplish -- except that if that action is encompassed within
the content of a positive or restraining covenant on one of the
Contracts he has on us.90
By the wording of the Contracts Father has on us, a wide ranging
array of damages are not permissible -- but the moral Tort
question of damages itself is not relevant unless the damages
fall into an area restricted by the Contract. In a similar way,
some of the Contract terms call for both positive action and
negative restrainment under situations where there could be no
damages created regardless of what we do; SO DAMAGES ARE NOT
RELEVANT WHEN CONTRACTS ARE IN EFFECT. ONLY CONCERN YOURSELF
WITH THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT. And even if we have carefully
avoided entering into any Contracts with him now in this Life,
he still has Contracts on us all from the First Estate he will
hold us to at the Judgment Day: In other words, there is no
such thing as outfoxing Father.91
Unlike our King in Washington who has multiple technical
deficiencies existing within his own statutes, which when
invoked timely preclude him from collecting any Inland Revenue
tax money under many circumstances even when it is rightfully
due and payable, there are no deficiencies in the Contracts
Father writes; and for the incredible benefits being offered by
Father,92 you should not even probe for any improvident
technical moves.93
And this question of trying to outfox Father, is why the
Illuminatti, who otherwise like to consider themselves as being
very clever folks, will find their Torts, murders, revolutions,
wars and environmental damages justifications fall apart and
collapse at the Last Day -- because pure natural moral Tort Law
will be irrelevant at the Judgment Day. They will regret having
made their improvident technical moves down here: By trying to
outfox Father with their clever Tort Law reasoning on justifying
damages. Father has a special treat planned, an Ace up his
sleeve, just tailor made for dealing with these Illuminatti and
Bolshevik types of Gremlins; it is the same identical Ace that
Federal Judges have up their sleeves, just tailor made to deal
effectively with Constitutionalists: An invisible Contract the
poor fellow didn't even know about. By the end of this Letter,
you will know of the numerous layers of invisible Contracts the
King has on Tax Protestors. But assuming that you avoided
entering into new Contracts with Father in this Life, then when
your memory is restored to you, Father will solicit an
accounting of the terms of the Contract he extracted from you in
the First Estate.94
And so what was once an invisible Contract will then become a
rather strongly known Contract, and then and there the Gremlins
will crinkle in self-inflicted anguish. The Prophets have stated
that there will be weeping, wailing and a gnashing of teeth at
the Last Day;95 those are rather strong characterizations to use
-- but now you know why -- for among other reasons, the Gremlins
will have a perfect knowledge that their clever justifications
to pull off and try and get away with WORLD CLASS mischief were
not worth it. And when, at the Last Day, the Illuminatti and
their Gremlin brothers are confronted with the terms of those
First Estate Contracts that they entered into before this Second
Estate even started, and when Father then asks for a simple
factual recital of their Covenant compliance, then will the
Gremlins realize the irrelevancy of their excuses to justify and
vitiate their murder, war, and miscellaneous abomination damages
(and all committed, of course, to accomplish and perfect
Justice); and those Illuminatti types might just find
themselves, at that time, being a bit disappointed: Because
their Tort Law justifications will not even be addressed by
Father.
Father will be asking a very simple question then, to which he
will expect, very properly, a very simple answer: What was the
extent to which you honored your Contracts?
Gremlin defense arguments sounding in the Tort of damages
justification will be tossed aside and ignored then at the Last
Day just like State and Federal Judges now toss aside and ignore
Tort Law arguments of Constitutionalists and other Protestors
arguing lack of CORPUS DELECTI damages to try and get a
dismissal of Tax and Highway Contract enforcement prosecutions,
when invisible contracts unknown to the Constitutionalist were
actually in effect. There is actually nothing inaccurate or
defective about the planned Gremlin defense arguments, just like
there is nothing inaccurate or factually defective about Patriot
arguments thrown at Judges today; the question is not one of
accuracy or whether they are correct, but rather the question is
one of whether the defense line addresses the contract
compliance question asked -- and they don't, they are not
relevant. Simple questions of Contract compliance by their
nature exclude a large body of prospective rebuttals that are
distractive to the simple question asked; when contracts are up
for review and judgment, then only the content of the Contract
is of any relevance.96
If Father was planning on using pure natural moral Tort Law
Justice at the Judgment Day, then there could be no such things
as the third party liability absorption feature such as the
Atonement (which is operation of Contract); and additionally,
for the tortious act of swatting a fly, spanking our kids,
drilling a railroad tunnel through a mountain, or mowing our
lawns, we would be penalized forever -- if we are operating
under the rules of pure natural moral Tort Law (which means that
all Torts get retorted as the remedy -- with an exception being
only those excusable Torts necessary to perfect the Ends of
Justice). That important qualifying retort exception reasoning
is the line that Lucifer carefully taught his Illuminatti
followers to profile themselves around to justify their actions
before Father.97
Lucifer's clever inveiglement to use damage arguments to vitiate
yourself at the Last Judgment Day is facially very attractive,
and since Tort Law itself is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, any
scrutiny of Lucifer's reasoning withstands attack and challenge
from any angle; it is not until a remote, little known, and
obscure doctrine is uncovered from the archives of the Mormon
Church in Salt Lake City (regarding our lives as Spirits before
with Father, and Father's Previous Existence Contracts on us
all, and therefore our Judgment will be under Contract Law) does
Lucifer's brilliant Tort Law justification reasoning fall apart
and collapse. In reading Illuminatti literature, Lucifer again
manifests his supergenius at deception through concealment, as
although there are references to general Spiritual matters
(certain strata of Illuminatti are not atheists) as a
distraction, however there are no references to any Contracts
with Father out there that the Illuminatti need to concern
themselves with. An exemplary line propagated by persons who
circulate in the genre of Witches, Bolsheviks, and Illuminists
is that "You should do it in the name of Justice, so you can
justify it in the end."
In the pop song ONE TIN SOLDIER, one finds the following lyrics:
"...Do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the
end... There won't be any Trumpets blowing come the Judgment
Day..."98
These lyrics also appear in the Hollywood movie BILLY JACK.99
With a setting on an Indian Reservation in the Western United
States, the plot in BILLY JACK told the tale of how the ever
changing laws of men are frequently out of harmony with true
Justice, and so now murder is necessary to accomplish the true
Ends of Justice where the laws of men fall short; sort of like
forcing a contemporary hybrid variant of ROBIN HOOD's grab as a
means of accomplishing JUSTITIA OMNIBUS [justice for all].
Remember that the Illuminatti Gremlins need to have people
(their prospective recruits in particular) think in terms of
Tort Law reasoning down here, and so they propagate the view
that murders committed to accomplish Justice (to correctively
retort the damages of others that the Law does not reach) are
excusable acts that Heavenly Father is required to vitiate and
ignore at the Last Day [just like the Sheriff is excused from
bearing the consequences for working the damages you experienced
when he incarcerated you, after you had first burned your
neighbor's house down; what the Sheriff did, as a neutral and
disinterested third party, was to correctively retort the
damages created by others]. Once an Illuminatti initiate accepts
this reasoning, it takes little effort to have the initiate
accept the application of Tort Law reasoning to larger
corrective retorts like wars, wholesale murders, environmental
damages, use of the police powers of the state to accomplish
other damages, and assorted other MAGNUM OPUS abominations that
accomplish proprietary Illuminatti objectives, and all very
carefully documented and neatly arranged to remedy some other
damages else where, and also benefit the world by accelerating
the commencement timing of the Millennial Reign. This is
brilliant reasoning that Lucifer taught these little Gremlins;
Tort Law is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE and cannot itself be
attacked from any angle. The use of Tort Law reasoning to govern
judgments when no contracts are in effect is absolutely morally
correct and in harmony with Nature in itself, and so are all of
its retorts to perfect Justice and the Ends of Justice. And so
an esoteric100 factual element deficiency problem surfaces that
will absolutely nullify those expected benefits Witches are
driving towards as they travel down that YELLOW BRICK ROAD of
theirs: Heavenly Father extracted Contracts out of us all in
the First Estate before we came down here, and so Tort Law
reasoning will not be applicable at the Last Day. Yes, those
Trumpets will blow at the Last Day; sorry, Gremlins, but your
days are numbered. Yes, the HANDWRITING IS ON THE WALL for
Gremlins.101
In other words, Lucifer counsels his followers to perform their
murders and Torts in the retort cycle of Justice administration
where they can be justified and vitiated, so that Heavenly
Father would then be required to excuse and vitiate their
behavior at the Last Day. Under Tort Law reasoning, all Torts
(damages) need to be "retorted" as the remedy to perfect
Justice, but the person administering the retort damage itself,
like the Sheriff, is immune from further cyclic retort, so the
Justice cycle stops there. And there also lies the Grand Key for
getting people to commit murders while believing quite strongly
that they are exempt from Father's Justice: By simply arranging
the background circumstances for the murder to fall under the
protective justifying retort cycle of Justice. Therefore, the
person who administers the retort is immune from further damages
himself. In this brilliant way, Lucifer intends to double cross
all of his hardworking assistants down here, every single one
without exception, but not until just before the Judgment Day:
Because although Tort Law is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, our
Great Judgment will be under Contracts and Contract Law, and
Tort Law arguments and rationalizations will be ignored. So,
when Heavenly Father pulls his Ace out of his sleeves to deal
with these clever Gremlins who sincerely believe that they have
found a way to outfox Father and get away with MAGNUM Torts by
neatly justifying everything in the good name of Justice, Father
will do no more than merely lift the veil of memory we all had
lowered on us to seal away the access to our past memories while
we once journeyed through this Second Estate, and the poor
Gremlins will then and there remember with a perfect knowledge
of the Contracts they previously entered into with Father in the
First Estate -- Contracts that were invisible during the Second
Estate. Now the Gremlins will be sealing their own fate, as
their Tort Law arguments are not relevant when a simple and
limited accounting of Contracts is asked for.
Yes, Lucifer was in the many Councils of Heaven with us all when
we were on our knees reciting the terms of our Contracts from
our tongues,102 Lucifer knows very well that Contract Law
jurisprudence will govern the Last Day. Does Lucifer know what
he is doing in his Tort Law reasoning? He most certainly
does.103
Tort Law reasoning itself cannot be attacked, as it is merely a
reflection of Nature, and it does have its proper time and place
to govern the settlement of grievances between persons when
contracts are not in effect. The question is not whether Tort
Law is morally correct or incorrect, or whether Tort Law is in
or out of harmony with Nature; the question is one of
applicability of either Tort Law or Contract Law reasoning to
govern the judgment of a factual setting presented for a ruling.
And so as long as Lucifer keeps his hard working Gremlin
servants down here thinking along Tort Law lines, and discussing
only Tort Law reasoning in their private communications they
send back and forth to each other, then Lucifer is getting all
that he wants now, since his little Gremlins will go right ahead
and knowingly commit tremendous damages while sincerely
believing that they are on safe grounds at the Last Day, just
like Highway Contract Protestors very sincerely believe that the
absence of a MENS REA and CORPUS DELECTI, together with the
nonexistence of a Driver's License, will place them and their
Tort Law RIGHT TO TRAVEL unfairness arguments on safe grounds
before sophisticated appellate judges [this is not correct, as I
will explain later]. This is a brilliant deception
EXTRAORDINAIRE by Lucifer to his Gremlins, and this is also
extremely sophisticated reasoning (which in itself creates an
allure to intellectual Gremlins).104
And just as Lucifer freely uses his deception to motivate his
associates in his direction, so to do his Gremlin assistants
down here use deception between each other in turn, whenever
they feel like it. Gremlins thrive on throwing deceptions back
and forth at each other, and they do not really concern
themselves on the background setting the deception takes place
in.105
Absent unusual appreciation for what an abbreviated Contract Law
judgment setting is really like (such as trying to contest
speeding and insurance infractions on Highway Contract
enforcement proceedings, going through 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE TO
FILE Star Chamber prosecutions, etc.) only very few folks have
the factual background necessary to grasp the significance of
this line. Due to circumstances which transpired back in the
First Estate, Lucifer passionately hates us all (i.e., all
persons who took bodies in this Second Estate), and he fully
intends to have each and every single person, without any
exceptions, who trusted in his Tort Law logic and reasoning,
screwed to the wall for having done so. This planned double
cross by Lucifer even includes his highly prized intimates, the
contemporary Rothschild Brothers, with whom Lucifer has
personally conversed with, face-to-face; Lucifer has the
Rothschilds believing that they are the top dogs and they call
the shots. They too will be double crossed, and this is true
even though Lucifer has very reliably dealt with many Rothschild
generations in this Second Estate going back several centuries.
Yet, the Rothschilds will likely never the see the forest for
the trees, as the effect of his impending MAGNUM OPUS Double
Cross will not even occur until this World is over with, and
then it is too late to start taking an interest in Contracts
with Father, and stop using pure natural moral Tort Law
Principles to govern your behavior, under such untimely and
belated circumstances. Boy, I can just hear Baron Phillippe de
Rothschild, LE GREMLIN EXTRAORDINAIRE, now at the Last Day
telling Father that:
"Father, you just don't understand... why, I had to have David
killed to accelerate the arrival of your Millennium. The world
experienced the benefits of it. It just had to be done to
further your Ends of Justice."
As for the Rothschilds, after their Eyes are Opened on the
foolishness of their Tort Law reasoning, their greatest
disappointment at that time may yet lie in another area
altogether: As they ponder the long term significance of their
being denied further inhabitation on this planet they once
participated in Creating.106
In the Third Estate, this planet is in for some refining and
advancement, and there will be no Gremlins inhabiting the Earth
then.107 Father was the only architect of this particular
planet.108 Yes, Lucifer has a double cross up his sleeve planned
for the Rothschilds, just like the Rothschilds in turn have
numerous impending double crosses planned for their associates
as well. A DOUBLE CROSS is a serious betrayal that occurs on the
tail end of a well-planned continuum of deception -- and
deception is very important to Gremlins.109
And the mass media serves as a good instrument to propagate a
large volume of factually worthless information.110 Similar to
Gremlins thriving when throwing deceptions back and forth at
each other, deception is also very attractive for Gremlins to
throw at the public at large.111 The mass media is a very
important instrument for the conveyance stage of deception by
Gremlins.112 Deception is important to Gremlins and those who
replicate their MODUS OPERANDI; so much so that almost like
intellectual nourishment, Gremlins seem to manifest deep
intermittent cravings for a few good clever sounding lies.113
Sadly so, deception has the appearance of being contagious,
unless efforts are made to deflect the onslaught of its
occurrence, and its prevalence throughout the United States
today could be exemplified perhaps in the dynastic corridors of
corporate power, where Commercial executives busy themselves by
being constantly fixated on their own self enrichment
objectives114
Why are such Gremlins, impressive by appearances, so freely
willing to work damages on other folks? The answer lies in the
fact that they believe, superficially, that they are doing the
right thing (remember what they went through in the First
Estate). For example, in a Gremlin attack on Father's
jurisprudential structure here in the United States, the
disintegration of our jurisprudence (or "legal system") is
considered by Gremlins to be a goal worthy of achieving:
"The disintegration of our legal system... would end in a
revival of justice, due to the restoration of the authority of
the people which constitute the living, vital principle of the
law; and by restoration of prosperity due to the confidence of
the people in the disposition and capacity of their own
Government to protect them in modern conditions of life. That
system, fought as being inadmissible for 13 small States, has
survived expansion across the continent; and, in its form and
substance, is, if any human institutions can be, equal to the
conquest of every economic and moral frontier."115
So too do Gremlins apply this same planned disintegration
reasoning to propose that there be a continuous succession of
wars and other military damages operations, specifically for the
purpose of bringing about a quiescent tranquility that will,
they believe, be the result of a world tired from wars. Yes,
Lucifer is slick in his justification of damages.116
And just as Lucifer is slick [meaning effective while remaining
largely invisible] with his justification of damages reasoning,
so too do his assistants down here need close scrutiny in order
to figure out what they are up to nowadays.117
1 RECIPROCITY is defined as a relational state where two or more
parties, enjoying each other's benefits and each possessing
various expectations from each other, are being reciprocal to
each other, a kind of "give and take" going on back and forth;
and so in this relational setting, there are some kinds of
interdependence, mutuality, and cooperation expectations in
effect between the parties. But the key elements that will be
repeated over and over again in this Letter, is that where the
initial benefits were not first exchanged, then the secondary
obligation to reciprocate does not exist, either. For example,
the word RECIPROCITY surfaces frequently when Governments
discuss exchanging favorable trade benefits with each other;
each Government controls a source of benefits the other wants,
and so now the reciprocating mutuality and exchange of benefits
between the jurisdictions is called RECIPROCITY, but its meaning
has been elusive for some:
"The term RECIPROCITY as now currently used in most cases with
only a vague or very general notion of its meaning... [An]
attempt is made to define reciprocity when it is specified that
the PRIVILEGES granted must be equivalent. Thus one writer,
basing his definition upon a study of the public papers of the
Presidents of the United States, remarks:
"Reciprocity is the granting by one nation of certain
commercial privileges to another, whereby the citizens of both
are placed upon an equal basis in certain branches of commerce."
- MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS, Page 562."
Whenever there is an exchange of benefits and there remains some
lingering expectations of some duty between two parties, then an
actual INVISIBLE CONTRACT is in effect [as I will discuss
later], as it is said that the duty owed back to the party
initially transferring the benefits is RECIPROCAL in nature.
Hence, the steam engine is said to be a RECIPROCAL ENGINE:
Steam is forced into a chamber pushing a piston out, and the
piston pushes in turn a lever attached to a wheel; now the wheel
revolves because the steam initially pushed out a piston. So
when the revolving wheel comes back fully around, it is now the
force of the wheel that pushes back the lever, which pushes in
turn the piston back into the chamber, that clears the chamber
for a second and successive injection of steam. [See the
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ["Reciprocating Engines"] (London,
1929)].
Question: What happens when the wheel (having gotten what it
wanted by being turned by the lever and having initially
accepted the benefits of the steam pushing the piston), freezes
up for some reason and does not reciprocate as expected and now
refuses to push the piston back into the chamber? What happens
is that the engine stops; everything grinds to a halt; and
damages are created.
..Well, as we turn from a tangible setting where machinery is
in motion, over to legal reasoning handed down from the
Judiciary of the United States, no Principles ever change --
because when we turn to the Supreme Court rulings in hot
political areas of so-called DRAFT PROTESTING and TAX
PROTESTING, by the end of this Letter you will see the true
meaning of RECIPROCITY, and of the damages created by refusing
to reciprocate when expected. Yes, often there are contracts
invisible to the Defendant that actually control grievances in a
Courtroom, and there is to be learned a true natural origin of
contracts and of reciprocity; the origin lies not with American
judges trying to create seemingly fictional legal
justifications, but in NATURE, and actually in the mind of
Heavenly Father who, as we will see, created what is now called
NATURE.
2 CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is deemed incontrovertible: Because
either the Law does not allow contradiction for some reason, or
in the alternative, because the inherent nature of the Evidence
is so strong and so convincing that it automatically overrules
any other mitigating or vitiating Evidence that could possibly
be presented. Therefore it is deemed provident that CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE, all by itself, establishes the proposition that is
sought at hand, beyond any reasonable or possibly legitimate
doubt; this CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE RULE is very reasonable in many
situations.
3 I am aware that the linguistic use of the word "King", as a
moniker to characterize the combined Executive and Legislative
branches of the United States is a bit novel, and I know that
most folks would feel uncomfortable with it at first. Yet,
despite the differential in comfort levels in the use of such
semantics, I go right ahead and use this characterization anyway
because its use, all by itself, enhances the important
distinction between Common Law Jurisdiction and King's Equity
Jurisdiction (which distinction is still very much in effect
today), and makes this distinction much easier to understand;
and additionally underscores the fact that the United States is
stratified at Law into multiple jurisdictions to more tightly
replicate the contours of Nature, and that the United States is
not a single monolithic SLIPPERY SLOPE slab of equity Civil Law
(hybridized old Roman Civil Law). As the American colonies
severed relations at Law with the Mother Crown, the jurisdiction
conferred upon the United States by our Fathers was largely
similar, in a structural sense, to that jurisdiction the King of
England already had. But the idea of characterizing the combined
Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States as a
"King" may not even be mine. Imagine fictionally in your mind
having lunch with your Dad and a Federal Appellate Judge in New
York City. During this imaginary and purely fictional
conversation, while the non-existent Judge is speaking on a
criminal doctrine, he mentions the existence of a contemporary
"King" here today in the United States, as if it were a very
natural idea to him. A year later, you realize that relating the
jurisdictional contours of the United States to those contours
which a King should have and not have, makes everything seem
easy to understand. This is particularly so when relating a
factual question of police powers limitation, or of a taxing
limitation, to something tangible and natural like a King's
expected jurisdictional contours. Additionally, a "King" also
accurately reflects lingering English Jurisprudence here in the
United States, and also reflects the present KING TO PRINCE
satropic relational status of the United States Government to
the several States, following the enactment of the AFTER TEN
Amendments that shifted the RATIO DECIDENDI of power to
Washington.
4 The word PERSON is of particular legal significance in
American Jurisprudence; it is distinguished from the word
INDIVIDUAL, with the semantic differential in effect between the
two being inherently Status oriented. Although sounding innocent
under common English semantic rules, on the floor of a Courtroom
these semantic rules take upon themselves deeper significance,
as it is quietly known by all Judges that PERSONS are clothed
with multiple layers of juristic accoutrements giving that
PERSON'S presence in that Courtroom a special and suggestive
flavoring to it. On the one hand, PERSONS have special legal
rights, benefits, and privileges originating from a juristic
source; and on the other hand, PERSONS also carry upon
themselves various obligatory duties (some of which, if not
handled properly, can be very self-damaging at times) -- but
both rights and duties are often invisible. In contrast to that
layered state of juristic accoutrement encapsulation,
INDIVIDUALS walk around without any such accoutrements [they
would be "liberated" as the contemporary vernacular would
characterize it]. As a point of beginning, PERSONS can be either
natural human beings like you and me, or artificial juristic
entities (such as foreign governments, Corporations, Agencies,
or Instrumentalities) and the like -- at least, here in 1985,
those are the only two existing divisions of PERSONS presently
recognized by the Judiciary (i.e., human beings and paper
juristic entities).
"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may
be defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are
good etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral
definition. The Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS
PERSONAE, and in Roman Law the term was adapted to refer to
anything that could act on either side of a legal dispute... In
effect, in Roman legal tradition, PERSONS are creations,
artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the legislature that
enacts the law, and are not considered to have, or only have
incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal sphere.
The law, on the Roman interpretation, is systematically ignorant
of the biological status of its subjects."
- Peter French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16
American Philosophical Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).
But some time off in the future, the world will come to grips
with the deeper meanings of Peter French's comments about how
PERSONS ARE CREATIONS and how the law is ignorant OF THE
BIOLOGICAL STATUS OF ITS SUBJECTS, because common knowledge will
be changing one day as the recombinant DNA cellular cultivation
technology perfected in the late 1970s in special basement
laboratories designed into the CIA's Langley offices by Nelson
Rockefeller blossoms out one day into the Commercial Sector, and
genetic replicas of humans are brought forth into the public
domain. It is my legal Prophesy that it is only a matter of time
before a Court ruling or some slice of LEX makes its appearance
somewhere, saying that the original natural born human being
takes upon themselves full civil and criminal liability for all
acts performed by their genetic replicas as soon as they emerge
from the chemical tank, under the ALTER EGO ["second self"]
DOCTRINE; and that those biological replicas (or SYNTHETIC
ALTOMETONS, as the Bolsheviks would say) will also be deemed at
that time to be PERSONS, fully layered with all of the same
juristic accoutrements that their natural born human sponsor
possesses [or would have possessed under similar circumstances].
The use of look alikes, or DOUBLES, has a very long history to
them, particularly in dynastic settings where tremendous wealth
is available for some looting; here in the United States of
1985, Bolshevik SYNTHETIC ALTOMETONS have already produced
marvelous results for their sponsors, in both family dynasty and
political settings involving important positions held in
Juristic Institutions. When common public knowledge of this
technology actually will blossom out into the open, I do not
know. When the Apostle John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos, he
once wrote a story on events he had seen in a vision; John talks
about how someday the world's Gremlins, continuing to
incorporate deception into their MODUS OPERANDI like they do,
will make a big deal out of a man they will one day raise up for
their purposes. Like the inflated, dramatic, and overzealous
presentation of Henry Kissinger's intellectual credentials, this
man will be shown on a much grander scale working great wonders
going about the world ending one tough crisis after another, as
the imp goes about his mischief trying to get folks to place
trust and confidence in him (just like with Henry); and great
political power and authority will be given to this imp. John
describes a fellow who will bring down fire from Heaven, perform
other great wonders, and then be fatally wounded. As part of the
Gremlin deception show, this little imp will heal his own wounds
and bring himself back from the dead. This little Gremlin won't
actually heal his own wounds, as the world's news media will
then want you to believe in furtherance of Gremlin conquests,
but actually a DOUBLE will be brought forth that will have been
previously manufactured, while the body of the mortally wounded
and double-crossed imp will be quietly disposed of out the back
door; and at the present time, excellent genetic DOUBLES are
very feasible to manufacture. At the time the world's Gremlins
pull off their impending MAGNUM OPUS theatrics [meaning "great
act" theatrics], John tells us that they will succeed in
deceiving many people. Few people have in-depth factual
knowledge on Gremlin movements, and so few folks have trained
themselves to be able to think in terms that Gremlins think in:
Terms that involve deception, intrigue, and the use of doubles,
murder, and whatever other CRACKING is necessary to get the job
done. Like Tax Protestors never bothering to try and see things
from the Judge's and the King's position, by folks never
bothering to try and see things from the Gremlin perspective,
the result is going to be exactly what John tells us: That many
people will be held in awe of this little Gremlin, just like
many people have already held Henry Kissinger in awe when they
should have thrown him in the trash can, as the little Hitler
the real Henry once was. As for bringing down fire from heaven
and other MAGNUM OPUS appearances that John talks about, the
holographic technology to create multiple colored images is now
also highly developed. Using a confluence of monochromatic
radiation sources (lasers), impressive visual images can now be
created in an air reception media (just like in STAR WARS). The
technically impressive show that the world's Gremlins will one
day sponsor to try and impress people world wide -- THAT THEIR
LITTLE IMP IS WORTH ADMIRING -- will actually have been
rehearsed in a studio first, before being brought for on some
world exhibition stage the Gremlins will create. [See the 13th
chapter of REVELATION].
One of the dominate themes of this Letter is INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY, and correlative to that, it is my proposition
that Gremlins can actually never succeed in forcing deception on
others. The reason why is because deception has to be first
created, then conveyed, and then accepted by others -- then only
can deception succeed. Deception can only find fertility in a
human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it;
similarly, in a sense, it actually takes two people to
manufacture a successful lie: The first to utter the lie, and
the second to accept it as such.
5 PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE is Evidence that is good and sufficient
on its face. PRIMA FACIE differs from CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE in the
sense that PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE may be contradicted or attacked
by other Evidence, whereas CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is not open to
such an attack. If left unexplained or unchallenged, PRIME FACIE
EVIDENCE is deemed to be of sufficient merit to sustain a
judgment in favor of the issue at hand that it is supporting.
Both PRIMA FACIE and CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE are Evidentiary Rules
involving the use of PRESUMPTIONS, which I will discuss later.
6 The MENS REA is an evil state of mind that is necessarily
inherent in all criminals as they knowingly go about their
pre-planned work by intentionally damaging someone else.
"Criminal liability is normally based upon the concurrence of
two factors, `an evil-meaning mind and an evil-doing hand...'
..Few areas of criminal law pose more difficulty than the
proper definition of the MENS REA required for any particular
crime. [Extended discussion then follows defining what the MENS
REA is and is not]."
- UNITED STATES VS. BAILEY, 444 U.S. 394, at 402 (1979)
7 The CORPUS DELECTI is the hard evidentiary "body of the crime"
that is supposed to exist on the record; it is related to DUE
PROCESS in the sense that it ferrets out a unique form of error.
Originated as a Common Law rule by judges in our old Mother
England, the Britannic judiciary had been embarrassed by having
consented to execute a man for murder, when the individual
believed to have been murdered later returned to the village
very much alive. As a corrective result, the judiciary then
required that in all capital murder cases, the prosecuting Crown
has the burden of adducing satisfactory evidence that the
alleged victim is actually dead (separate from, and in addition
to, other evidence that the accused is guilty.) Today, the
CORPUS DELECTI rule is very much a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE
for those criminal prosecutions falling under Tort Law indicia
(where no contract governs the grievance); but it lies largely
in slumber. It could be a test of the factual setting for the
presence of hard damages on the criminal record, and as such
would screen out illegitimate prosecutions where the Complainant
never experienced any damages; but as our Father's Common Law
has been replaced by contractual LEX, this rule has largely
faded away into atrophy. Should it ever be resuscitated, perhaps
in the form of mandating Criminal Arraignment Magistrates to
document either a contract or the twin Tort indicia of MENS
REA/CORPUS DELECTI on the record, as a condition for allowing
the criminal prosecution to proceed on to Trial, such a
procedural rule would automatically disable any Special Interest
Group from succeeding in having their little penal Majoritarian
LEX forced on others in violation of both the REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT CLAUSE of Article 4, and of PRINCIPLES OF NATURE that
replicate the thinking of Heavenly Father. All Special Interest
Groups sponsored penal LEX is always characterized by the
absence of any contract or damages present in the factual
setting that the defendant is being prosecuted for -- such as
growing Marijuana in your backyard and gambling in your
basement. There is a chilling story to be told some other time
of the Special Interest Temperance sponsors of the Prohibition
of the 1920's here in the United States and of their
descendants, who today are heavily involved with drug smuggling,
so called; as the criminalization of plants and plant
derivatives that are in broad demand creates a FABULOUS Black
Market to pursue Commercial enrichment in.
8 In a limited cognitive sense, I am also sympathetic to the
position Dr. Albert Einstein was in when he first disseminated
his THEORY OF RELATIVITY in 1929 with qualifications, as he knew
then that only a few people were in a position to come to grips
with its contents:
"... his latest formal document -- the new "Field Theory" on
the relations between gravitation and electromagnetism --
concerning which he himself declares it is absurd to waste time
to try to elucidate it for the public because `probably not more
than a dozen or so men in the world could possibly understand
it'."
- The NEW YORK TIMES ["Einstein Distracted by Public Curiosity;
Seeks Hiding Place"], Page 1 (February 4, 1929).
9 CONSIDERATION is technically defined to be either a benefit or
a detriment -- meaning that some operation of NATURE out there
in the practical setting took place.
"Under the common law of Missouri, Consideration sufficient to
support a simple contract may consist either of a detriment to
the Promisee, or a benefit to the Promisor."
- IN RE WINDLE, 653 F.2nd 328, at 331 (1981).
"The very essence of Consideration... is legal detriment that
has been bargained for and exchanged for the promise... The two
parties must have agreed and intended that the benefits each
derived be the Consideration for a contract."
- JOSEPHINE HOFFA VS. FRANK FITZSIMMONS, 499 F.Supp. 357, at
365 (1980).
This CONSIDERATION DOCTRINE -- this requirement that there must
first be a practical operation of NATURE prior to triggering the
Law is very important, and applies across all factual settings,
and not just on contracts, as I will explain by the end of this
Letter. But for the purposes of this Letter, only the benefit
slice of CONSIDERATION will be discussed.
10 Yes, the requirement for CONSIDERATION originated in the
Heavens, but not so to lawyers, who begin their analysis of the
Law by starting off in the wrong direction when assuming that
men created the Law. Just like collegiate intellectual's
conjecture that the organic history of technological innovations
is the result of accidents, so too do lawyers skew their
perceptions off into factually defective tangents:
"Bargain consideration was invented for the sake of bilateral
agreements and then was extended to unilateral agreements..."
- Hugh Willis in RATIONALE OF BARGAIN CONSIDERATION in 27
Georgetown Law Journal 414, at 415 (1939).
The author then continues on with his dribblings.
11 See Charles Fried in CONTRACT AS PROMISE "Consideration"
[Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1981)].
12 For commentary in this area of CONSIDERATION, see:
- James Barr Ames in TWO THEORIES OF CONSIDERATION, 12 Harvard
Law Review 515 (1899) [discussing the relationship between
Consideration and both unilateral and bilateral contracts];
- Arthur Corbin in THE EFFECT OF OPTIONS ON CONSIDERATION, 34
Yale Law Journal 571 (1925);
- Arthur Corbin in NON-BINDING PROMISES AS CONSIDERATION, 26
Columbia Law Review 550 (1926);
- Joseph Beale in NOTES ON CONSIDERATION, 17 Harvard Law Review
71 (1903);
- Melvin Eisenberg in THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSIDERATION, 67
Cornell Law Review 640 (1982);
- Samuel Williston in SUCCESSIVE PROMISES OF THE SAME
PERFORMANCE, 5 Harvard Law Review 27 (1894). Samuel Williston
authored several tremendous books on contract law called:
1. WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS, [Baker & Voorhis, New York
(1936-1945) 9 volumes];
2. CASES ON ENGINEERING CONTRACTS ("engineering" meaning
"drafting" contracts), [Little Brown, Boston (1904)];
3. RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW ON CONTRACTS [American Law Institute,
St. Paul (1932)].
13 "In most actions upon contracts, the Consideration `moved'
directly from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, either by way of a
benefit conferred or a loss sustained, or both, and the promise
sued upon was made by the Defendant directly to the Plaintiff.
But occasionally the whole Consideration arises between the
Defendant and some third person other than the Plaintiff, and
the promise is made to such [third] person alone; and the
question arises, `Can any other person than the promisee
maintain an action upon such promise, solely because he is
beneficially interested in its performance?' Many cases seem to
hold that he can. Is that a universal or general rule? Is not
the general rule the other way? If A sends a package to B by an
expressman and pays him double price upon his promise to deliver
the article promptly, can B recover damages for the carrier's
non-performance of that contract? ...A perfect, well-rounded
contract requires not only a promise and a Consideration, but a
participation by each party in both of these elements..."
- Edward Bennett in CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FROM THIRD PERSONS in
9 Harvard Law Review 233, at 233 (1895).
As we change settings from a common everyday Commercial
arrangement where merchandise is being transported back and
forth, over to a juristic setting involving contracts with
Government, nothing changes either -- as Consideration is deemed
to have been exchanged based upon an operation of indirect third
persons not a party to the contract [as I will discuss under the
CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT later on].
14 "The term CONSIDERATION has been used in so many senses that
anyone who employs it must define it for his own purposes anew.
In using it as a title, I mean to include thereunder all acts or
omissions on the part of anyone other than the promissor which,
taken in connection with the promise, may be thought to afford a
reason for granting a legal remedy upon its breach. So stated,
the question whether Consideration exists in any given instance
depends not on the character of the particular act relied upon
as Consideration, but on its relation to the parties, to the
promise, and to the particular remedy which is sought."
- George Gardner in AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW
OF CONTRACTS, 46 Harvard Law Review 1, at 9 (1932).
In the typical case of a simple business contract these
relationships that Gardner was referring to appear to be complex
at first (as George Gardner did not elucidate himself very well
in that article), but they are based on very simple PRINCIPLES
OF NATURE everyone can understand; and when understanding these
Consideration rules, the indicia of Nature which creates
invisible contracts will also surface and become apparent. For
example, let's say that A promises to B that if B will ship him
a farm reaper, then A will pay to B $500 ten days after it is
shipped. Fine. B ships the reaper, thus bring the element of
Consideration into the factual setting, and so now an invisible
contract is formed: How? Since it was necessary to promise
$500 as an inducement to B to ship the reaper, it is reasonably
inferred that B experienced an outgoing DETRIMENT of something
around $500. But as for A, he accepted a benefit (the reaper)
that B first offered conditionally -- and when practical
benefits were accepted by you that someone else offered
conditionally (here, the benefit was conditioned upon receipt of
$500 within ten days), then an invisible contract is in effect;
and contracts do not now, and never did, have to be stated in
writing in order to be enforceable by American Judges. [The
reaper sale is explained in PORT HURON MACHINE COMPANY VS.
WOHLERS, 207 Iowa 826 (1929)].
15 Even though no tangible CONSIDERATION changed hands when this
successive contract was executed, the original contract did
trigger an exchange of CONSIDERATION, an so in a sense, other
successive future contracts could be deemed ADDENDUMS to the
original contract, obtaining their life from the CONSIDERATION
the parent contract experienced. See:
- C.C. Langdell in MUTUAL PROMISES AS A CONSIDERATION FOR EACH
OTHER in 14 Harvard Law Review 496 (1900);
- Samuel Williston in SUCCESSIVE PROMISES OF THE SAME
PERFORMANCE in 8 Harvard Law Review 27 (1894);
- Ballantine n MUTUALITY AND CONSIDERATION in 28 Harvard Law
Review 121 (1914);
- OLIPHANT in MUTUALITY OF OBLIGATION IN BILATERAL CONTRACTS AT
LAW in 25 Columbia Law Review 705 (1925);
- Samuel Williston in THE EFFECT OF ONE VOID PROMISE IN A
BILATERAL AGREEMENT in 25 Columbia Law Review 857 (1925);
- Corbin in NON-BINDING PROMISES AS CONSIDERATION in 26
Columbia Law Review 550 (1926).
16 Fraud vitiates the juristic vitality and destroys the legal
validity of everything that it enters into:
"Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it
enters. It affects fatally even the most solemn judgments and
decrees."
- IRA NUDD VS. GEORGE BURROWS, 91 U.S. 426, at 440 (1875).
"There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud
vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even
judgments. There is no question that many rights originally
founded in fraud become -- by lapse of time... no longer open to
inquiry in the usual and ordinary method."
- UNITED STATES VS. SAM THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61, at 64 (1878).
Notice how the lack of timeliness impairs one's ability to
invoke this DOCTRINE OF FRAUD and successfully have contracts,
documents, etc. annulled where fraud has surfaced as an element;
and as we change arguments, the Principle of Timeliness (Laches)
does not change, so the importance of handling FAILURE OF
CONSIDERATION in a timely manner as a defense line will also
surface as a key important judicial indicia in deciding whether
or not to award a FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION judgment in your
favor.
17 In the early 1970's, a business called Erika Incorporated had
been the recipient of a train of money originating from medical
claims filed with University Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama for
the Blue Cross "C-Plus" payment plan. Blue Cross had been
sending the money to University Hospital, who in turn sent the
money to Erika. But in the Summer of 1975, University Hospital
decided to terminate relations with Erika, and so Blue Cross
then started paying its subscribers directly for services
rendered by Erika. Now Erika had to go through the nuisance of
trying to collect money from some distant patients; this was an
expensive procedure, and necessarily generated administrative
headaches; and so now Erika tried to get set up with Blue Cross
directly as a PROVIDER, now that University Hospital stopped
paying Erika. In a preliminary attempt to get paid directly from
Blue Cross, Erika presented some ASSIGNMENTS that its customers
had signed, instructing Blue Cross to pay Erika directly, but
Blue Cross erected some administrative impediments. Later, Erika
then asked Blue Cross for a PROVIDER NUMBER to return to a
relationship where they get paid directly from Blue Cross, but
Blue Cross refused to issue out such a PROVIDER NUMBER. So in
the Summer of 1975, numerous letters were going back and forth
between the corporate management of Erika and Blue Cross. The
letters seem to indicate that Blue Cross deemed that a PROVIDER
NUMBER for Erika really was not necessary, and that special
checks could be issued out to Erika in circumvention of house
rules, but things never worked out for Erika. Circumstances came
to pass later where Erika is unhappy over the loss of revenue,
so Erika started an action in Federal District Court, now
claiming that the letters from Blue Cross stating possible
circumvention of PROVIDER NUMBER was an offer to a contract
which Erika later accepted, and therefore a contract was in
effect. The Federal Judge ruled that an exchange of letters is
not a contract, and that all of the offers and acceptances
stated in such letters means nothing -- since NO CONSIDERATION
EVER CHANGED HANDS:
"Even if the exchange of letters can somehow be construed as
containing essential elements of the agreement, no contract was
formed because there was no Consideration. Consideration for a
promise is an act, a forbearance, or the creation, modification
or destruction of a legal relation, or a return promise,
bargained for and given in exchange for the promise. [Remember
that CONSIDERATION is a hard practical operation of Nature
taking place.] ... In the instant case, there was no
Consideration to Blue Cross from Erika for any promise made by
Blue Cross. Although legal detriment to the promisee is a valid
Consideration as a benefit to the promisor, ... that
Consideration must be bargained for, and in the instant case
there is no evidence that the action of Erika in submitting
bills in the form and manner set forth by Blue Cross and
refraining from sending such bills to Blue Cross' subscribers
was in any way bargained for. The Court finds that the exchange
of correspondence did not form a contractual obligation on the
part of Blue Cross to pay the money directly to Erika."
- ERIKA, INC. VS. BLUE CROSS, 496 F.Supp. 786, at 788 (1980).
I simplified the factual setting on this Case, but the essential
factual elements relating to the promises written on paper,
without any correlative operation of Nature (CONSIDERATION) is
largely accurate. Here in ERIKA, just like Tax Protestors
throwing Temporary Restraining Order Petitions at a new
Employer, one party lost no time barreling into Federal Court
demanding some perceived rights. And as is very often the case,
as happened here, a third party intervenes into the factual
setting [here Blue Cross], and for reasons the complaining party
had little control over, damages are being experienced. With Tax
Protestors, the third party intervening into their factual
setting by preemptively grabbing their earnings is the IRS. By
the end of this Letter, you should see quite clearly that the
Law now continues to operate out in the practical setting where
it always has operated before recent technological developments
like paper, pens, and the like, and even general public
literacy, which surfaced generally as late as the 1300's to
1600's. The Law does not operate on paper [whenever the Law is
based on NATURE]; what is written on paper is merely a STATEMENT
OF THE LAW. Importantly, I hope you should see why.
18 For a presentation of the history of the bifurcation of Law
into Tort and Contract going back into 1200 A.D., see C.H.S.
Fifoot in HISTORY AND SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW, TORT AND
CONTRACT; [Stevens and Sons, London (1949)].
19 Before 1933, it was common practice in the United States for
various contracts to contain covenants stating that a sum set
certain would be paid in Gold Coin, and so these special
covenants were then called GOLD CLAUSES. They would read
something to the effect that "... will pay (amount) dollars in
gold coin of the United States of the standard weight and
fineness existing on (date of contract)..." In this way,
creditors protected themselves from losses due to Government
creating a monetary change in currency value. When a Joint
Resolution of Congress in June of 1933 [31 U.S.C. 463]
explicitly abrogated the judicial enforcement of these GOLD
CLAUSES in Commercial contracts, there was the usual Patriot
howling, claiming that worn out Patriot argument of
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY; some lingering residues of which continue
on down to the present time. However, long ago in the early
1800's, an American jurist with great foresight, who understood
the correct relational status in effect between COMMERCIAL
contracts and the Constitution, had a few words to say about
this state of affairs:
"Nay, if the legislature should pass a law declaring, that all
future contracts might be discharged by a tender of any thing,
or things, besides gold and silver, there would be a great
difficulty in affirming them to be unconstitutional; since it
would become part of the stipulations of the contract."
- Joseph Story in III COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION at 248
["Prohibitions - Contracts"] (Cambridge, 1833).
By the end of this Letter, you too should see why COMMERCIAL
contracts are born, live and then die, in their own strata,
without the Constitution offering any significant restrainment
on Legislative intervention. See generally:
- THE GOLD CLAUSES, 294 U.S. 240 (1934);
- Barry, GOLD, 20 Virginia Law Review 263 (1934);
- Phanor Eder, THE GOLD CLAUSE CASES IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY,
23 George Washington Law Review [Part 1 at Page 369 (Basic
concepts of money); and Part 2 starts at Page 722 ("Debasement,
Devaluation and Depreciation")] (1934);
- Russell Post and Charles Willard, THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS
TO NULLIFY GOLD CLAUSES, 46 Harvard Law Review 1225 (1933); and
others mentioned elsewhere in this Letter.
Although it seems momentarily pleasing to ventilate Patriot
frustrations by throwing invectives at the spineless Congress
for their successive continuum of enacting Rockefeller Special
Interest Group legislation with the national damages created
secondarily in their wake, by the end of this Letter, the true
remedy will be found lying within yourself.
20 Quasi-contracts are just contracts. Sir Henry Maine showed
the use of the adjunct QUASI in such Roman expressions as
quasi-contract (quasi ex contractu), but it is just an
assignment of superfluous terminology. See a review of William
Keeton's book called QUASI-CONTRACTS by Everett Abbott in 10
Harvard Law Review 209 (1896).
21 "A tort is a breach of duty (other than contractual duty)
which gives rise to an action for damages. That is, obviously, a
merely procedural definition, of no value to the layman. The
latter wants to know the nature of those breaches of duty which
give rise to an action for damages. To put it briefly, there is
no English Law of Tort; there is merely an English Law of Torts,
i.e., a list of acts and omissions which, in certain conditions,
are actionable. Any attempt to generalize further, however
interesting from a speculative standpoint, would be profoundly
unsafe as a practical guide."
- Miles, DIGEST OF ENGLISH CIVIL LAW, Book II, Page xiv (1910).
This pitiful line of reasoning and of poorly presented facts
without any guidance Principles, is what collegiate law students
are taught, so we should not be too surprised to start
uncovering damages that lawyers have done to our Father's Law.
22 "...it is a distinguishing characteristic of Torts that the
duties from the violation of which they result are creatures of
the law and not of peculiar agreements. As contractual duties
properly have their origin in, and derive their vitality from,
the assent of the parties, a breach of such duties only does not
constitute a Tort."
- 62 CORPUS JURIS 1091, at 1092, Section 2. [See also 86 CORPUS
JURIS SECUNDUM under "Torts -- Definition, Distinctions, and
History"; 86 CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, Section 2 also discusses
"Torts -- Distinction From, and Relation To, Contract"].
23 And they have been poorly writing cases, statutes and
memoranda for a very long time:
"The law of Edward I's reign draws no clear line between tort
and contract."
- Sir William Holdsworth in Volume II, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH
LAW, at 369 [London (1936); 18 Volumes].
But they should not have been baffled; back in the early English
days of King Henry, strategies for bringing actions into court
under either Tort or Contract was being fluently discussed back
then:
"[While discussing the beginnings of ASSUMPSIT (ASSUMPSIT was a
court action to recover from breach of contract on simple
unwritten contracts)] ...The King's Court was not very fond of
contract, but it showed some interest in tort, and it is in the
action of trespass that the quickest progress was made. ...The
debate [back in the 1300's] makes it clear that all parties
recognized that the situation was fundamentally contractual, and
that it was being forced into the form of tort simply because
the action of covenant could be brought only upon deed upon
seal. In this particular instance, the contrast with trespass is
well made, and the case is left, procedurally, at least, as a
case of negligent damage to a chattel. But it must not be
imagined that this is the story of the slow dawn of the idea of
contract in the minds of common lawyers. They knew quite well
[back then] what a covenant was, but they deliberately resorted
to juggling with [the tort of] trespass because they felt unable
to sustain an action of covenant without a deed."
- Theodore Pluckett in HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW, Page 637
[Little Brown Publishers, Boston (1956); 5th Edition].
Today in 1985, lawyers will still juggle their arguments around,
trying to find the most advantageous position for their client;
and so applicability of Tort Law or Contract Law is still being
argued down to the present day.
24 Even prominent American jurists have had difficulty coming to
grips with the simple ideas of Tort and Contract:
"But it must be remembered that the distinction between tort
and breaches of contract, and especially between the remedies
for the two, is not found ready made. It is conceivable that a
procedure adapted to redress for violence was extended to other
cases as they arose."
- Oliver W. Holmes in THE COMMON LAW, at 13 [Little Brown,
Boston (1881)].
25 "The definition of a tort may be said to have baffled the
text-book writers not so much on account of the inherent
difficulty of the conception as because of the implication of
the conception in questions of jurisdiction. ...Perhaps none of
the text-books succeeds in introducing all of these limitations
into its definition."
- Lee, TORTS AND DELICTS, 27 Yale Law Journal 721, at 723
(1918).
26 For a discussion of the recent recognition of Tort Law by
lawyers, see generally, PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS, Page 1
[West Publishing (1984)]. By the time you have finished this
Letter, you will see that Tort Law has been in effect long
before this World ever came into existence, and long before
para-legals masquerading as professionals created a privately
shared monopoly, the Bar Association, in which to artificially
limit new entrants and quietly pursue enhanced Commercial
self-enrichment. The fact that Tort Law has only recently been
recognized in American Jurisprudence since the late 1800's does
not mean that Tort Law did not exist prior to such recognition
-- it only means that lawyers were groping in the dark back then
[and not that things have really changed that much].
27 5 AMERICAN LAW REVIEW 341 (1871). [Violating a premier
PRINCIPLE OF NATURE with the baneful and stupid conclusion that
factual ignorance is beneficial to you.]
28 Mr. Bishop was told that:
"... if the book were written by the most eminent and prominent
author that ever lived, not a dozen copies a year would be sold."
- Joel Bishop in NON-CONTRACT LAW, Page 2 (1889).
29 See ROMAN LAW AND COMMON LAW, at Page 18, by W.W. Buckland
[Cambridge University Press (1936)].
30 This means that if you had asked me to burn down your house,
you would be unsuccessful if you later tried to sue me for Tort
damages -- because you had CONSENTED. As for bringing down a
baseball bat on you, what we have here is an assault, and it is
necessary to argue CONSENT when assault is alleged. However, the
STATE OF MIND of the actor in assault Tort proceedings is of
interest to judges for other deeper reasons [because the STATE
OF MIND is a behavioral point of beginning and leads to other
things]:
"As to assault, this is, perhaps, one of the kind in which the
insult is more to be considered than the actual damages, though
no great bodily pain is suffered by a blow on the palm of the
hand, or the skirt of the coat, yet these are clearly within the
legal definition of assault and battery, and among gentlemen too
often induce duelling and terminate in murder."
- RESPUBLICA VS. DELONGCHAMPS, 1 Dallas 111, at 114 (1784).
31 Smith, TORTS WITHOUT PARTICULAR NAMES, 69 University of
Pennsylvania Law Review 91 (1921).
32 See writers like:
- Radin in A SPECULATIVE INQUIRY IN THE NATURE OF TORTS, 21
Texas Law Review 697 (1943);
- Stone in TOUCHSTONES OF TORT LIABILITY, 2 Stanford Law Review
259 (1950);
- Seavey in COGNITIONS ON TORT (1954)
33 See:
- Section 2, subsection 3, by Salmond, LAW ON TORTS, 7th
Edition (1928);
- Goodhart, THE FOUNDATION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY, 2 Modern Law
Review 1 (1938);
- Williams, THE FOUNDATION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY, 7 Cambridge
Law Journal 111 (1938);
- James, TORT LAW IN MIDSTREAM: ITS CHALLENGE TO THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS, 8 Buffalo Law Review 315 (1959).
34 "Never did a Name so obstruct a true understanding of the
Thing. To such a plight has it brought us that a favorite mode
of defining a Tort is to declare merely that it is not a
Contract. As if a man were to define Chemistry by pointing out
that it is not Physics or Mathematics."
- Wigmore, SELECT CASES ON THE LAW OF TORTS, page vii (1912).
35 For example:
"If I employ a piano tuner to tune my piano and he does it
badly, in fact does not really tune it, I have a claim for
recovery of what I may have paid, and for damages for breach of
contract, and I can resist action on the contract if I have not
paid. But there is no question of tort: The duty broken was
created by the contract. If, however, he not only fails to tune
the piano, but in the course of his operations breaks some of
the hammers, the case is altered. If he breaks the hammers
negligently, I can sue him for the damage either in contract or
in tort; if intentionally, then I can sue him in tort or
(probably) in contract."
- W.W. Buckland in ROMAN LAW AND COMMON LAW, ["Tort and
Contract"] at page 273 [Cambridge University Press (1936)].
36 In response to grievances arising out of fractured and
insufficient contracts, judges sometimes create legal fictions
to deal with these voids that the particular contracts were
silent on; such fictions are the DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED CONDITIONS
and the DOCTRINE OF PRESUMED INTENT [see Farnsworth in DISPUTES
OVER OMISSION IN CONTRACT, 68 Columbia Law Review 860 (1968)].
Since the contract does not specify rights and duties, a limited
slice of Tort Law reasoning enters into the Court's judgment,
and so now Tort questions of FAIRNESS are then entertained by
the Judge, under these special limited circumstances (but
remember, Judges are merely filling voids that were left unsaid
by the contract -- so there is no derogation of our Father's Law
when such limited slices Tort are allowed to intervene into what
started out as a Contract Law grievance).
In other cases, sometimes there are unallocated benefits or
losses coming out of contracts, because quite frequently the
contract did not provide for them [see Schwartz in SALES LAW AND
INFLATION, 50 Southern California Law Review 1, at 8 to 10
(1976), discussing that if the parties have assumed the risk of
inflation within certain boundaries, then the consequences of
inflation experienced outside the specified boundaries of the
contract is to be distributed pursuant to the FAIRNESS of
judicial discretion]. Since the contract is silent on the effect
of high inflation occurring outside of its boundaries, Tort Law
reasoning of fairness and unfairness is then allowed to properly
enter into the picture for this limited reason. Another area of
Tort Law reasoning making its appearance to fill areas of voids
in contracts comes when contract grievances are brought into
Courts arguing that the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE Section 2-615
now allows them to weasel out of their contract for some reason
[see Hurst in FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN AN UNSTABLE ECONOMY:
JUDICIAL REALLOCATION OF CONTRACTUAL RISKS UNDER UCC 2-615 in 54
North Carolina Law Review 545 (1976)]. UCC Section 2-615
["Excuse By Failure of Presupported Conditions"] allows parties
in contracts to try and weasel their way out of the contract
because some excusable circumstances came to pass; when such a
contract termination is presented before a Judge, factors
considered in the Judge's mind also center largely around Tort
Law arguments of fairness -- but only because the contract is
silent, and where contracts are silent, Contract Law yields to
Tort Law arguments of fairness and unfairness [see FAIRNESS AND
UTILITY IN TORT THEORY by George Fletcher, 85 Harvard Law Review
537 (1972)].
37 770 F.2nd 7 (1985).
38 Meaning that some merchandise was first purchased under
contract, and then evidence of a manufacturing defect surfaced
later on, so now Tort Law claims were thrown back at the
manufacturer (claims for damages can be enlarged under Tort Law,
since Tort Law is a free-wheeling jurisdiction; claims for
damages under Contract Law are restricted to the content of the
contract, as in BREACH OF CONTRACT).
39 BUTLER VS. PITTWAY CORPORATION, id., at 9.
40 Other summary articles discussing the necessary distinctions
in effect between Tort and Contract are:
- THE PAST OF PROMISE by E.A. Farnsworth, 69 Columbia Law
Review 576;
- CONTRACT DAMAGES by W.R. Purdue, 46 Yale Law Journal 52 to 96
(1936-37).
41 Unfairness, and all of its correlative arguments, are Tort
Law arguments and have no place whatsoever in the settlement of
grievances falling under Contract Law Jurisprudence:
"Since the relationship between the United States and
petitioner is based on commercial contract, there is no basis
for a claim of unfairness in this result."
- STENCEL AERO VS. UNITED STATES, 431 U.S. 666, at 674 (1976).
Commentators have pointed out the fact that Tort Law is
primarily fairness oriented. See:
- Epstein in DEFENSES AND SUBSEQUENT PLEAS IN A SYSTEM OF
STRICT LIABILITY, 3 Journal of Legal Studies 165 (1974);
- Epstein in A THEORY OF STRICT LIABILITY in 2 Journal of Legal
Studies 151 (1971);
- James Henderson in PROCESS CONSTRAINTS IN TORT, 67 Cornell
Law Review 901 (1982).
42 Questions of FAIRNESS and UNFAIRNESS are questions reserved
for grievances that fall under Tort -- a concept commentators
note over and over again:
"...Tort theory has served to explain and to justify the
changing notions of fairness... that are captured by the
kaleidoscope of tortious events."
- William Rodgers in NEGLIGENCE RECONSIDERED: THE ROLE OF
RATIONALITY IN TORT THEORY, 54 Southern California Law Review 1,
at 1 (November, 1980).
When contracts are in effect, questions of fairness are not
relevant -- because only the content of the contract is relevant.
43 The case I am referring to is KELLY VS. DONALD GWINNELL, 476
A.2nd 1219 (1984). For Commentary, see:
- Paul Verardi in SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY, 23 Duquesne Law Review
1307 (1985);
- Maura Mahon in IMPOSING THIRD PARTY LIABILITY ON SOCIAL
HOSTS, in 5 Pace Law Review 809 (1985);
- Case Notes in TORTS - NEGLIGENCE -- SOCIAL HOST WHO SERVES
LIQUOR TO A VISIBLY INTOXICATED ADULT GUEST, KNOWING THE GUEST
WILL THEREAFTER DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE, MAY BE HELD LIABLE, in 89
Dickerson Law Review 537 (1985).
As the ripple effect of Tort Law liability attachment ascends up
the ladder to reach third persons seemingly not involved with
the heated grievance, then so too do distant and removed
Employers get held for similar attachments of Tort liability,
just like Social Hosts [see Mark Gutis in EXPANDING THIRD PARTY
LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO CONTROL THE INTOXICATED EMPLOYEE WHO
DRIVES, 18 Connecticut Law Review 155 (1985); the Case Mark
Gutis refers to in his Law Review article is OTIS ENGINEERING
CORPORATION VS. CLARK, 668 S.W.2nd 307 (Texas, 1983). This legal
reasoning is largely just an extension of the liability that has
always been in place regarding the liability of the Principle or
the Torts of his Agents, when those Torts were done without the
knowledge or authority of the Principle [see William Vance in
LIABILITY FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED TORTS OF AGENTS in 4 Michigan Law
Review 199 (1904)].
44 If a music store sold you a piano and agreed to have it
delivered before 6pm tonight, and the piano does not get
delivered when you need it, do you think you can ask for simple
breach of contract damages, plus compound the requested damages
relief asked for in a Court to compensate you for the PSYCHIC
INJURIES that you experienced because of the embarrassment and
humiliation you suffered before the eyes of your party guests
that evening, as the partying went on without that piano being
there? Such a request for equitable relief in your Complaint
for Breach of Contract is patently ridiculous -- however, you
need to know why: Because when contracts are in effect (the
purchase and correlative expected delivery of the piano was very
much a contract), then only the content of the contract will be
addressed and considered by the Judge when a grievance arises.
If you want to get supplemental secondary damages (called
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES by lawyers) because of the lack of
timeliness in the delivery of the piano, then you need to get
the other party to agree to pay such damages on their default,
in advance, within the body of the contract; then a Court can
address your claims of secondary damages [because then your
claim falls within the content of the contract]. The question of
demanding something as indefinite, vague and arbitrary as
PSYCHIC DAMAGES is a question that belongs in the free-wheeling
world of Tort Law, where such indefinite questions of fairness
and unfairness have their home:
"The primary root of legal liability through psychic causes can
be traced back to the year 1349 to a tort action which
recognized a liability for assault without [any] physical
touching under the WRIT OF TRESPASS."
- Harold McNiece in PSYCHIC INJURY AND TORT LIABILITY IN NEW
YORK, 24 Saint John's Law Review 1, at 3 (1949).
Harold McNiece then spends the rest of the article talking about
the difficulty a court has in assigning a set sum of money as
relief compensation for something as vague and indefinite as
perceived PSYCHIC DAMAGES:
"The problem of tort liability where a mental injury is
involved has troubled the courts for a great many years, and
even at present no consistent pattern of liability rules exist.
When injuries and causes of injuries leave the realm of the
tangible world and enter the uncharted areas of the mind, courts
understandably have difficulty in establishing principles of law
calculated to assure substantial justice. In the psychic injury
field, Mr. Justice Douglas' observation, though made in another
connection, seems to be of peculiar pertinence:
"But there are few areas of the law in black and white. The
grays are dominant and even among them the shades are
innumerable. For the eternal problem of the law is one of making
accommodations between conflicting interests. This is why most
legal problems end as questions of degree [quoted from ESTIN VS.
ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541, at 545 (1948)]."
- Harold McNiece, id., at 1.
By the end of this Letter, you will see very well the real deep
reasons why the bifurcation of our Father's Law into Tort and
Contract is an important PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that originated --
not with "some Commie Federal Judge throwin' Patriots in jail"
-- but in the mind of Heavenly Father who created that
abstraction Judges now call NATURE.
45 This is a contributing reason why it is so difficult for
people to get TITLE 42, SECTION 1983 Civil Rights relief, unless
both hard damages and special circumstances are present in the
factual setting, because under normal circumstances, the Sheriff
is largely immune from further retort since he operates in the
retort cycle of Justice. [But that is another Letter.] In order
for a Federal Civil Rights Case to prevail, the elements of
unjustified, exceptional, and pathetic circumstances must be
present in the factual setting to trigger Federal relief -- and
then when the relief is granted, the Judiciary is really not
interested in enriching you as much as they are interested in
awarding damage money to preventively restrain the recurrence of
unreasonable police Tortfeasance in the future:
"Remedies for constitutional wrongs, like other legal remedies,
chiefly involve measures either to prevent or terminate the
wrong or to redress the harm caused by past unconstitutional
[police] conduct."
- Professor Sager, as quoted by Bruce Miller in UNDERINCLUSIVE
STATUTES, 20 Harvard Civil Rights -- Civil Liberties Law Review
79, at 112 [footnote 145] (1985).
46 Yes, we very much have a Heavenly Father:
"If our Father and God should be disposed to walk through one
of these aisles, we should not know of him from one of the
congregation. You would see a man, and that is all you would
know about Him; you would merely know Him as a stranger from
some neighboring city or country. This is the character of Him
who we worship and acknowledge as our Father and God... He is
our Heavenly Father..."
- Brigham Young, President of the Mormon Church, in remarks
delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, January 8, 1865. 11
JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 39, at 40 [London (1867)].
And we are quite similar to our Father in many ways:
"If we believe there is any truth in the writings of Moses, the
Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles, and the teachings of Jesus,
if we would indeed be consistent Christians and receive the
writings of the fathers, and believe what was said unto them, we
must believe that man is made in the image of God, and
consequently that we are of the species of the gods. However
child-like and feeble we are in this condition of mortality, we
are nevertheless descended from the gods, made in their image
and after their likeness."
- Erastus Snow, in a discourse in Salt Lake City, January 20,
1878; 19 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 322, at 323 [London (1878)].
[The JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES is a large collection of
instructional pronouncements by early Mormon Church authorities
that was published over a number of years in London, England.
This Letter contains many quotations from the JOURNAL, and since
these are transcripts of speakers, I made nominal changes in
punctuation, capitalization, and spelling that I deemed
provident under the circumstances; in so doing, there was no
derogation of the original idea and meaning expressed by the
speaker. Please check original citations before requoting.]
47 "I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to
show what kind of a being God is... God himself was once as we
are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder
Heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil was rent today,
and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who
upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make
himself visible -- I say, if you were to see him today, you
would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the
person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in
the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received
instructions from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him,
as one man talks and converses with another. ...God himself, the
Father of us all, dwelt on an Earth the same as Jesus Christ
himself did. [Our Heavenly Father when through his Second Estate
with his Father and has his Father to answer to, and so on back
up the line]."
- Joseph Smith, President of the Mormon Church, in remarks
delivered at a Conference in Nauvoo, Illinois, on April 6, 1844;
6 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 1, at 3 [London (1859)].
48 "The whole object of the creation of this world is to exalt
the intelligences that are placed on it, that they may live,
endure, and increase for ever and ever...
The lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods
like himself; [and this will happen after] we have been proved
in our present capacity, and have been faithful in all things he
puts into our possession [namely Contracts]...
Mankind [is] organized of elements designed to endure to all
eternity; it never had a beginning, and never can have an end.
There never was a time when this matter [our Spirits], of which
you and I are composed, was not in existence, and there never
can be a time when it will pass out of existence; it cannot be
annihilated. [This matter] is brought together, organized, and
capacitated to receive knowledge and intelligence, to be
enthroned in glory, to be made angels, Gods -- beings who will
hold control over the elements and have power by their word to
command the creation and redemption of worlds, or to extinguish
suns by their breath, and disorganize worlds, hurling back into
their chaotic state. This is what you and I are created for...
We are organized for the express purpose of controlling the
elements, of organizing and disorganizing, of ruling over
kingdoms, principalities, and powers..."
- Brigham Young in multiple discourses; 7 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES
290; 3 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 93; and 3 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 356
(1856 to 1860).
So much for those collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA clowns, propagating
intricate theories of evolution on American campuses; like Tax
Protestors flirting with Tort Law rationalizations in summary
Contract enforcement proceedings, the individuals damaged by
intellectuals with their factual error are largely themselves
(as others can only be damaged by deception to the extent that
such a deceptive skew is wanted and accepted). And this remains
true even though a large number of people, and even Congressmen,
support Tax Protestors; and a large number of people with
impressive worldly credentials also support evolution (after
all, "It's been accepted as scientific fact"). Yes, factual
verities do march on independent of any acceptance, rejection,
or comprehension of them by anyone.
..The word INTELLIGENTSIA, of a Russian origin, has spread
world wide, and means generally those members of the educated
class or informed people who were criticizing institutions and
pushing theories around. In Russia, there were philosophically
illicit political overtones semantically associated with the
characterization INTELLIGENTSIA:
"The concept of INTELLIGENTSIA must not be confused with the
notion of INTELLECTUALS. Its members thought of themselves as
united by something more than mere interest in ideas; they
conceived of themselves as being a dedicated order, almost a
secular priesthood, devoted to the spreading of a specific
attitude to life, something like a gospel. ...they invented
social criticism."
- Isiah Berlin in RUSSIAN THINKERS ["Birth of the Russian
Intelligentsia"], at 117 [Viking Press, New York (1978);
sentences quoted out of order]
For our purposes, a member of the American INTELLIGENTSIA is
also an INTELLECTUAL, bristling with theories, who pushes and
propagates popular theorems and notions they believe that the
world wants to hear, while tossing aside countermanding factual
information that negates the theory's veracity. Occasionally, I
will throw a spicy little invective at INTELLIGENTSIA
INTELLECTUALS by supplementally characterizing them as CLOWNS --
a somewhat strong characterization, but nevertheless appropriate
when used. Gremlins, too, have also found the use of this word
attractive:
"Fahun, the foreign minister, had been adamant, but now Sadat
overruled both Fahun and himself -- and accepted Henry
Kissinger's proposition... it was at that moment that Kissinger
decided he was dealing, not with a clown, but with a statesman."
- "How Henry Kissinger Did It," an advertisement in FOREIGN
AFFAIRS MAGAZINE, page A29 [Council on Foreign Relations, New
York (April, 1976)].
Due to the strong contrasting semantic differential CLOWNS
creates, it neatly wraps up into one word what would have been
several paragraphs of negative commentary discussing the absence
of both competence and intellectual prowess.
49 In such administrative enforcement proceedings under
grievances arising out of privileges and contracts that Congress
created, Federal Judges are acting MINISTERIALLY as a
Legislative Court, functioning as an extension of the agency for
the King, and not JUDICIALLY as an Article III Court acting like
neutral and disinterested Referees calling the shots as umpires
between adversaries; and so some steps taken by the Judge acting
MINISTERIALLY, to shorten the proceedings or otherwise silence
the Defendant when irrelevant subject matter is being discussed,
are largely non-reversible on appeal. In NORTHERN PIPELINE VS.
MARATHON PIPE LINE [458 U.S. 50 (1982)], the Supreme Court ruled
that Congress can create non-Article III LEGISLATIVE COURTS in
three areas: Territorial Courts, Military Courts Martial, and
in disputes involving privileges that Congress created in the
first place [MARATHON, id., at pages 64 et seq.]. Participating
in that closed private domain of King's Commerce is very much
accepting and benefiting from a privilege created by Congress.
50 Throughout this Letter, the word TORT is a multiple entente,
and may mean either its general public semantic understanding of
just plain damages, or of Tort Law Jurisprudence which generally
circulates around both damages as a center of gravity and
correlative retort immunization reasoning.
51 The word GENIUS is deemed by some to be a strong
characterization whose presentment should be sparingly used.
"Genius is a word that ought to be reserved for the rarest of
gifts."
- Justice Felix Frankfurter, in MARCONI WIRELESS VS. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 1, at 62 (1942).
On the day President Nixon announced on behalf of Nelson
Rockefeller that Warren Burger was going to be nominated to be
the new Chief Justice of the United States, President Nixon
stated that in filing vacancies on the Supreme Court, he would
look for those judges who would follow in the tradition of Felix
Frankfurter.
QUESTION: Who is Felix Frankfurter?
Born in 1882 in Vienna, Austria, Felix Frankfurter emigrated to
the United States with his family. Three previous generations of
European Frankfurters were jewish rabbis; Felix's dad had
studied for the rabbinate, but he pursued commercial interests
here in the United States while his son Felix went to Harvard
University to study Law. Felix stayed in Cambridge afterwards
generally to teach Law, although he took short stints to New
York City and Washington. Nominated to the United States Supreme
Court by FDR in 1939, Felix Frankfurter was one of the most
intellectually strong and intense, high-powered Spirits that was
ever brought forth into this Estate -- and I admire him so much
for his impressive calibre. Merely reading his Supreme Court
rulings is a stretching exercise in intellectual gymnastics, as
he compressed a well-blended train of ideas into a single
sentence and selected an organically enlarging succession of
words and phrases to swirl around his justifications and
elucidations on both peripheral ideas and concepts turning on a
central axis. Yes, Felix Frankfurter was very much a man of
great and tremendous ability, operating on a slice of rare
gifted genius so exalted in stature that he left all others
biting the dust behind him -- but here is where I stop throwing
accolades at Felix Frankfurter: Because Felix Frankfurter was a
Gremlin.
..In April of 1913, that fateful year again, there was held a
little known CONFERENCE ON LEGAL AND SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY;
organized largely by Harold Laski, Felix Frankfurter, and his
close friend Morris Cohen, the CONFERENCE was chaired by John
Dewey; Keynote Speaker was Roscoe Pound, Dean of the Harvard Law
School. Out of that CONFERENCE held in 1913, wrote Felix Cohen
[son of Morris Cohen]:
"...much of the social and philosophical consciousness of
modern American jurisprudence derives."
Felix Frankfurter was an admirer of imp Roscoe Pound, and openly
propounded the redirection of American jurisprudence into what
Felix Frankfurter called SOCIOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE (meaning in
a sense, that Law was going to be now determined by the social
needs of the community, and those old worn out relics of fixed
Property Rights, Common Law rules, hard Constitutional
pronouncements and the like that are difficult for Gremlins to
massage, are just not anything that we need to be concerned with
anymore). In 1913, Felix Frankfurter talked about a "great job"
that would have to be done on American Law, stating that:
"That it has to be done -- to evolve a constructive
jurisprudence going hand in hand with the pretty thorough going
overturning that we are in for."
Felix Frankfurter admired Gremlin economist John Maynard Keynes
and actually accepted his doctrines; Felix expressed recurring
high remarks for a "socially sound taxing system" of high estate
and income taxes; and while teaching at Harvard, he taught his
students that:
"The Constitution is not a fixed body of truth, but a mode of
social adjustment."
President Teddy Roosevelt once sent a letter to a newspaper in
Boston attacking Felix Frankfurter for his Bolshevik orientation
and sympathy, and came down on Felix for the assistance he was
giving to Communists -- but an attack on Felix Frankfurter
through Teddy Roosevelt is not necessary to see the imp in Felix
Frankfurter (scan Felix's personal correspondence in THE
BRANDEIS_FRANKFURTER CONNECTION by Bruce Murphy [Oxford
University Press, New York (1982)]. Yes, Felix Frankfurter was a
Gremlin; he taught their doctrines, he admired their philosophy
(damaging others through the instrument of taxation never
bothered Felix at all), he attended their conferences, he spoke
at their forums, he offered to them his assistance, he expressed
sympathy at any difficult position they would be in, and he also
created the model image of an imp Jurist that the Gremlins
wanted so much for emulation by others. This brief sketch was
extracted largely from:
- Mike Parrish in FELIX FRANKFURTER AND HIS TIMES [The Free
Press, New York (1982)];
- Helen Thomas in FELIX FRANKFURTER -- SCHOLAR ON THE BENCH
[John Hopkins Press (1960)];
- Leonard Baker in BRANDEIS & FRANKFURTER: A DUAL BIOGRAPHY
[Harper and Row, New York (1984)];
- Nelson Dawson in LOUIS BRANDEIS, FELIX FRANKFURTER AND THE
NEW DEAL [Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut (1980)];
- Joseph Lash in FROM THE DIARIES OF FELIX FRANKFURTER [WW
Norton & Company, New York (1975)];
- Wallace Mendelson in FELIX FRANKFURTER: A TRIBUTE [Respnal &
Company, New York (1964)];
- H.N. Hirsch in THE ENIGMA OF FELIX FRANKFURTER [Basic Books,
New York (1981)];
- Phillip Kurland in MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND THE
CONSTITUTION [University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1971)];
- Melvin Urofsky in THE BRANDEIS_FRANKFURTER CONVERSATIONS
[Supreme Court Review (1985), at 299 (University of Chicago
Press)].
This is the same Gremlin that Richard Nixon was once told to say
something nice about, and this is the same little high-powered
Gremlin I will be quoting throughout this Letter.
52 Throughout this Letter there are numerous examples cited of
invisible Contracts and invisible Principles in effect that are
latent and difficult to see; although the consequences for
violating the Principles and Contracts are also invisible
initially, yet their latent nature remains elusive and invisible
only for a short while. Eventually, there is a hard accounting
coming due on all Principles that are violated, and so when
Judges throw their corrective snortations at improvident defense
arguments, they are actually your friends -- even though their
status of such also remains invisible. Anything that even
vaguely replicates a corrective presentation of error is to our
benefit in the advance similitude of the Last Day it creates for
us. In the Armen Condo Letter, I quoted United Supreme Court
Justice Felix Frankfurter on the advisory statement he made that
yes, equity is brutal -- but that Judges are merely enforcing
contracts [so the remedy for the problem actually lies within
ourselves]. And just as invisible Contracts sometimes get us
into difficult positions, so too do invisible Principles get
invoked by Judges to correctively retort improvident positions
being taken by parties. For example, when a Judge invokes
JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL against you, he is actually invoking an
invisible PRINCIPLE OF NATURE to operate to your advantage, by
preventing you from defiling yourself. [I will discuss JUDICIAL
ESTOPPEL later on.] [Transcriber's Note: Yes, the author seems
predisposed to delaying the discussion of a LOT of things
"later," but keep in mind we are now ONLY on page 35 of a
745-page book, so when the author says "later" remember that
there's a lot of room to elaborate on "later."] When Judges
invoke this DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, the appearance
created on the floor of the Courtroom is that
"The rule is a harsh and rigid one which deprives a litigant of
the right to assert a claim."
- UNITED STATES VS. CERTAIN LAND, 225 F.Supp. 338, at 342
(1964).
Like the appearance created that Judges are Fifth Column Commies
by greasing the procedural skids of a Tax Protestor into a
Federal Cage as they merely enforce invisible taxation contracts
in effect; Federal Judges know that the enforcement of invisible
PRINCIPLES OF NATURE on the floor of their Courtroom also
creates the image that the rulings are harsh, unnecessarily
rigid, and patently unfair. But the Judge is merely invoking
PRINCIPLES OF NATURE that the defendant has no knowledge of. So
the seminal point of correction lies within ourselves; and to
uncover the existence of invisible Contracts and invisible
PRINCIPLES OF NATURE in effect is to uncover our Heavenly Father
who created that abstraction that Judges now call NATURE.
53 The word EQUITY is an ENTENTE in that it carries multiple
meanings in Law, depending on the semantic context in which it
is exposited. On one hand, it can mean fairness or justice, and
also a "nexus relationship with benefits accepted equal to
contract relational status" on the other hand. For a profile
review of the jurisprudential foundations of American Equity
Jurisprudence going back into the old B.C. Greek days of
Aristotle, see EQUITY AND THE CONSTITUTION, by Gary McDowell
[University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1982)]; and the several
hundred citations therein.
54 I am aware of the distinction between a FEDERAL Government
and a NATIONAL Government. A FEDERAL Government can freely
change itself through acts of the Legislatures, while a NATIONAL
Government can only be changed or altered by the direct popular
consent of the Citizenry, and not through acts of Legislatures.
The United States Constitution is a composite hybrid blend of
the two, meaning that it possesses limited grants of NATIONAL
power and limited grants of FEDERAL power. For this Letter, that
distinction will be abated and addressed later.
55 "Take away Covenants, and you disable Men from being useful
and assistant to each other... We therefore esteem it a most
Sacred command of the Law of Nature, and what guides and
governs, not only the whole method and order, but the whole
grace and ornament of Human Life, that every man keep his faith,
or which amounts to the same, that he fulfill his Contracts, and
discharge his promises."
- Samuel de Puffendorf, THE LAW OF NATURE AND OF NATIONS
(1729); (Translated from the French by Basil Kennett.)
56 And COMMERCIAL CONTRACT means a full recourse contract that
will be enforced before a Judge, and you are up against asset
seizure and incarceration on your default, unless explicitly
waived by the other party. By the end of this Letter, you will
see just what you are really in for, when entering into a
so-called COMMERCIAL CONTRACT. Don't be fooled by those nice
pleasant smiles, those oh so friendly salesmen on the floor --
they are out for your money, and they are going to use the guns
and cages of the State to finish getting what they want: Your
money.
57 Yes, Heavenly Father created our Jurisprudence, a fact which
when given some thought is so obvious that even private legal
commentators remark on it occasionally:
"Law, whose seat is in the bosom of God..."
- Morgan & Maguire in LOOKING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS AT
EVIDENCE, 50 Harvard Law Review 909, at 910 (1937).
58 "History shows that financial power and political power
eventually merge and unite to do their work together... The
federal bureaucracy at the present time is effectively under the
control of the corporate and moneyed interests of the nation."
- Supreme Court Justice William Douglas as quoted by Bob
Woodward and Scott Armstrong in THE BRETHREN, page 399 [Simon &
Schuster, New York (1979)].
Please be advised that the mere mentioning of THE BRETHREN does
not constitute an endorsement of that book, as that was a very
tacky and childish book for two CIA agents to have written.
59 "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was
a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were
not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing
through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and
will be to all eternity. You cannot comprehend this, but when
you can, it will be to you a matter of great consolation. It
appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and
erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being...
He has passed on, and is exalted far beyond what we can now
comprehend." [Our Heavenly Father had his Father, and so on
back up the line; there never was a time when this line of
progression from son to father to son was not in effect].
- Brigham Young, in a discourse at the Tabernacle, Salt Lake
City on October 8, 1859; 7 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 331, at 333 to
334 [London (1860)].
60 There are several layers of Contracts available down here
beyond the introductory Contract of Baptism. They become
increasingly difficult to administer, not because they are
inherently difficult in themselves, but because you will be
placed under tremendous pressure by the Adversary to either be
in default or otherwise infract the Contract, and unfortunately
Lucifer and his army of hardworking imps know exactly what they
are doing, as they go about their work trying to run folks into
the ground.
61 For example, the July 1985 issue of AMERICAN ATHEIST is quite
political with extensive negative commentary on the Federal
Judiciary of the United States. When religion itself is
addressed as a subject matter, rather than talking about a
specific Spiritual event they cannot refute (such as the many
personal appearances of Jesus Christ Himself going on today in
the United States), they back off and take a lighter, safer
road: By badmouthing the institution of religion in general:
"All religions come from man's absurd egocentricity, from his
planetary xenophobia, from his arrogant sense of being the
center of things."
- AMERICAN ATHEIST, id., at page 20.
Beginning with the unreality and limited factual knowledge that
they do, by travelling down the wrong tangent, AMERICAN ATHEISTS
have no choice but to exercise one defective judgment after
another in order to support multiple erroneous successive
conclusions predicated upon their seminal factual assumptions.
To begin a correct initial point of beginning, we will enlarge
the initial factual setting assessed, and enter into evidentiary
consideration of FIRST PERSON eye witness evidence that operates
to countermand and overrule all of their internal conclusions
that God does not exist: As there are, in fact, people now
living, here in the United States of 1985, who have seen and
conversed with Jesus Christ, face to face, just as one man
speaks to another. AMERICAN ATHEISTS are in the same
ecclesiastical posture that Gremlin Nikolai Lenin was once in,
who once stated quite flatly:
"Every religious idea, every idea of God, even flirting with
the idea of God, is unutterable vileness... of the most
dangerous kind, `contagion' of the most abominable kind
[CONTAGION means a contagious disease]. Millions of sins, filthy
deeds, acts of violence [Lenin should THE LAST ONE to talk] and
physical contagions... are far less dangerous than the subtle,
spiritual idea of God decked out in the smartest `ideological'
costumes... Every defense or justification of God, even the most
refined, the best intentioned, is a justification of reaction."
- Gremlin Nikolai Lenin [after he changed his name for the
fourth time], in his frequently quoted Letter to Maxim Gorky,
November 13, 1913.
Nikolai Lenin seems to be quite irritated at the mere mentioning
of the possible existence of a Supreme Being -- as well he
should. As I will discuss later, Nikolai Lenin was among those
who were also thoroughly irritated at Father back in the First
Estate, and his being brought forth into this Second Estate did
not alter his personality or MODUS OPERANDI. Today, Heathens and
Tax Protestors share a common attribute with Gremlins in that
they do not want the responsibility weighing on them that is
always associated with knowledge of error; and the error of Tax
Protestors is their continued defilement under contracts that
were once invisible to them.
62 Brigham Young, in multiple discourses: 8 JOURNAL OF
DISCOURSES 64, at 67, et seq., to 10 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 192.
63 "Making covenants with his people and with individuals has
always been one of the principle ways in which the Lord deals
with them. The scriptures tell us that he made covenants with
Adam, with Noah, with Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, and others
and that he also made covenants with Israel of old, with the
Jaredites, and with the Nephites. Surely [we] are a blessed
people, because in a similar way the Lord has made covenants
with us individually and collectively."
- El Ray Christiansen, in CONFERENCE REPORTS, October, 1972,
pages 43 to 44.
[CONFERENCE REPORTS are the transcripts of what is called
GENERAL CONFERENCE proceedings of the Mormon Church, which are
held twice annually in Salt Lake City. This event called GENERAL
CONFERENCE is when prominent GENERAL AUTHORITIES come forth out
into the open in successive speaking appearances, and present
their views on subjects that interest them. The Conference is
now televised, and transcripts are issued].
64 That I am aware of, the root word COVENANT occurs 303 times
in the Old and New Testaments alone. When I opened a spot at
random, I uncovered a statement by Ezekiel:
"I bound myself by oath, I made a covenant with you... and you
became mine."
- EZEKIEL 16:8
In Hebrew, EZEKIEL means the "strength of God", which is a well
chosen name for this man who lived in Babylonia in the 500 BC
era. Commentators have associated Ezekiel with the elevated
stature of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and for good reasons. The
circumstances surrounding Ezekiel's Calling are described in
Chapter 1, and his Celestial Commission follows in Chapters 2
and 3. What we know today as the BOOK OF EZEKIEL has been
divided into 47 Chapters and is grouped largely around four
dominate themes. The BOOK OF EZEKIEL is almost devoid of
biographical and personal details; it was known that Ezekiel had
been a Priest, was one of the first deportees to Babylonia
[after Babylon had gone to the dogs], and had lived there in a
refugee community at Tel-Abib on the River Chebar, which was a
large irrigation canal leading from the Euphrates on the north
side of Babylon. The only reference to his family is that the
death of his wife on the eve of the fall of Jerusalem was for
him a small personal symbol of the larger national disaster that
had befallen Babylon. Ezekiel was very much in tune with the
Celestial order of things: The vision he once had of the throne
chariot of Jesus Christ is one of the most impressive pictures
of the Glory and Celestial Majesty of Deity to be found anywhere
in the Old Testament; and he also repetitively talks about
COVENANTS 17 times over (a man does not harp on the same subject
matter over and over again without there being special
significance and deeper importance to it).
65 For example, an attempt by CIA agent Frank Snepp to use the
First Amendment to try and weasel his way out of one of the
individual covenants within his larger COMMERCIAL Employment
Contract with the CIA that he had previously entered into, was
correctly rebuffed by the Supreme Court in FRANK SNEPP VS.
UNITED STATES, 444 U.S. 507 (1979).
66 See generally, Louis Hammon in COVENANTS AS QUASI-CONTRACTS
in 2 Michigan Law Review 106 (1903).
67 Joseph Fielding Smith, in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["Gospel
Covenants"], page 70 (October, 1970).
68 "A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties. An
oath is a sworn attestation to the inviolability of the promises
in the agreement. In the covenant of Priesthood the parties are
the Father and the receiver of the Priesthood. Each party to the
covenant undertakes certain obligations."
- Marion G. Romney in CONFERENCE REPORTS, page 17 (April, 1976).
69 "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though you once
knew this before... [that there were] angels that kept not their
First Estate,..."
- A Letter from Jude in JUDE 1:5 to 6.
70 "When a man goes to sleep at night he forgets the doings of
the day. Sometimes a partial glimpse of them will disturb his
slumbers; but sleep is the general thing, and especially sound
sleep, throws out of memory everything pertaining the past; but
when we awake in the morning, with the wakefulness returns a
vivid recollection of our past history and doings. So it will be
when we come up into the presence of Father and God in the
mansion whence we emigrated to this world. When we get there we
will behold the face of our Father, the face of our Mother, for
we were begotten there the same as we were begotten here..."
- Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt
Lake City, August 20, 1871; 14 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 233, at 241
[London (1872)].
71 "We will refer now to the [38th] Chapter of Job, to show that
there were Sons of God before this world was made. The Lord
asked Job a question in relation to his pre-existence, saying,
'Where was thou when I laid the cornerstone of the Earth?'
"Where were you, Job, when all the Morning Stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy; when the nucleus of
this creation was commenced? If Job had been indoctrinated into
all the mysteries of modern religionists, he would have answered
this question by saying,
'Lord, why do you ask me such a question? I had no existence
at that time.'
"But the very question implies a previous existence of Job, but
he had forgotten where he [had been], and the Lord put the
question as though he did exist, showing to him in the
declaration, that, when he laid the cornerstone of the Earth,
there were a great many sons of God there, and that they all
shouted for joy. Who were these sons of God?... They were Jesus,
the elder brother, and all the family that have come from that
day until now -- millions on millions -- and all who will come
hereafter, and take tabernacles of flesh and bones until the
closing up scene of this creation."
- Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in the 14th Ward
Assembly Rooms, December 15, 1872; 15 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 241,
at 246 [London (1873)].
Discourse then continues into a protracted discussion as to why
we, as the sons of God back then, shouted for joy, at that time.
This fellow Job that Orson Pratt talks about lived in the lands
of Uz, and fathered ten children; his livelihood was that of a
rancher, managing at one time over ten thousand sheep, camels,
oxen, and the like. The BOOK OF JOB occupies a unique position
in the Old Testament; it stands outside all of the conventional
classifications of Old Testament literature in that it is
neither Law (in the sense of THE TORAH), nor is it history, and
it has no parallel with the other Prophets in the Old Testament.
In both literary form and general outlook, Job is different; a
large part of the book may be called dialogue as people are
quoted speaking back and forth to each other, but the dialogue
is of a succession of elaborate protracted speeches rather than
an accelerated exchange of conversation such as is often found
in the narrative books. The BOOK OF JOB takes it place nestled
along side with the great ancient Sumerian and Akkadian
theodicies [meaning works dealing with the nature of Celestial
Justice]. The central position of the book deals with the
Question: What should the righteous man expect to receive from
the hands of God? Should he expect only good fortune, or should
he also expect bad fortune? Job talks about how both
contrasting types of circumstances are thrown at Saints from
Father. As for himself, Job once had great prosperity, but then
everything was swept away from him except his life. After being
tried right down to the wire, Job had his prosperity returned to
him in double. Individuals holding unrealistic understandings of
Divine MODUS OPERANDI are counselled that adverse circumstances
making their appearance in our lives are not to be ruled out,
and should actually be expected to surface at some point in time
[see JOB 2:10 after reading the preceding background text]; but
today as has always been the case, the NOBLE AND GREAT (like Job
from yesterday) are intolerant of distractions, they know what
they want to hear, and when they hear the right words -- they
buckle down tight and get serious, and enter into Celestial
Covenants, just like Job did [see JOB 31:1 and 41:4].
72 "Our Spirits... were in the Councils of the Heavens before
the foundations of the Earth were laid. We were there. We sang
together with the Heavenly hosts for joy when the foundations of
the Earth were laid, and when the plan of our existence upon
this Earth and redemption were mapped out. We were there, we
were interested, and we took part in this great preparation...
We were vitally concerned in the carrying out of these great
plans and purposes, we understood them, and it was for our sakes
they were decreed, and are to be consummated..."
- Joseph F. Smith, GOSPEL DOCTRINE, page 93, et seq. [Deseret
Book, Salt Lake City (1939)].
73 "We were there when the foundations of the Earth were laid.
We were numbered among the sons of God, whom the Lord speaks of
to the patriarch Job. `Where wast thou, [speaking to Job], when
I laid the cornerstone of the Earth, when all the sons of God
shouted for you, and the morning stars san together?' Job,
where were you at that time? He was among them, he was there,
perhaps he did not remember it, any more than we do."
- Orson Pratt, in a discourse on March 9, 1879; 20 JOURNAL OF
DISCOURSES 142, at 156 [London (1880)].
74 "We believe that we are children of our parents in Heaven.
That being that dwells in my tabernacle, and those beings that
dwell in yours; the beings who are intelligent and possess, in
embryo, all of the attributes of our Father in Heaven; the
beings that reside in those earthly houses, they are the
children of our Father who is in Heaven. He begat us before the
foundations of this Earth were laid and before the Morning Stars
sang together or the Sons of God shouted for joy when the corner
stones of the Earth were laid, as is written in the sayings of
the Patriarch Job."
- Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt
Lake City, August 20, 1871; 14 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 233, at 240
[London (1872)].
75 The first Covenant is the introductory Covenant of BAPTISM,
and although I characterize it as being INTRODUCTORY, it
nevertheless is the same identical NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT
spoken of by the Prophets and Patriarchs of old (as I will
discuss later). A great man once had a few words to say about
the significance of this BAPTISM COVENANT:
"By accepting membership in the Church, through Baptism and the
laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, a person
enters into a Covenant with the Lord to obey and live by all the
requirements of the Gospel. The Lord's promise, conditioned upon
such obedience, is the gift of Eternal Life.
"What must we then think... of a Covenant where God himself is
the party of the first part? Such a Covenant God has made with
every one of us [as members of this Church]. He has entered into
an agreement with us. If you will do all things which the Lord
your God shall command you; if you will do his will, you shall
have glory added upon your heads forever and ever. That is his
pledge, and God keeps his Covenants and we should do the same.
"How do we enter into that Covenant? Not by signing a written
instrument. True. But in a most impressive manner and most
authoritative manner [by conferring upon his servants down a
GRANT OF CELESTIAL JURISDICTION]. The Lord commissions his
servants, bestows upon them his Priesthood and authorizes them
to perform sacred ordinances, the same as if he had signed it in
person. They call attention to the necessity of the following
the Lord Jesus Christ and obeying his Gospel, doing all things
whatsoever the Lord shall command us. That is the contract, and
we enter into it in a most solemn way. What is the formality of
it, if not by writing with pen and ink? It is by baptism by
immersion for the remission of sins. What a wonderful and
impressive formality! Could anything be more so? In baptism by
immersion we symbolism both death and life, for as the Apostle
Paul explains: `We are buried with [Christ] by baptism into
death' and brought forth out of the watery grave in likeness of
his glorious resurrection.
"This explanation of the significance of the baptismal Covenant
has remained vivid in my mind for all these forty years."
- Marion G. Romney in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["A Covenant
Obligation"], at 129 (October, 1978).
76 John Widtsoe, writing in the "The Worth of Souls," in UTAH
GENEALOGICAL AND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE, October, 1934, at page
198. This statement appears in the context of a discussion of
what some of the special terms of those Contracts were that
Latter-Day Saints entered into with Father back then.
77 "... I think there is great wisdom in withholding the
knowledge of our previous existence. Why? Because we could not,
if we had all our pre-existent knowledge accompanying us into
this world, show to our Father in the Heavens and to the
Heavenly host that we would be in all things obedient; ... In
order to try the children of men, there must be a degree of
knowledge withheld from them, for it would be no temptation to
them if they could understand from the beginning the
consequences of their acts, and the nature and results of this
and that temptation. But in order that we may prove ourselves
before the Heavens in all things, we have to begin at the very
first principles of knowledge, and be tried from knowledge to
knowledge, and from grace to grace, until, like our elder
brother, we finally overcome and triumph over all of our
imperfections, and receive with him the same glory that he
inherits, which glory he had before the world was. That is the
way we as a people look upon our previous existence."
- Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in the 14th Ward
Assembly Rooms, December 15, 1872; 15 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 241,
at 245 [London (1873)].
78 The writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, written in
his own hand on papyrus. See "Book of Abraham," Chapter 3, in
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS [meaning FATHER'S DOCTRINE AND
CONTRACTS]. Published by the Mormon Church, Salt Lake City,
Utah. This is an unusual book and is also distinctively peculiar
in that it is the only book in the world that has the honor of a
Preface in it written by Jesus Christ himself [this Preface now
appears as Section 1]. In an age when the prevailing view is
that the Heavens were probably once open to Revelation a long
time ago, but now are forever closed (for some unexplained
reason), the publication of such a doctrinally hybrid volume
such as the DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS is as startling as well as it
is unique -- because its contents are not really open to debate
or argument. They require either total acceptance or total
rejection -- a somewhat extreme and difficult position for a
person unacquainted with them to take at first. However, the
word UNIQUE means "standing alone" or perhaps something
"different or new." In a contemporary ecclesiastical setting
where a confluence of divergent religious thoughts permeate the
intellectual scene, UNIQUE infers something that is different
from generally accepted predominate views -- and so the effect
of DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS is to supply an enlarged understanding
through enlarged factual presentations -- not in opposition or
contradiction to other previously recorded or circulated
Revelations, but merely adding an enlarged dimension to
information already at hand. Like privately circulating
newsletters offering slices of factual information largely only
complimentary to that which appears in the Government Billboards
of the major New York City media -- the newsletter's factual
presentations now creates an enlarged basis of factual knowledge
for their readers to exercise judgment on, and so such
additional information often leads, in turn, to end conclusions
that fall outside of the generally accepted predominate contours
of views that the Gremlin controlled Government Billboard major
media would prefer that folks remain intellectually isolated
within. Even so, be cognizant that the information in Father's
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS only "adds a dimension" to other sources
of Celestial information obtainable elsewhere, and by no means
are represented as being complete in themselves; nor should they
be relied upon as offering such a total and thorough picture of
the Celestial scene that other important complimentary sources
of information [such as that originating from our Patriarchs and
Fathers of old] are improvidently tossed aside and ignored.
79 Numerous Christian commentators have detected that something
was Divinely special about the idea of a COVENANT, and their
feelings are correct -- the idea is very significant. But being
deficient in factual knowledge on the First Estate where we came
from, and not having other key slices of information, they never
hit the nail right on the head, or even come close to it. See:
- Delbert Hillers in COVENANT: THE HISTORY OF A BIBLICAL IDEA
[John Hopkins Press (1969)];
- D. McCarthy in TREATY AND COVENANT; A STUDY IN THE ANCIENT
ORIENT DOCUMENTS... [Pontifical Bible Institute, Rome (1963)];
- George Mendenhall in LAW AND COVENANT IN ISRAEL AND THE
ANCIENT NEAR EAST [The Biblical Colloquium, Pittsburgh (1955)];
- George Mendenhall in "COVENANT" THE INTERPRETER'S DICTIONARY
OF THE BIBLE [Abingdon, New York (1962)];
- William H. Brownlee in A COMPARISON OF THE COVENANTERS OF THE
DEAD SEA SCROLLS WITH PRE-CHRISTIAN JEWISH SECTS [The Biblical
Archeologist (September, 1951)].
80 "We are placed in this world measurably in the dark. We no
longer see our Father face to face. While it is true that we
once did; we stood in His presence, seeing as we are seen,
knowing, according to our intelligence, as we are known; that
curtain has dropped, we have changed our abode, we have taken
upon ourselves flesh; the veil of forgetfulness intervenes
between this life and that, and we are left, as [the Apostle]
Paul expresses it, to "see through a glass darkly," to "know in
part and to prophesy in part;" to see only to a limited extent,
the end from the beginning. We do not comprehend things in their
fullness. But we have the promise, if we will receive and live
by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God, wisely
using the intelligences, the opportunities, the advantages, and
the possessions which He continually bestows upon us -- the time
will come, in the eternal course of events, when our minds will
be cleared from every cloud, the past will recur to memory, the
future will be an open vision, and we will behold things as they
are, and the past, present and future will be one eternal day,
as it is in the eyes of God our Father, who knows neither past,
present or future; whose course is one eternal round; who
creates, who saves, redeems and glorifies the workmanship of His
hands, in which He Himself is [in turn] glorified."
- Orson F. Whitney, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle
on Sunday, April 19, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at 195
[London (1886)].
81 And the benefits are quite substantial:
"As our Father and God begat us, sons and daughters, so will we
rise immortal, males and females, and also beget children, and,
in our turn, form and create [other] worlds, and send forth our
spirit children to inherit those worlds, just the same as we
were sent here, and thus will the works of God continue..."
- Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt
Lake City, August 20, 1871; 14 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 233, at 242
[London (1872)].
82 "We come here to live for a few days, and then we are gone
again... We had an existence before we came into the world. Our
spirits came here to take these tabernacles; they came to occupy
them as habitations, with the understanding that all that had
passed previously to our coming here should be taken away from
us, that we should not know anything about it."
- Brigham Young, in a discourse made at the Bowery, Salt Lake
City on June 22, 1865; 3 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 362, at 367
[London (1856)].
83 "We all acknowledge that we had an existence before we were
born into this world. How long before we took our departure from
the realms of bliss to find our tabernacle in the flesh is
unknown to us. Suffice it to say that we were sent here. We came
willingly... Then if it be true that we entered into a Covenant
with the powers Celestial, before we left our former homes, that
we would come here and obey the voice of the Lord, through
whomsoever he might speak, these powers are witnesses of the
Covenant into which we entered [back then]; and it is not
impossible that we signed the articles thereof with our own
hands -- which articles may be retained in the archives above,
to be presented to us when we rise from the dead, and be judged
out of our own mouths, according to that which was written in
the books. Did we Covenant and agree that we would be subject to
the authorities of Heaven placed over us? ...Did we Covenant to
be subject to the authority of God in all the different
relations of life -- that we would be loyal to the legitimate
powers that emanate from God? I have been lead to think that
such is the truth. Something whispers these things to me in this
light. ...What did we agree to before we came here? If to
anything, I suppose the very same things [that] we [have] agreed
to since we [came] here, that are legitimate and proper."
- Orson Hyde, in a discourse made in the Tabernacle on October
6, 1859 ["Sowing and Reaping -- Fulfillment of Covenants"] in 7
JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 313, at 314 [London (1860)].
84 The phrase used here, SOUNDING IN TORT, appears in different
places throughout the Federal jurisprudential strata of the
United States. When a grievance is presented to a Judge for a
ruling, it means that the relationship is not predicated on a
contract, and that the instant claim being sought is sounding
[based on] correlative arguments of unfairness, for some reason,
and therefore Tort Law applies there to fill the vacuum left by
no contracts. Remember that Tort Law and its arguments of
UNFAIRNESS can sometimes apply to govern grievances even when a
contract is hanging in the distant background, because the
instant grievance falls outside of the content of the contract.
That I could find, the phrase SOUNDING IN TORT first surfaced in
a Supreme Court ruling in a Case called GARLAND VS. DAVIS, 45
U.S. 131, at 141 (1846), which declared the rule that Contract
grievances are best separated away from, and adjudged
differently from Tort grievances (and properly so). The Court
also ruled in GARLAND that declarations made within a Pleading,
commingling Tort claims with Contract claims, are to be
discouraged. There are 56 other Supreme Court cases I found
where the phrase SOUNDING IN TORT appears. Recently, it appears
in Footnote #2 to MIGRA VS. WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT, 465 U.S. 75
(1984) while discussing an action for Tort damages sought on
grounds of wrongful interference unfairness with the
petitioner's Contract of Employment. In Federal statutes, the
phrase is found in the INDIAN TUCKER ACT.
"The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render
judgment... upon any express or implied contract... in cases not
sounding in tort."
- 28 U.S.C. 1505.
Some of the other Federal statutes incorporating this phrase
SOUNDING IN TORT are:
- 28 U.S.C. 1346 ["United States as Defendant"];
- 28 U.S.C. 1491 ["Claims against the United States generally"];
- 28 U.S.C. 2412 ["Costs and fees"].
By the end of this Letter, the distinction between Tort and
Contract should be quite clear to see; and most importantly, its
true origin in the mind of Heavenly Father who created Nature,
and not judges, should be recognized.
85 "Salvation is an individual operation... We read in the Bible
that there is one glory of the Sun, another glory of the Moon,
and another glory of the Stars. In the Book of DOCTRINE AND
COVENANTS, these glories are called Telestial, Terrestrial, and
Celestial, which is the highest. These are worlds, different
departments, or Mansions, in our Father's House. Now these men,
or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the
influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by
another person, suspending their understanding, and pinning
their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of
entering into the Celestial glory, to be crowned as they
anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They
cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but
they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They
cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or
somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor
be crowned as rules with glory, immortality, and eternal lives.
They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the
Celestial Kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired
with the true independence of Heaven, who will go forth boldly
in the service of God, leaving others to so as they please,
determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take
the opposite course."
- Brigham Young, in a discourse at the Tabernacle on February
20, 1853; 1 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 309, at 312 [London (1854)].
86 "These words set forth the fact to which Jesus referred to
when he said, `In my Father's House are many Mansions.' How
many I am not prepared to say; but there are three distinctly
spoken of: The Celestial, the highest; the Terrestrial, the
next below it; and the Telestial, the third. If we were to take
the pains to read what the Lord has said to his people in the
Latter days we should find that he has made provision for all
the inhabitants of the Earth; every creature who desires, and
who strives in the least, to overcome evil and subdue iniquity
within himself or herself, and to live worthy of glory, will
possess one. We who have received the Fullness of the Gospel of
the Son of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven that has come to Earth,
are in possession of these laws, ordinances, commandments and
revelations that will prepare us, by strict obedience, to
inherit the Celestial Kingdom, to go into the presence of the
Father and the Son."
- Brigham Young, in a discourse in the New Tabernacle on June
25th, 1871; 14 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 147, at 148 [London (1872)].
87 RATIOCINATIVE means the process of exact thinking with little
room, if any, for error.
88 "All of the doctrines of Life and Salvation are as plain to
the understanding as [are] geographical lines of a correctly
drawn map. This doctrine, revealed in these latter times, is
worthy of the attention of all men. It gives the positive
situation in which they will stand before the Heavens when they
have finished their career. Generation after generation is
constantly coming and passing away. They all possess more or
less intelligence, which forms the foundation within them for
the reception of an eternal increase [in their] intelligence...
But [in contrast to that] hundreds of millions of human beings
have been born, lived out their short earthly span, and passed
away, ignorant alike of themselves and of the PLAN OF SALVATION
provided for them. It gives great consolation, however, to know
that this glorious plan devised by Heaven follows them into the
next existence, offering for their acceptance eternal life and
exaltation of thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers in
the presence of their Father and God, through Jesus Christ his
Son. How glorious -- how ample is the gospel plan in its saving
properties and merciful designs. This one revelation, containing
this Principle, is worth worlds on worlds to mankind."
- Brigham Young, in a discourse in the Tabernacle, Great Salt
Lake City, on January 12, 1862; 9 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 147, at
148 [London (1862)].
89 "Those covenants that [Latter-Day Saints now make] were also
made in the beginning of the creation. They are now renewed to
us..."
- Heber C. Kimball, in a discourse made in the Tabernacle, Salt
Lake City, January 6, 1861; 9 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 126, at 130
[London (1862)].
90 "Those things which we call extraordinary, remarkable, or
unusual may make history, but they do not make real life.
"After all, to do well those things which God ordained to be the
common lot of all mankind, is the truest greatness. To be a
successful father or a successful mother is greater than to be a
successful general or a successful statesman."
- Joseph F. Smith in JUVENILE INSTRUCTOR, page 752 (December
15, 1905).
Let's say you were Armand Hammer, and you spent your life
building up a great oil company -- OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM. Was
that a great event for Mr. Hammer to accomplish down here? Yes,
it very much was, and a very difficult task technically as well.
But -- building up one huge OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM or building up
one thousand such dynastic empires means nothing to magnify your
standing at the Last Day. Although the training and SAVOIR-FAIRE
acquired in the process of such empire construction that dynasty
builders are going through is prepatory to other things, and
could be very helpful to them in other ways; the successful
administration of difficult Celestial Contracts remains the
dynasty builder's sole obstacle to inheriting the Celestial
realms, as much as the administration of those Celestial
Contracts remains the sole obstacle to us PEASANTS as well.
91 Do you want to even try and outfox Father? A profile
examination of the benefits that we will experience by entering
into, and then honoring a difficult advanced contract, makes the
search for ways to outfox Father rather silly and childish in
comparison. We are all organized to become Gods; whether or not
we accomplish such a noble objective depends upon how we handle
our affairs down here in this school.
"Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the sons
of Gods, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become
associated with the highest intelligences that dwell in
eternity. We are now in that school, and must practice upon what
we receive."
- Brigham Young, President of the Mormon Church, in a discourse
made in the Bowery, Salt Lake City, September 2, 1860; 9 JOURNAL
OF DISCOURSES 158, at 160 [London (1862)]. This life is a
school, and Protestors refusing to consider the idea, however
remotely accurate it might be, that it is they themselves that
might be in error with their Protesting, are manifesting in that
setting an attitude of UNTEACHABLENESS. Such an attitude
[forcefully concluding prematurely that the King is wrong, and I
am right] causes Protestors to disregard countermanding factual
information when it surfaces. Such a rejection of that
uncomfortable information, before it is analyzed for
authenticity, relevancy, etc., is not exemplary of good
students. Students who go through school effortlessly are those
who are in a teachable state of mind, and are receptive to the
possibility that they may have been in error before.
92 "...I expect, if I am faithful with yourselves, that I shall
see the time with yourselves that we shall know how to prepare
to organize an Earth like this -- know how to people that Earth,
how to redeem it, how to sanctify it, and how to glorify it,
with those who live upon it [being ones] who hearken to our
counsels. The Father and the Son have attained to this point
already; I am on the way, and so are you, [along with] every
faithful servant of God"
- Brigham Young, in a discourse in a Special Conference held in
the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on August 28, 1852; 6 JOURNAL
OF DISCOURSES 273, at 274 [London (1859)].
93 "There was a time before we ever came into this world when we
dwelt in [Father's] presence. We knew what kind of being he is.
One thing we saw was how glorious he is. Another thing, how
great was his wisdom, his understanding, how wonderful was his
power and his inspiration. And we wanted to be like him... If we
will just be true and faithful to every Covenant, to every
Principle of Truth that he has given us, then after the
resurrection we would come back into his presence and we would
be just like he is. We would have the same kind of bodies --
bodies that would shine like the sun."
- Joseph Fielding Smith in TAKE HEED TO YOURSELVES!, page 345
[Desert Book Publishing, Salt Lake City (1966)].
94 "Now admit, as the Latter-Day Saints do, that we had a
previous existence, and that when we die we shall return to God
and our former habitation, where we shall behold the face of our
Father, and the question immediately arises, shall we have our
memories increased, that we shall remember our previous
existence? ...we shall."
- Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in the 14th Assembly
Rooms on December 15, 1872; 15 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 241, at 249
[London (1873)].
Jesus is often portrayed as being the MEDIATOR OF THE NEW
COVENANT [Hebrews 12:24], which means that he has some type of
an equitable interest in it:
"For as these memorials of the ATONEMENT were used by the
ancient Patriarchs and Prophets to manifest to God their faith
in the Plan of Redemption and in the coming Redeemer... Jesus
[is] the Mediator of the New Covenant..."
- John Taylor in THE MEDIATION AND ATONEMENT, at 123 [Deseret
Publishing, Salt Lake City (1892)].
Question: If there is a NEW COVENANT, was there an OLD COVENANT?
Answer: Yes, there most certainly was an Old Covenant; and
Father extracted the OLD Covenant out of us all in the First
Estate, so now that Covenant has the appearance of being
invisible to us. Jesus Christ once had a few words to say about
the replacement of Father's First Estate Covenant with his own
[meaning that at the Last Day before Father, those Spirits who
entered into Father's NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANTS down here
will find that Jesus is acting as their Advocate before the
Father at the Last Day]:
"...I say unto you that all old Covenants have I caused to be
done away with in this thing; and this is a NEW AND AN
EVERLASTING COVENANT, even that which was from the beginning."
- DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 22:1.
"...I am in your midst, and am your Advocate with the Father."
- DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 29:5.
With Jesus Christ being your Advocate before Father at the Last
Day [which is a benefit offered to those who have entered into
Father's NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT], I am unaware of any
other Counselor I would rather have, acting on my behalf.
..Another set of Covenants that Jesus was responsible for
replacing with another Covenant, are the Covenants associated
with the LAW OF MOSES that our Fathers from another era once
entered into [the sacrifice of Jesus back near the MERIDIAN OF
TIME fulfilled the symbolic blood sacrifices that many of the
Mosaic Ordinances were centered around (the MERIDIAN OF TIME
separates B.C. from A.D.)].
95 "I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yes even I am he, the
Beginning and the End, the Redeemer of the World. ...at the...
Last Great Day of Judgment... woes shall go forth, weeping,
wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my
left hand."
- DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 19:1 to 5.
96 In August of 1937, Maurice Harper and Fred Test were beer
distributors in Ontario, Oregon. They needed to borrow some
money, so they entered into a contract with their own beer
suppliers for a loan; they gave a real property deed on land
they owned to their supplier of beer as security for this loan,
and as circumstances often work out, the loan went into default,
and a sale of the property quickly was commenced by the beer
suppliers with the result being that the minimal price obtained
under the pressure such an accelerated forced sale was far below
market value. The sale yielded just enough money to pay off the
loan, and there was no surplus available to give to the beer
distributors who had posted the land as security for the loan.
Maurice Harper and Fred Test yelled UNFAIR, and then threw a
Court action at the beer suppliers for damages. UNFAIRNESS is
not relevant when contracts are up for review, so the action was
brought in under Tort Law. [How is an action brought under Tort?
By simply claiming in the Complaint that Tort Law governs the
grievance, pleading such things as the damages experienced and
then asking relief sounding in Tort; however, whether or not
your Tort claims ultimately prevail is another question]. Here,
Harper and Test asked for the Tort relief in the nature of
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. A Trial was held, and during Trial at the
close of evidence presentation, the Defendant beer suppliers
motioned the Court to require the Plaintiffs, Harper and Test,
to identify whether they wanted to proceed to judgment under the
rules of Tort of Contract:
"Plaintiffs [Harper and Test] elected to proceed in Tort.
Immediately upon the election, being made by Plaintiffs, the
Defendants moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that the
Complaint failed to state a CAUSE OF ACTION in Tort and in
support of the motion counsel stated:
"...it is our position that in this case, when construed in the
light of surrounding circumstances as it must be done, does not
raise any obligation or does not permit the inference of any
obligation EXISTING IN LAW OUTSIDE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
CONTRACT ITSELF..."
- HARPER VS. INTERSTATE BREWERY, 120 P.2nd 757, at 761 (1942).
The Court when on to analyze the difference between Tort and
Contract; and as is the factual setting in so many cases brought
before the Judiciary for resolution, a business relationship in
effect between some parties was initially construed around a
Contract as the center of gravity, and when unanticipated
circumstances came to pass (as someone pulled something sneaky
off that the Contract has made no governing provision for), so
the Judiciary now has a grievance that is sounding in Tort with
a Contract hanging in the background:
"The distinction between a TORT and a BREACH OF CONTRACT is
broad and clear, in theory. In practice, however, it is not
always easy to determine whether a particular act or course of
conduct subjects the wrongdoer to an action in Tort, or one
merely for breach of Contract. The test to be applied is the
nature of the right which is being invaded. If this right was
created solely by the [contractual] agreement of the parties,
the Plaintiff is limited to an action EX CONTRACTU. If it was
created by law he may sue in Tort."
- HARPER VS. INTERSTATE BREWERY, id., at 762.
Under these cases where a Contract is hanging in the background,
but a Tort Law claim is being demanded as the relief, often
times Attorneys for the Plaintiff will ask for both Breach of
Contract and Tort relief, reciting elements of the factual
setting that support the respective claims, with the end result
being that appellate judges are frequently asked to draw lines
dividing Tort from Contract, as was the instant factual setting
here with HARPER. But important for the moment is that the
distinction once created in the Heavens, a long time ago,
bifurcating Tort from Contract, is now being honored by the
Judiciary, and that the Contract Law legal reasoning being
enforced by judges today -- as seemingly unpleasant as it is
initially -- that excludes arguments and other distractions from
being considered unless they fall within the content of the
Contract, is in fact a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that everyone
will eventually become very well acquainted with at the Last Day.
97 Lucifer too uses contracts to accomplish his end objectives;
he too is playing this Contract Game. As for Lucifer,
irrevocable oaths and covenants are required for standing
membership in Illuminatti temples. Once contracts are extracted
out of new Illuminatti initiates, that Equity Relationship that
was created is considered to be a FAIT ACCOMPLI (meaning once
accomplished, then being irrevocable in nature). In other secret
societies that Lucifer maintains a managing interest in,
covenants (contracts) that were sealed under blood oaths are
extracted out of new members. So Lucifer very much knows all
about the rather strong underlying nature of Contracts and of
Contract Law Jurisprudence. Witches also use covenants
extensively; for a discussion of First Degree, Second Degree and
Third Degree Initiation Rites, see Janet and Stewart Farrar in A
WITCHES BIBLE [Magickal Childe Publishing, 35 West 19th Street,
New York 10011 (1981)].
98 Lyrics Copyright by FLASHBACK RECORDS/ARISTA RECORDS, New
York City. Words and music by Dennis Lambert and Brian Potter,
Trousdale Music Publishing (1969); revived by COVEN RECORDS
(WARNER BROTHERS, 1971); MGM RECORDS, (1973); WARNER BROTHERS
again (1974).
99 Starring Tom Laughlin and Delores Taylor; distributed by
WARNER BROTHERS (1971).
100 To be ESOTERIC means to be designed for, and understood by,
specially informed people only; or otherwise withheld from
generally open public avowal.
101 Back in the days of David, there was once a great and
fabulous City called Babylon, reaching its peak at about 600
B.C. Today, BABYLON has a lingering illicit stigma associated
with it, but before Babylon went to the dogs, it was very
impressive. Babylon was the most prominent, majestic,
prosperous, and powerful City that the world had ever known, up
to that time. It had been the most important trading center, it
had the most powerful military force, the greatest cultural
resources, and was even a center of tourism due to its Hanging
Gardens and numerous other man made wonders. Babylon had twin
sets of tall walls surrounding her and with a moat in between;
massive and everlasting, those twin walls were so thick and so
dimensionally impressive that they were viewed as being
impregnable by any military technology of the day. Inside the
City, there was a two year supply of food; and there was no lack
of water, either, because no less than the great river Euphrates
ran through Babylon. Yes, Babylon was powerful, wealthy, and
just so secure that any potential adversary could hardly be
taken seriously. And even when it became clear that an
increasingly powerful adversary like the Medes and the Persians
were building military momentum, there was no concern within
Babylon -- whatever adversaries the world offered were only
huffing hot air. At a Royal banquet one night in his Palace
[DANIEL 5:1], King Belshazzar saw a finger writing messages on a
wall. None of this soothsayers, astrologers, or wise men [filled
with a wide ranging array of factual knowledge on everything the
WORLD had to offer -- except Spiritual matters] could interpret
the meaning. After the clowns had had their turn, along came the
Prophet Daniel who understood what he saw; and told the King
what the King did not want to hear: That Father had adjudged
his kingdom, and found it wanting in minimum Spiritual
expectations; that the impossible was going to happen and that
Babylon was going to be divided and given to adversaries --
introduced into the violent and unpleasant circumstances of an
invasion [DANIEL 5:25 to 28]. Father meant what he said, and so
the HANDWRITING WAS ON THE WALL for Babylon. That same evening,
the flow of the great River Euphrates receded, and then slowed
down to a trickle; it had been diverted upstream by the Gremlin
Darius, who had big plans for the conquest of Babylon. And now
there were holes in the great walls of Babylon where the
Euphrates once was. The riverbed openings served as the ingress
point of entry for the invading army of Darius; and Babylon was
conquered without resistance. [See generally, the ENCYCLOPEDIA
BRITANNICA ["Babylon"] (London, 1929)].
..Down to the present day, the phrase HANDWRITING ON THE WALL
has come to characterize improvident and unrealistic fantasy
expectations one holds by reason of unappreciated impending
adverse circumstances, particularly in an area involving Father.
Today, the United States has a very similar military adversary
waiting in the wings, an adversary who has been busy on a very
well known extensive commitment to prepare for war. Water
resources were the ACHILLES HEEL that brought Babylon to her
knees then; and when our turn comes, it too will be the sudden
and unexpected damages of our water resources that the Russians
will use to make their invasion Statement, as they attempt a
very quick lock down on American military installations. Babylon
had its quislings then, and we have our's now; and we should
have known something was afoot when Nelson Rockefeller spent two
years of his life in the early 1970's heavily involved in
collecting information on American water resources.
102 When the rebellion in the Heavens took place, Lucifer was
cast down to the Earth; so the Earth was created before the
rebellion, and Lucifer was there in the Heavens when the first
version of those Contracts were extracted from us all, and so by
encouraging arguments sounding in Tort, Lucifer knows exactly
what he is doing (meaning that he intends to double cross his
servants down here at the Last Day -- giving them a line of
reasoning that will fall apart and collapse before Father's
Judgment Day).
103 "In regard to the battle in Heaven... when Lucifer, the Son
of the Morning, claimed the privilege of controlling the Earth
and redeemed it, a contention arose; but I do not think it took
long to cast down one-third of the hosts of Heaven, as it is
written in the Bible. But let me tell you that it was one-third
part of the spirits who were prepared to take tabernacles upon
this Earth, and who rebelled against the two-thirds of the
Heavenly Hosts; and they were cast down to this world. It is
written that they were cast down to this Earth -- to this TERRA
FIRMA that you and I walk on, and whose atmosphere we breathe.
One-third of the spirits that were prepared for this Earth
rebelled against Jesus Christ, and were cast down to Earth, and
they have opposed him from that day to this, with Lucifer at
their head. He is their general -- Lucifer, Son of the Morning.
He was once a brilliant and influential character in Heaven, and
we will know more about him hereafter."
- Brigham Young, in a discourse made at the Bowery, Salt Lake
City, July 19, 1857; 5 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 52, at 54 to 55
[London (1858)].
104 Gremlins highly admire INTELLECTUALS, as there is something
about their high-powered status that creates such an intriguing
aura of devilish mystique. Gremlin Henry Kissinger once had a
few words to say about his mentors, INTELLECTUALS, putting in an
honest days' labor, going through the foibles and headaches that
they do; those poor hardworking INTELLECTUALS, racking
themselves to sole one tough problem after another; but also the
INTELLECTUAL contributes to an important participating juristic
role in making global conquest administratively efficient:
"How about the role of individuals who have addressed
themselves to acquiring substantive knowledge -- the
intellectuals? Is our problem, as is so often alleged, the lack
of respect shown to the intellectual by our society?
"The problem is more complicated than our refusal or inability
to utilize this source of talent. Many organizations,
governmental or private, rely on panels of experts. Political
leaders have intellectuals as advisors...
"One problem is the demand for expertise itself. Every problem
which our society becomes concerned about... calls into being
panels, committees, or study groups supported by either private
or governmental funds. Many organizations constantly call on
intellectuals for advice. As a result, intellectuals with a
reputation soon find themselves so burdened that their pace of
life hardly differs from that of the executives who they
counsel. They cannot supply perspective because they are as
harassed as the policy makers. All pressures on them tend to
keep them at the level of the performance which gained them
reputation. In his desire to be helpful, the intellectual is too
frequently compelled to sacrifice what should be his greatest
contribution to society -- his creativity...
"A person is considered suitable for assignments within certain
classifications. But the classification of the intellectual is
determined by the premium our society places on administrative
skill. The intellectual is rarely found at the level where
decisions are made. His role is commonly advisory. He is called
in as a `specialist' in areas whose advice is combined with that
of others from different fields of endeavor on the assumption
that the policymaker is able to choose intuitively the correct
amalgam of `theoretical and `practical' advice. And even in this
capacity, the intellectual is not a free agent. It is the
executive who determines in the first place whether he needs
advice. He and the bureaucracy frame the question to be
answered. The policy maker determines the standard of
relevance...
"The contribution of the intellectual to policy is therefore in
terms of criteria that he has played only a minor role in
establishing. He is rarely given the opportunity to point out
that a query limits a range of possible solutions or that an
issue is posed in irrelevant terms. He is asked to solve
problems, not to contribute to the definition of goals. Where
decisions are arrived at by negotiation, the intellectual --
particularly if he is not himself a part of the bureaucracy --
is a useful weight in the scale. He can serve as the means of
filtering ideas to the top outside of organizational channels or
as one who legitimizes the viewpoint of contending factions
within and among departments. This is why many organizations
build up batteries of outside experts or create semi-independent
research groups, and why articles or books become tools in the
bureaucratic struggle. In short, all too often what the
policymaker wants from the intellectual is not ideas but
endorsement.
"This is not to say that the motivation of the policymaker
towards the intellectual is cynical. The policymaker sincerely
wants help... Of necessity, the bureaucracy gears the
intellectual effort to its own requirements and its own pace;
the deadlines are inevitably that of the policymaker, and all
too often they demand a premature disclosure of ideas which are
then dissected before they are fully developed. The
administrative approach to intellectual effort tends to destroy
the environment from which innovation grows. Its insistence on
`results' discourages the intellectual climate that might
produce important ideas whether or not the bureaucracy feels it
needs them.
"Thus, though the intellectual participates in policymaking to
an almost unprecedented degree, the result has not necessarily
been salutary for him or of full benefit to the officials
calling on him...
"In seeking to help the bureaucracy out of this maze, the
intellectual too frequently becomes an extension of the
administrative machine, accepting its criteria and elaborating
its problems. While this, too, is a necessary task and sometimes
even an important one, it does not touch the heart of the
problem...
"This does not mean that the intellectual should remain aloof
from policymaking. Nor have intellectuals who have chosen
withdrawal necessarily helped this situation. There are
intellectuals outside the bureaucracy who are not part of the
maelstrom of committees and study groups but who have,
nevertheless, contributed to the existing stagnation through a
perfectionism that paralyzes action by posing unreal
alternatives. There are intellectuals within the bureaucracy who
have avoided the administrative approach but who must share the
responsibility for the prevailing confusion because they refuse
to admit that all of policy involves an inevitable element of
conjecture. It is always possible to escape difficult choices by
making only the most favorable assessment of the intentions of
other states or of political trends. The intellectuals of other
countries in the free world where the influence of pragmatism is
less pronounced and the demands of the bureaucracies less
insatiable have not made a more significant contribution. The
spiritual malaise described here may have other symptoms
elsewhere. The fact remains that the entire free world suffers
not only from administrative myopia but also from self
righteousness and the lack of a sense of direction [that sounds
like something a Gremlin going no where would say].
"Thus, if the intellectual is to make a contribution to
national policy, he faces a delicate task. He must steer between
the Scylla of letting the bureaucracy prescribe what is relevant
or useful and the Charybdis of defining those criteria too
abstractly. If he inches too much toward the former, he will
turn into a promoter of technical remedies; if he chooses the
latter, he will run the risks of confusing dogmatism with
morality and of courting martyrdom -- of becoming, in short, as
wrapped up in a cult of rejection as the activist is in a cult
of success.
"Where to draw the line between excessive commitment to the
bureaucracy and paralyzing aloofness depends on so many
intangibles of circumstances and personality that it is
difficult to generalize... The intellectual should therefore
refuse to participate in policymaking, for to do so confirms the
stagnation of societies whose leadership groups have little
substantive knowledge...
"The intellectual must therefore decide not only whether to
participate in the administrative process but also in what
capacity: Whether as an intellectual or as an administrator.
"Such an attitude requires an occasional separation from
administration. The intellectual must guard against his
distinctive, and in this particular context, most crucial
qualities: The pursuit of knowledge rather than of
administrative ends and the perspective supplied by a
non-bureaucratic vantage point. It is therefore essential for
him to return from time to time to his library or his laboratory
to `recharge his batteries.' If he fails to do so, he would
turn into an administrator [and we wouldn't want that to
happen], distinguished from some of his colleagues only by
having been recruited from the intellectual community."
- Henry Kissinger in THE NECESSITY OF CHOICE ["The Policymaker
and the Intellectual"], at page 348 [Harper & Brothers, New York
(1960)].
Today, few common folks have much admiration for INTELLECTUALS;
very appropriately, many folks find them irritating because they
are out of touch with hard DAY TO DAY practical reality -- a
state of perception that has been going on since the very
founding of this Republic:
"These lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men, that talk
so finely, gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor
illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into
Congress themselves; that expect to be the managers of the
Constitution, and get all the money and power in their own
hands, and then they will swallow up all us little folks, like
the great LEVIATHAN, Mr. President; yes, just as the whale
swallowed up JONAH. This is what I am afraid of..."
- Mr. Singletarry, a rural delegate to the special 1788
Massachusetts Convention elected to consider ratification of the
Constitution, as quoted by Jonathan Elliot in II DEBATES IN THE
SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS, at 102 [J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia
(1863)].
And INTELLECTUALS also possess behavioral elements of
playfulness about them that is difficult to come to grips with
at first:
"The very suggestion that the intellectual has a distinctive
capacity for mischief, however, leads to the consideration that
his piety [means STATE OF BEING PIOUS], by itself, is not
enough. He may live for ideas, as I have said, but something
must prevent him from living for ONE IDEA, from becoming
excessive or grotesque... the beginning and end of ideas lies in
their efficacy with respect to some goal external to
intellectual processes. The intellectual is not in the first
instance concerned with such goals. This is not to say that he
scorns the practical: The intrinsic intellectual interest of
many practical problems is utterly absorbing. Still less is it
to say that he is impractical; he is simply concerned with
something else, a quality in problems that is not defined by
asking whether or not they have practical purpose. The notion
that the intellectual is inherently impractical will hardly bear
analysis (...Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson... have been eminently
practical in the politician's or businessman's sense of the
term)...
"If some large part of the anti-intellectualism of our time
stems from the public's shock at the constant insinuation of the
intellectual as expert into public affairs, much of the
sensitiveness of intellectuals to the reputation as a class
stems from the awkward juxtaposition of the sacred and profane
roles. In his sacred role, as prophet, scholar, or artist, the
intellectual is hedged about by certain sanctions -- imperfectly
observed and respected, of course, but still effective...
"It is part of the intellectual's tragedy that the things he
most values about himself and his work are quite unlike those
society values in him. Society values him because he can in fact
be used for a variety of purposes, from popular entertainment to
the design of weapons. But it can hardly understand so well
those aspects of his temperament which I have designated as
essential to his intellectualism. His playfulness, in its
various manifestations, is likely to seem to most men a perverse
luxury; in the United States the play of the mind is perhaps the
only form of play that is not looked upon with the most tender
indulgence. His piety is likely to seem nettlesome, if not
actually dangerous. And neither quality is considered to
contribute very much to the practical business of life...
"To those who suspect that intellect is a subversive force in
society, it will not do to reply that intellect is really a
safe, bland and emollient thing... To be sure, intellectuals,
contrary to the fantasies of cultural vigilantes, are hardly
ever subversive of a society as a whole.
"I have suggested that one of the first questions asked in
America about intellect and intellectuals concerns their
practicality. One reason why anti-intellectualism has changed in
our time is that our sense of the impracticality of intellect
has been transformed. During the [1800's], when business
criteria dominated American culture almost without challenge,
and when most business and professional men attained eminence
without much formal education, academic schooling was often said
to be useless. It was assumed that schooling existed not to
cultivate certain distinctive qualities of the mind but to make
personal advancement possible. For this purpose, an immediate
engagement with the practical tasks of life was held to be more
usefully educative, whereas intellectual and cultural pursuits
were called unworldly, unmasculine, and impractical."
- Richard Hofstadter in ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE,
starting at 29 [Random House, New York (1963)].
When the United States began its existence out from underneath
the thumb of King George, the presence of stuffy INTELLECTUALS
on the political scene was not a problem then:
"When the United States began its national existence, the
relationship between intellect and power was not a problem. The
leaders WERE the intellectuals. Advanced though the nation was
in development of democracy, the control of its affairs still
rested largely in a patrician elite; and within this elite men
of intellect moved freely and spoke with enviable authority.
Since it was an unspecialized and versatile age, the
intellectual as expert was a negligible force; but the
intellectual as ruling-class gentleman was a leader in every
segment of society -- at the bar, in the professions, in
business, and in political affairs. The Founding Fathers were
sages, scientists, men of broad cultivation, many of them apt in
classical learning, who used their wide reading in history,
politics, and law to solve the exigent problems of their time.
No subsequent era in our history has produced so many men of
knowledge among its political leaders as the age of John Adams
[and others]. One might have expected that such men, whose
political achievements were part of the very fabric of the
nation, would have stood as permanent and overwhelming
testimonial to the truth that men of learning and intellect need
not be bootless and impractical as political leaders. It is
ironic that the United States should have been founded by
intellectuals; for throughout most of our political history, the
intellectual has been for the most part either an outsider, a
servant, or a scapegoat."
- Richard Hofstadter in ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE,
at 145 [Random House, New York (1963)].
The reason why having INTELLECTUALS on the scene back then was
not a problem is because INTELLECTUALS, per se, are not a source
of problems; only when operating as slippery bureaucratic
extensions of Gremlin intrigue, only then does the tainted
lustre of their high-powered intellect come home to roost --
then they become problems.
105 Yes, there are no circumstances that are spared from the
strategic use of DECEPTION -- when Gremlins are running the show:
...Carved in the white walls of the Riverside Church in New
York City are the figures of six hundred men that the world
esteems as being great for one reason or another -- hanging on
the walls are canonized saints, philosophers, kings, and other
assorted geniuses. One panel enshrines fourteen geniuses of
science, starting with Hippocrates, who died around 370 B.C., to
Albert Einstein [who was still alive when he was enshrined in
this Church]. In this environment surrounded by greatness
converged some 2,500 people from 71 countries to the sanctuary
of Riverside Church in New York City on this Friday, February 2,
1979. They had dropped what they were doing world wide to come
pay their last respects and hear final praise and eulogies for
Nelson Rockefeller. They heard orations from, among others,
daughter Ann Rockefeller Roberts, from son Rodman C.
Rockefeller, from brother David Rockefeller, and from Gremlin
Henry Kissinger. [See the NEW YORK TIMES ["Dignitaries and
Friends Honor Rockefeller"], page 1 (February 3, 1979)]. Judging
by the glowing characterizations that were used to express final
admirations for Nelson, this Church is really missing out on
something special if a limestone statue of Nelson Rockefeller
isn't soon enshrined with the 600 others mounted on the walls.
...Of the orations spoken at Nelson's funeral service, Henry
Kissinger's eulogy deserves very special attention: Because it
was steeped in deception. Seemingly with tears in his eyes,
Henry Kissinger's choking voice was echoed throughout the great
sanctuary of the Riverside Church. Kissinger characterized
Nelson as "friend," "inspiration," "teacher," and "my older
brother." Seemingly stricken with grief, Kissinger's eulogy act
was a smooth masterpiece in well-oiled deception, and brought
tears to the eyes of many. In his final passage, Kissinger
claimed that he frequently chatted with Nelson Rockefeller:
"In recent years, he and I would often sit on the veranda
overlooking his beloved Hudson River in the setting sun. I would
talk more, but he understood better. And as the statues on the
lawn glazed in the dimming light, Nelson Rockefeller would
occasionally get that squint in his eyes, which betokened a far
horizon, and he would say, because I needed it, but above all,
because he deeply felt it...
'... never forget, that the most profound force in the world is
love'."
- NEW YORK TIMES, id., ["Excerpts From Eulogies At Memorial for
Rockefeller"], page 23.
Having finished his smooth acting job, having left the mourners
spellbound and wailing largely in tears, this little Henry who
had criminally coordinated at a mid-management level the murder
of Nelson Rockefeller a week earlier, slowly turned and left the
pulpit. Nelson Rockefeller had never actually spoken those words
Henry claimed -- but pesky little details like that are not
important; conversations between Nelson and Henry were limited
to communications exchanged in furtherance of wars, murders,
conquest, and revolutions, with only a minimal amount of
personal interest material being exchanged as necessary to fill
a vacant time slice hiatus. Background factual accuracy is never
something that Gremlins concern themselves with, and Henry
Kissinger's fraudulent and deceptive eulogy of Nelson
Rockefeller, under circumstances where any enlightening
corrective retort would be inappropriate, was no exception to
the Gremlin MODUS OPERANDI of using deception as an instrument
of aggression wherever and whenever they feel like experiencing
the benefits derived from it.
106 The Rothschild nest of Gremlins are not as smart as they
like to think of themselves; however, with their aloofness above
us peasantry, you could not tell them that. John Taylor,
President of the Mormon Church, once tried and got nowhere:
"Do you think that the jews today would want to publish things
pertaining to Jesus, describing the manner in which he would
come? I should think not. In a conversation I once had with
Baron Rothschild, he asked me if I believed in the Christ? I
answered him: "Yes, God has revealed to us that he is the true
Messiah, and we believe in him." I further remarked: "Your
Prophets have said `They shall look upon him whom they have
pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his
only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in
bitterness for his first born.', `And one shall say unto him,
What are these wounds in thy hands? Then he shall answer, Those
with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'" Do you
think the jewish rabbis would refer you to such scripture as
that? Said Mr. Rothschild, "Is that in our Bible?" "That is in
your Bible, sir.""
- John Taylor, speaking at a Funeral Service on December 31,
1876; 18 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 324, at 329 [London (1877)].
The Rothschilds commune with Lucifer from time to time, and his
grand plans for conquest that have been revealed to the
Rothschilds (plans that have been handed down the line
originating in time back almost to the Garden of Eden), are so
impressive and so outstanding that the Rothschilds are totally
relying on Lucifer to come through for them. But just like the
Rothschilds are deficient on factual information regarding the
jewish perspective of a Messiah (however defective a view that
is factually), the Rothschilds are also deficient on information
explaining why Lucifer is only pretending to be interested in
their welfare before Father, and actually intends to double
cross them at the Last Day.
107 "Who, in looking upon the Earth as it ascends in the scale
of the Universe, does not desire to keep pace with it, that when
it shall be classed in its turn among the dazzling orbs of the
blue vault of Heaven, shining forth in all the splendors of
Celestial Glory, he may find himself proportionately advanced in
the scale of intellectual and moral excellence. [Would GREMLINS
even concern themselves with that?] Who, but the most
abandoned, does not desire to be counted worthy to associate
with those higher orders of Beings who have been redeemed,
exalted, glorified, together with the worlds they inhabit, ages
before the foundations of our Earth were laid? Oh man, remember
the future destiny and glory of the Earth, and secure thine
everlasting inheritance upon the same, that when it shall be
glorious, thou shalt be glorious also."
- Orson Pratt, in a discourse ["The Earth -- Its Fall,
Redemption, and Final Destiny -- the Final Abode of the
Righteous"], appearing in 1 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 328, at 333
[London (1854)].
108 The world is searching for evidence, just something out
there some where, that suggests the possibility that life might
exist on other planets. Like Tax Protestors looking in the wrong
places by searching for error in others rather than in
themselves, the world would also be wise to look for answers to
their probing questions on the extraterrestrial in a local
source that they have known about all along:
"The Earth upon which we dwell is only one among the many
creations of God. The stars that glitter in the heavens at night
and give light unto the Earth are His creations, redeemed
worlds, perhaps, or worlds that are passing through the course
of their redemption, being Saved, purified, glorified, and
exalted by obedience to the principles of truth which we are now
struggling to obey. Thus is the work of our Father made
perpetual, and as fast as one world and its inhabitants are
disposed of, He will roll another into existence. He will create
another Earth, He will people it with His offspring, the
offspring of the Gods in eternity, and they will pass through
[their] probations such as we are now passing through [ours],
that they may prove their integrity by their works; that they
may give an assurance to the Almighty that they are worthy to be
exalted through obedience to those principles, that unchangeable
PLAN OF SALVATION which has been revealed to us."
- Orson F. Whitney, in a discourse in the Tabernacle on Sunday,
April 19, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at 196 [London
(1886)].
109 "Deception tests the means by which we perceive reality, and
it reminds us sharply of what these means are. We have our sense
organs which receive data, principally ones affixed to our head
-- ears, eyes, nose. But this data is given shape and meaning by
the thing inside our skull, the brain. This has only second-hand
evidence of what is real out THERE.
"Deception must seem particularly frivolous for the scientist
because PERception, working out these just what is there, is his
vocation. It may also tempt him for just this reason. Like the
playful punch for the athlete, it makes fun of the faculties
that he prizes most. But we are all using these faculties and
perceiving things at every waking moment. Anyone who has been
involved in a practical joke on either the delivering end or the
receiving end knows something of the pleasures.
"It is important to note that for the person who is fooled, the
fun, if any, lies in the process of being fooled, not the
consequences. A deceived spouse cannot be relied on to react
with a chortle of glee, and the editors of McGraw-Hill did not
go around chuckling after they found that Clifford Irving had
hoaxed them into parting with most of a million dollars. For
deception is not practiced only for fun. It is also practiced to
steal money, fame or the love of women, to win battles and sink
ships, to demoralize populations and overthrow governments."
- Norman Moss in THE PLEASURES OF DECEPTION ["Introduction"],
at page 7 [Reader's Digest Press, New York (1977)].
110 "The power and the glory of the Press are based on the false
assumption that the best way to talk to a man is through a
loudspeaker. It's certainly not the only way; but if you think
of men as indistinguishable units of a group, community,
newspaper circulation or concentration camp, this scattergun
broadcasting may make some simple announcement understood. But a
free Press doesn't make simple announcements. The Russian
doctrinaires have tried to prove that men can be taught to
forget that they are first and foremost INDIVIDUALS, or at least
to act as if they had forgotten; and their Press is just the
ticket for mass men. Our world is perhaps not so far ahead of
the Russian doctrine as we like to suppose, but in theory at
least we honor the INDIVIDUAL."
- Thomas S. Matthews in THE SUGAR PILL: AN ESSAY ON
NEWSPAPERS, at 178 [The Camelot Press, London (1957); (Simon &
Schuster republished in New York (1959)].
In the APPENDIX, the author analyzed newspapers to determine the
actual content of factual events reported; out of 11 articles
appearing on the front page, only 4 of those reported events had
actually occurred. The other 7 events were either commentary, or
stories dealing with projected, predicted, intended, or desired
events.
111 In contrast to the deception proclivities of Gremlins,
Heavenly Father would prefer to deal with us on the basis of
ABSOLUTE TRUST, when possible; a highly privileged relational
status he has entered into with other people down here on
occasion; an exalted relational status known to a handful of
great people, like Abraham Lincoln, who used this relational
status in a diplomatic setting, particularly with a Russian
Czar. And ABSOLUTE TRUST is an impending criteria element I
suspect will become one of the minimum indicia required for
enjoying Celestial relationships with Father. And just as there
is ABSOLUTE TRUST, so is there ABSOLUTE TRUTH:
"Science, as I understand it, is a search after Absolute Truth
-- after something which when ascertained is of equal interest
to all thinkers of all nations. No matter how wise and learned
and famous a person may have said a thing is so in the realm of
science, it remains open to anybody to prove that it is not so;
and if it is proved to be not so, the authority of the wise and
learned and famous person disappears like a morning mist. In
science, what we are really seeking is not the opinion or the
command of any human being. We are subject to no [such] command,
and are not bound to follow any previously expressed opinion."
- Edwin Whitney in THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, 3 Michigan
Law Review 89, at 89 (1904).
And as we change from law books over to religious books (so
called) nothing changes there, either:
"There are absolute truths and relative truths. The rule of
dietetics have changed many times in my lifetime. Many
scientific findings have changed from year to year... Absolute
Truths are not altered by the opinion of men. As science has
expanded our [factual] understanding of the physical world,
certain accepted ideas of science have had to be abandoned in
the interest of truth. Some of these seeming truths were stoutly
maintained for centuries. The sincere searching of science often
rests only [next to] the threshold of truth, whereas revealed
facts give us certain Absolute Truths as a beginning point so we
may come to understand the nature of man and the purpose of
life... We learn about these Absolute Truths by being taught by
the Spirit... God, our Heavenly Father -- Elohim -- lives. That
is an Absolute Truth. All four billion of the children of men on
the Earth might be ignorant of Him and his attributes and his
powers, but he still lives. All the people on the face of the
Earth might deny [his existence] and disbelieve, but he lives in
spite of them. [Everyone] may have their own opinions, but
[Father] still lives, and his form, powers, and attributes do
not change according to men's opinions. In short, opinion has no
power [to intervene] in the matter of Absolute Truth. [Father]
still lives.
"...The intellectual may rationalize [Jesus Christ] out of
existence and the unbeliever may scoff, but Christ still lives
and guides the destinies of his people.
"...The watchmaker in Switzerland, with materials at hand, made
the watch that was found in the sand in a California desert. The
people who found the watch had never been to Switzerland, nor
seen the watchmaker, nor seen the watch [being] made. [But] the
watchmaker still exists, no matter the extent of [the
Californians' factual] ignorance or experience. If the watch had
a tongue, it might even lie and say "There is no watchmaker."
[But] that would not alter the Truth. If men were really humble,
they will realize that they [only] DISCOVER [or uncover], but do
not CREATE, Truth."
- Spencer Kimball in ABSOLUTE TRUTH; 8 Ensign Magazine, at 3
[Salt Lake City (September, 1978)].
112 Remember that deception is a three step process: First it
is created, then conveyed, and then accepted. Failure at any
point voids the entire deception show. As for the second stage
of deception, the mass media is one such very important
instrument of deception conveyance:
"With the creation of the mass media, a whole new area of
deception opened up. This provided the means of fooling the
whole public at the same time in the same way. Anything told
through the mass media carries credibility. It is more solid
than rumor, more respectable than gossip, more believable than
hearsay. People who say they never believe what they read in the
newspapers in fact absorb what they read as uncritically as
others.
"The authority that is given to the mass media, regardless of
the message, is seen in the lack of discrimination with which
unsophisticated readers and viewers talk about them. `The
newspapers say so and so.' One wants to ask WHICH newspaper.
And which part of the newspaper, the editorial columns or the
news pages? And whether it was one of the newspaper's own staff
or an outside commentator. `They said on television...' But one
wants to ask WHO said? Was it the news reader, stating it as a
fact? Or was he reporting someone else's opinion? Or was
someone giving it as HIS viewpoint, a politician, a commentator,
or a critic? After all, you don't say `They said on the
telephone,' you say who told you.
"This authority stems partly from the fact that the media, and
particularly the news media, deal with public issues that are
beyond the experience of most of its audience."
- Norman Moss in THE PLEASURES OF DECEPTION ["Fit To Print:
Hoaxing and the Media"], at page 70 [Reader's Digest Press, New
York (1977)].
Yes, many public issues are in fact beyond the intellectual
experience of their audiences, and those issues will continue to
remain beyond the experience of those audiences until such time
as the members of those audiences individually start to perk up
a bit and ask some QUESTIONS -- a point of beginning in a new
MODUS OPERANDI of intellectual enlightenment that Tax Protestors
would also be wise to take particular notice of; a MODUS
OPERANDI that would catalytically trigger the uncovering of a
great deal of latent error existing not only in juristic
settings where ambitious kings and princes in bed with looters
and Gremlins have plastered the countryside with invisible
contracts, but also in ecclesiastical settings where even more
important invisible Contracts are also hanging in the
background, waiting for the Last Day to arrive -- then those
Contracts will become VERY visible. But if you are different,
you will want to uncover and deal with those invisible Celestial
Contracts now, to avoid being surprised by them at the Last Day,
just like Protestors are surprised in tax and highway
enforcement actions where their UNFAIRNESS arguments are tossed
aside and ignored. Many Protestors have a secret hunch that some
contract is there, but they draw a blank when trying to identify
just what contract it is, or how they got into it.
113 Part of the reason for this is that Gremlins see real,
immediate, and impressive benefits to be experienced by
selectively incorporating deception into their MODUS OPERANDI.
For example, it is typical of Gremlin methodology to pretend to
be opposed to something that they really want:
...When Gremlin Nelson Aldrich wanted the Congress to pass the
Federal Reserve Act in 1913, he tried to create the appearance
that he did not want it; even though every one knew it was very
similar to his proposed ALDRICH CURRENCY BILL of 1907, he went
right ahead and threw invectives at it any way, citing some
technical reservations [see 97 THE NATION MAGAZINE, at 376
(October 23, 1913)]. Nelson Aldrich was in bed with another
Gremlin by the name of Frank Vanderlip, President of National
City Bank of New York. Frank Vanderlip's invectives that were
thrown at the proposed Federal Reserve System were so puzzling
that Senator Robert Owen, Chairman of the Senate Banking and
Currency Committee, expressed publicly his feelings that
misrepresentation was in the air -- but an impending World War I
was also in the air, and Gremlins wanted the immediate benefits
that the Federal Reserve System would be generating for them.
...John Rockefeller made a distinct and protracted habit of
pretending to be opposed to ventures that he secretly owned or
controlled. In A ROCKEFELLER FAMILY PORTRAIT by William
Manchester [Little Brown & Company, Boston (1958)], starting at
page 80, there lies numerous examples of how Gremlin John
Rockefeller selectively incorporated deception into his business
dealings in order to experience the immediate enrichment
benefits such deception assisted in creating; also discussed is
how he also used rigged enterprises as TROJAN HORSES to entrap
those whom he wanted to destroy, by pretending to be sincerely
interested in acquiring those enterprises.
...The Rothschild nest of Gremlins are also very good at this
deception game as well. In 1981, the French Government announced
the nationalization of 36 Rothschild banks and other Rothschild
industrial properties. President Francois Mitterrand said the
grab was "just and necessary to serve the national interest"
[WALL STREET JOURNAL ["Mitterrand Calls Nationalization `Just,
Necessary'"], page 36 (September 25, 1981)]; but imp Mitterrand
was lying, and conveniently failed to mention the fact that he
once worked in a Rothschild bank as an officer, and continued to
be under their thumb down to the present day as an
administrative nominee planted in a political jurisdiction.
Baron Guy de Rothschild, senior Gremlin of the Rothschild nest,
claimed that he "...was embittered by [the] pending takeover of
his family's metal, mining, hotel and other businesses." Even
the BANQUE ROTHSCHILD headquarters the family had owned for 170
years was scheduled to be grabbed by the French Government. [See
the WALL STREET JOURNAL ["For Baron Guy de Rothschild of France,
Expropriation is a Nightmare Relived"], page 30 (November 17,
1981)]. When the Baron was asked, very appropriately, why he did
not oppose this asset grab idea when Mitterrand had publicly
proposed it in the 1980 French Presidential Election, the
Gremlin Baron retorted with a pathetic little lie: "...We
aren't cleverer than anyone else" [id., at 30]. Meanwhile, no
one concluded the obvious: That the Rothschilds wanted the
Government purchase to take place, and had quietly told
Mitterrand specifically what businesses they wanted to sell to
the Government in one lump group, and then, with that rare
gifted Gremlin genius of deception, publicly pretended to oppose
the grab [had Baron Rothschild really opposed the grab,
Mitterrand would have soon been resident at the bottom of the
English Channel]. But the Rothschild Gremlins are super
brilliant in pursuing commercial enrichment, and they are very
wise to the cyclic nature of business; and so when the French
Government nationalized their extensive network of railroads
back after the turn of the Century, the Rothschilds wanted the
sale ["nationalization"] to take place, as they knew that the
great and grand era of railroading was over with. For a good
technical discussion of the cyclic nature of business and of
entire industries, see the 6 volume set called THE DECLINE OF
COMPETITION by Arthur Burns [McGraw Hill, New York (1936)]. In
Pittsburgh, there is a research institute that does nothing but
study cycles:
Foundation for the Study of Cycles, Inc.
124 South Highland Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206
The Gremlin MODUS OPERANDI cycle of
deception/benefit/deception/benefit is a continuation of the
operant training they received in the First Estate by their
mentor, Lucifer. Back in the First Estate, Gremlins there made
the mistake of listening to the high-powered promptings of
Lucifer with his attractive exemplary modelling for prompt
advancement and accomplishment, even if deception had to be used
as a tool to achieve the desired objective; under this doctrine,
acquiring the objective itself was much more important than some
silly little righteous advisory from Father -- after all, there
were no consequences for side stepping Father's advice a few
times, and it was just ADVICE at that time, as we were without
Covenants back then. Over and over again, Spirits back then who
listened to Lucifer's counseling to circumvent Father's advice
by the selective use of deception (and other devices) found
themselves experiencing immediate benefits for having done so;
and with such incentives, Lucifer became very popular -- but
many Spirits later deeply regretted listening to Lucifer's sugar
coated lies, including Lucifer himself, for invisible reasons
they never contemplated at the time the recurring deception and
benefit cycle was in motion: The time came when Father called
together the first of many Council Sessions and we were all
presented with a sketch outline of the PLAN OF SALVATION, and
this Second Estate was diagrammed to us. We all participated in
creating this World; then the Council was reconvened again and
highly detailed presentations of the PLAN OF SALVATION was made
to us. This would be a freewheeling world where anything goes,
but without any factual memory of the past we would be adrift,
so navigation would be difficult and only those persons
sensitive to the promptings of the Spirit would achieve the end
destination of returning to Father's presence, and soon
thereafter inherit his Celestial Status and powers. Like having
amnesia, we would not be able to recall the First Estate, other
than to have warm feelings about it when mentioned; but our
habits and psychological conditioning that we had ingrained
within ourselves during our protracted sojourning in the First
Estate would carry on largely transparent to the momentary loss
of factual knowledge. Now Lucifer realized, too late, the
special significance of the memory retention profile of the mind
that Father designed into his offspring; this memory keeps
accumulating factual information, knowledge, and judgments from
out of the past, and keeps drawing on these past experiences to
influence and often control the judgment exercised in the
present time. Now Lucifer understood very clearly that the
judgments he had been exercising up until that point of time
would actually be influencing and even controlling his
navigation down in this Second Estate -- and Lucifer didn't like
that; he was smart -- he knew that based on what Father had
outlined in Council, his circumvention and tossing aside of what
was then Father's ADVISORIES would also continue on down here,
and so he would not be returning to inherit Father's Celestial
Glory. Now Lucifer really saw that through his past
psychological conditioning of himself, he would never return to
Father's presence, nor obtain Father's Celestial Status that he
had craved for so much in passionate emulation. Suddenly, after
it was too late, Lucifer himself now saw the wisdom of listening
to Father (that it was listening to Father that had been the
real important judgment to make all along). At the height of his
popularity, a large percentage number of the Spirits of Heaven
had been listening to Lucifer, and soon they too realized that
they had been taken in and mislead, and so now while still in
Council the invectives started flying: Many blamed Lucifer
directly for the garbage advice he had given, while other
smarter Spirits realized that the true source of their error had
actually been within themselves, and that Lucifer had simply
been feeding a want. Those who had been snickering at those dumb
stupid unmotivated GOY supporters of Michael -- wasting their
time concerning themselves with the trivia of what Father had to
say about this or that when such grand and important conquests
were so imminent -- now saw that it was the Last who were now
First, and that what they thought had been the First in
importance was now the Last. Now that their mentor Lucifer had
nothing to lose, he offered himself to be the Savior for
mankind, subject to certain qualifications designed to insure
that he would return to Father's presence -- but Father declined
his invitation. With no possible way to ascend to Father's
Celestial Status, Lucifer was not about to let this get any
farther without putting up a good fight, and so he then openly
rebelled against Father: The War in Heaven was on, but only
about a third of the Spirits participated with Lucifer in trying
to pull off this incredibly stupid grab for power act; Lucifer
was cast out, and was locked onto the domain of this planet
(which had been created before the War took place, and the War
itself is actually very recent). Many of the Spirits who had
listened to and had emulated Lucifer in the First Estate
switched sides at the last minute and valiantly fought against
Lucifer's Rebellion; as viewed from Lucifer's perspective, these
Spirits betrayed him when he thought he needed them most. After
the Rebellion was quashed, these Spirits who had switched at the
last minute accepted Father's PLAN OF SALVATION, entered into
Covenants with Father regarding what will and will not be
adjudged at the Last Day, and were promised bodies down here.
Although they did switch sides at the last minute, they
nevertheless continued to retain their deeply ingrained devilish
intellectual orientation, as amnesia only blocks out factual
knowledge and not personality or habits [which is why Mothers
can often discern noticeable differences in her offspring's
personalities from one baby to the next within a few hours after
birth -- sorry collegiate Heathen INTELLIGENTSIA, but variations
in personality are not "genetic" -- a favorite catch-all word
fraudulently used by clowns to explain away what they have no
knowledge of].
...Today in 1985, those Spirits that once admired Lucifer so
much are now down here among us; and like their mentor they can
be collectively characterized by several key indicia: They are
highly motivated, intellectually strong people and can be found
in any profession where intellectual knowledge is important,
such as in the law and in scientific research; their driving
themselves in the First Estate to go after one successive hard
won benefit after another, as frequently as possible, makes them
razor sharp in the pursuit of business and commercial enrichment
-- and they have a sparkle in their eyes for the gold and silver
of this world (both juristic and physical), as that is what
induced them to lay aside Father's advisories and acquire
benefits at any cost, and without regard to moral or ethical
values or the consequences of deception or damages. They also
developed a reputation back then for going just too far. And
like their mentor Lucifer, they have an intimate affection in
their hearts for music and musical instruments, and no interest
in agriculture, horticulture, plants, or farming of any nature.
Today, these Spirits are friendly, they smile, and they are easy
to talk to; but whenever Jesus Christ is mentioned, they
subconsciously draw anything from a blank to outright hatred --
and yet, they do not know why they possess such a disposition.
Today in 1985, these Spirits -- one level above demon -- are all
around us; and now, just like yesterday, they like to think of
themselves as being pretty cute and smart when they pull off a
business deal laced with lies and deception; they have no
adverse concern for running someone else into the ground while
getting what they want, politically or commercially -- it feels
very natural to them. Having been trained by Lucifer to
selectively incorporate deception into their MODUS OPERANDI for
purposes of experiencing strategic conquest, they now continue
on with the same old formula since it appears to be working so
well and feels so natural to them; and the primary reason why
Father let them come down to this Adamic world is because of
their valiant display in one of the final Sessions of Council --
but even that judgment of theirs, as correct as it was, was just
an isolated fluke [fluke or no fluke, this judgment stands as
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that these little Gremlins can exercise
correct judgment in matters concerning their relational standing
before Father -- WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT]. Having had a
protracted working relationship with them before, Lucifer is
very well acquainted with these people, and he is now using
these Gremlins as expendable meat to do his dirty work for him;
and at the Last Day we are told that Lucifer will be there, too
-- and he fully intends to get even.
...Today, we are in the Second Estate for a short while, and
everyone is starting over from scratch, even up, and at point
zero; and nothing has changed as the world Gremlin's, and a good
many Heathens and Christians along with them, are falling for
the same line again for the second time over. That Commercial
enrichment and other forms of worldly conquest are very
important, and so at a minimum, an occasional deceptive act here
or there in business carries no adverse significance along with
it. Meanwhile, Father has said NO to deception, and no
exceptions.
114 The reason why IBM chose to move its headquarters out of
Manhattan in 1961 was shrouded behind a veil of secrecy and
deception, a MODUS OPERANDI faithfully replicated later on by
other corporate executives while trying to explain away why
their offices were being transplanted out of New York City in
the latter 1960's and 1970's. Starting on page 28 in COMPUTER
DECISIONS MAGAZINE for March of 1977, Thomas Mechling explains
the reason why IBM packed their bags and left Manhattan for a
hill top orchard in Armonk, 30 miles North of New York City. In
explaining away the relocation, IBM Vice President J.J. Bricker
tried to peddle the bleeding heart line that IBM employees were
unhappy with life in NYC and wanted the suburbs:
"We have a belief that if the people can spend more time with
their families and have easier commuting, there is a certain
plus for the employees and their families. The plus is indicated
by the attitude of everybody."
- [COMPUTER DECISIONS, id., at 30].
But J.J. Bricker was silent on the fact that internal IBM polls
had revealed an aversion to move to the suburbs -- just the
opposite as reported; later, secretarial and clerical employees
would actually refuse to make the relocation to Armonk [id., at
30]. It turns out that the real reason why IBM left Manhattan is
because Thomas J. Watson, Jr., had been briefed by Nelson
Rockefeller on the planned "likelihood" of a controlled nuclear
war taking place in the United States, with NYC standing as a
certain target; and so hearing that, Watson wanted out of NYC.
"The real, unwritten, and unspoken reasons that Thomas J.
Watson, Jr. wanted to get his top management the hell out of
mid-Manhattan in 1961 was to escape and survive a nuclear
bombing of New York City, a likelihood seen by the most
influential, inside-information sources he was uniquely privy
to..."
- [COMPUTER DECISIONS, id., at 28]
The war Nelson Rockefeller was referring to had been planned to
occur far in the future -- in the late 1970s [see RECON057/58],
timed immediately after certain long range military objectives
were expected to have been accomplished by then (such as a base
on the Moon). The ability to control the direction of the staged
"war" by having superior and redundant hardware recourse over
pretended Russian adversaries was deemed very important by the
Four Rockefeller Brothers. But the planned war never came to
pass as unexpected factors surfaced like Russian military
intervention and reversals by numerous allies of the Four
Rockefeller Brothers (who had started pulling off their own
assorted double crosses in 1976); so out of weakness in the late
1970's, the Four Rockefeller Brothers then shifted to a FIRST
STRIKE Nuclear War posture, a posture our adversaries took very
astute notice of. It is important to realize that when we are
formally invaded under Russian supervision [TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
Although the mass media is constantly informing us that the
"cold war is over," don't be too surprised to one day realize in
the not too distant future how far from reality that deceptive
(and intentional) presentation of "facts" truly was, and as
always, this particular slice of deception upon the public is
one of the most important of all, if not THE TOP OF THE HEAP, as
the successful conveyance and acceptance of this particular
deception is expected to bear the greatest fruit in all of
history for the Gremlins perpetrating it on an unsuspecting
American populace. Remember, that when dealing with the subject
of Gremlins, you are necessarily going to bump up against layers
upon layers upon layers upon layers of deception. Just remember
that the designer of a trap has, as his overriding objective,
the goal that the trap will fool the intended victim and thus
achieve its purpose of creating damages, while inversely
resulting in some form of benefit to the designer], they will be
believing in part that they are doing the right thing in order
to save the world from Nuclear War [the other parts involve SET
UP combined with a deep Russian allure for grand scale
conquest]; yes, some folks who never gave it any thought will
view that line as being ridiculous -- however, that is not
important; what is important is that the impending military
seizure of the United States, without any damages, if possible,
is viewed by our adversaries, for whatever their reasons are, as
being both justified, morally necessary and even compelling.
This is why the impending invasion itself is actually very
feasible, with both momentum and motive being present. However,
the prospect of an invasion remains remote to most folks (to
those who have even bothered to think about it) as they dismiss
the likelihood of such circumstances ever transpiring. However,
an enlarged basis of factual knowledge on the incentives the
Russians are operating on now makes this impending invasion very
attractive on their part, and an objective assessment would
reveal that, yes, they actually do have strong and hard motives
for at least trying to do so.
...And as for the Four Rockefeller Brothers, by the end of
1979, each of the Four Rockefeller Brothers had been introduced
into the world of Rothschild double cross under violent and
unpleasant circumstances -- an interesting look ahead glimpse
into the magnitude of the consequences of Lucifer's planned Tort
Law double cross at Father's Last Day. [See generally, Thomas B.
Mechling in 9 COMPUTER DECISIONS MAGAZINE, page 28 ["Gimme
Shelter: Why IBM Fled the City"], (March, 1977)].
115 Gremlin James E. Lawson, attorney for the Federal Power
Commission, testifying before Congress in WORKER'S RIGHT TO WORK
in Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the
Judiciary, United States Senate, at page 51; 72nd Congress,
Second Session, discussing Senate Bill 5480 (February, 1933).
116 One of the neglected Leit Motifs of the New Testament [LEIT
MOTIF means dominate or recurring theme] is the Adversarial
nature of this World being an enlarged continuation of the
heated feud between Jesus and Lucifer that took place back in
the First Estate; each recognizes the other as his old opponent
and rival [see the true Status recognition of Jesus by devils in
MARK 5:7 and LUKE 4:34 to 35; and the recognition is mutual in
LUKE 10:18]. The Adversarial contest between Jesus and Lucifer
that had its genesis in the First Estate was once continued down
here in a desert battle [MATTHEW 4:1]; with that inflated bag of
hot air -- Lucifer -- claiming the lead role and challenging
prominent Personages, nothing changes on this stage either,
because the bouts that Lucifer's imps and Jesus once exchanged
as Adversaries are now being handed down to us all as Lucifer's
imps throw one good Tort drubbing after another at us, with many
folks having no sensitivity even to the existence of the
drubbings or their origin. The invisible War we are involved in
down here [EPHESIANS 6:12] is a continuation of the conflict in
the beginning [HYPOSTASIS OF THE ARCHONS 134:20]; with those
actors on this stage largely following the same mentor now that
they had found attractive once before on the previous stage
[JOHN 8:44; and ODES OF SOLOMON 24:5 to 9]. And just like once
before in the First Estate, today there is also now a large
group of folks just idly sitting on the sidelines watching it
all go by; they associated nothing of importance to what they
were watching then, and they now continue to associate nothing
of importance to the movements of Gremlins today.
117 Remember that deception takes three separate steps to be
successful [CREATION, CONVEYANCE and ACCEPTANCE]. If any one of
those steps individually falls apart, then the deception stops
right then and there. As it pertains to the CREATION stage of
deception: Well known to a few selected legal circles (and in
particular the United States Department of Justice) are the
words of United States Special Judge Advocate John A. Bingham
Jr., who made arguments at the criminal prosecution of John H.
Surratt and other conspirators who were involved logistically
with the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. This Trial
took place in Washington, D.C. in 1865:
"A conspiracy is rarely, if ever, proven by positive testimony.
When a crime of high magnitude is about to be perpetrated by a
combination of individuals, they do not act openly, but covertly
and secretly. The purpose formed is known only to those who
enter into it. Unless one of the conspirators betrays his
companions and give evidence against them, their guilt can be
proven only by CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE... It is said by some
writers on evidence that circumstances are stronger than
positive proof. A witness swearing positively, it is said, may
misapprehend the facts or swear falsely, but that circumstances
cannot lie... It is reasonable that where a body of men assume
the attribute of individuality, whether from commercial business
or the commission of a crime, that the association should be
bound by the acts of one of its members, in carrying out the
design."
- John A. Bingham Jr. in TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRATORS FOR THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN, ETC., at page 52; in
arguments before a Military Commission, delivered June 27 and
28, 1865 [GPO, Washington (1865); quoting on part UNITED STATES
VS. COLE, ET AL., 5 McLean 601]; {University of Rochester, RUSH
RHEES LIBRARY, Rare Books Room ["Lincoln File -- Seward
Pamphlets"], Rochester, New York}].
Notice how Conspirators may be proven: Only by one of the
INSIDERS talking (not very likely), or by watching their
movements and observing the train of circumstances they leave
behind them. One of the ways to observe Gremlin movements is to
observe the more visible people that they necessarily associate
with in Commerce [Gremlins have to associate with those
irritating non-Gremlin vermin, since there are just not enough
Gremlins to go around]. And then watch for the circumstantial
fallout resulting from the relational activities by their more
visible associates in Commerce to signal something grand
impending in the air... something originating with Gremlins
themselves.
One example of someone, not a Gremlin, who associated
circumstantially with Gremlins and learned in advance of the
intended outcome of some of their sneaky maneuverings for
conquest and damages, was an Episcopal Minister by the name of
Edward Welles. Bishop Edward Welles was Rector of the CHRIST
CHURCH in Alexandria, Virginia [the Church of George
Washington]. In his autobiography published in 1975, Bishop
Welles had a few words to say about his brief interfacing with
Gremlin Franklin D. Roosevelt, immediately prior to Pearl Harbor:
"Another of my friends was Norman H. Davis, president of the
AMERICAN RED CROSS, who was elected to our Parish vestry. He was
very close to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and saw him
frequently. On November 6, 1941, I had lunch with Mr. Davis in
Washington, and learned of the approaching war with Japan, which
would begin within five weeks. I was shaken, and asked Mr. Davis
to urge the President to appoint a NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, and
handed Mr. Davis a letter I had written to President Roosevelt
on the subject. Mr. Davis did hand my letter to the President,
who did appoint the following New Year's Day as a NATIONAL DAY
OF PRAYER. I was so moved by the luncheon revelations that later
that very day, I sent out mimeographed postal cards to the
congregation, stating:
'The Rector is preaching a Sermon at 11am service Sunday,
November 9th, which he feels is sufficiently important to call
to your attention. The Sermon will assess the desperate
situation that confronts America this Armistice Day, and
suggests basic Christian attitudes and actions.'
"On Sunday in the course of that Sermon, I said:
'Few people realize how great is the possibility that we shall
actually be at war with Japan within 30 days.'
"The congregation was deeply shocked. And in response to many
requests my booklet of Sermons was reprinted with this Sermon
added. 28 days after that Sermon came December 7th, the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor, and the war was on."
- Edward Welles in his autobiography THE HAPPY DISCIPLE, at 62
[Learning Incorporated, Massette, Maine (1975)].
Bishop Welles, at that time, had no way of knowing that
President Roosevelt's advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor was due
to FDR's diligent and extended efforts to bring about that
attack. Like others brought in from the outside, Bishop Welles
was snared in a Gremlin's web of intrigue by innocent
circumstantial association.
Deception is very important to Gremlins, as they continue on
with their deception down to the present day, by wanting folks
to believe that no one could possibly have known anything was
afoot in 1929:
"In the Summer of 1929 a few prophets foresaw the coming stock
market crash. Only one gifted with second sight could have
foreseen the sequel -- a world depression historians would
single out by calling GREAT. In the United States at any rate,
most of the businesses community continued to believe in
permanent prosperity, until the bottom fell out."
- Harold van Cleveland and W.H. Brittain in A WORLD
DEPRESSION?, Foreign Affairs, page 223 (January, 1975).
Contrary to what those two gentlemen would like you to believe
-- that NO ONE could have known what was impending, in fact the
Gremlins knew, and they took steps to immunize themselves from
the unpleasant circumstances they were planning to bring down on
us all; but not everyone was caught off guard by their
manufactured depression: Those individuals who had been tipped
off by Gremlins also went about their work buttoning down the
hatches. We turn now back into early October, 1929; into a bank
in New York City, where a young banker was about to be
introduced into the eerie world of Gremlin intrigue:
"I was impressed when Mr. Henry Morganthau Sr., a retired
banker and former ambassador, called on the bank in person, and
directed it to dispose of every stock, security, and bond then
held in his Trust, and to reinvest the proceeds in Bonds of the
U.S. Government. Gratuitously, he added that he wished these
bonds remained so invested until he directed otherwise, a step
which he said he did not contemplate taking for at least 15
years... To me it seemed as if he knew what he was doing and
why. He did not appear to be following a hunch... The impression
he gave was one of confidence in his judgment. It was this
impression which convinced me that there was a basis for that
judgment, that what he knew others could know."
- Mr. Norman Dodd, in a New York City speech in 1946 [Mr. Dodd
later went onto be the Director of Research for the Reece
Committee of Congress in 1953, investigating the role played by
Tax Exempt Foundations in furtherance of Gremlin objectives. See
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE TAX EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS,
House Report 217; 83rd Congress, Second Session (May, June,
July, 1953); Mr. Dodd is identified on page 5 as being the
Director of Research [which in itself produced another chilling
successive seriatim of factual accounts in well organized
Gremlin mischief].
A few weeks after Mr. Morganthau took that action directing the
reinvestiture of his family Trust money, the advisory memoranda
that Gremlins had been quietly circulating among their intimates
began to jell, and the Great Stock Market Crash was on, as
planned [as I will discuss later].
...Now it is 1985, now quite some time has lapsed since the
first great American Depression, and now another Great
Depression is once again scheduled to make its appearance; and
as before, individuals transacting business with Gremlins are
once again dropping CIRCUMSTANTIAL indicia that Great Depression
II is impending:
...In 1979, planning for a large regional mall to be located
on an abandoned airport in southern Rochester, New York, was in
its advanced stages by a consortia of the Wilmorite Group (of
the Wilmont Family who previously built numerous large shopping
centers) and Emil Mueller (who owned the land underneath the
abandoned airport). The Mall would be called MARKETPLACE MALL,
and the very extensive and impressive research and market
studies on the Rochester area demographic and retail purchasing
power had been completed. This mammoth Mall would be a magnet,
bringing in shoppers from far away Syracuse and Buffalo, New
York, and even Toronto, Canada. Having done its homework, the
Wilmorite Group sent its leasing scouts out to search for
tenants; they needed a few heavy anchors [ANCHOR tenant means
the big well known national chain stores who draw large crowds
with their large advertising budgets], and quite a few small
tenants as well. They managed to line up Sears Roebuck, JC
Penney, and small regional department store chains like
McCurdy's and Sibley's [owned by Associated Dry Goods
Corporation in New York City]. They made a preliminary inquiry
at a Canadian department store chain called THE HUDSON BAY
COMPANY, based in Toronto, but the Wilmorite invitation to lease
space in Rochester was politely declined. The HUDSON BAY COMPANY
chain is exclusively Canadian, and does not have any store
anywhere in the United States, but that meant nothing to the
Wilmorite MALL pushers; so several Wilmorite leasing executives
paid a personal visit to the HUDSON BAY COMPANY administrative
offices in Toronto to try and convince those Canadian fellows
that this American mall was going to be special, and that they
might want to reconsider this one. That is a normal everyday
business proposition, and the Wilmorite executives were in
Toronto on a normal everyday business trip -- but they were not
prepared for the shock that they would be receiving, as they
found themselves entering into the closed private world of
international Gremlin intrigue; they would be leaving Toronto
bewildered that day. While trying to make their leasing
presentation to HUDSON BAY COMPANY officials, the Wilmorite
Group was told that the HUDSON BAY COMPANY would be unable to
lease space in that proposed Mall, as well as any other Mall in
the United States -- because American exclusion orders had come
down from upstairs, from advice by Gremlin Edgar Bronfman
himself [of HOUSE OF SEAGRAMS in Montreal], that a major
American depression was in gestation, and that your proposed
Mall would one day be desolate, and that the HUDSON BAY COMPANY
would be unable to participate in your venture. Needless to say,
such blunt rebuffment is very rare in business on the North
American Continent, where common business rejection practice
nowadays is to deflect the real reason off to the side and point
attention over to something else nice. [A toned down and less
grandiose MARKETPLACE MALL opened to the public in late 1982].
...Now in 1985 it is some five years later with some industries
stagnant and others showing modest growth, but no real
prosperity in the air. Now word has come down from another
business associate of Edgar Bronfman who works for
FAIRVIEW-CADILLAC, LTD., a large Canadian real estate
development firm (who speaks to Edgar frequently on the phone),
to watch for a period of large corporate mergers in the news, as
the management, acting on INSIDE information, starts to button
down the hatches; generally, about 1990 or so is the year
planned for the planned erosion in the economy to start to
appear widespread due to the wide ranging number of industries
that will have reached that long awaited Gremlin day of a
STATIONARY STATE, or stagnation. The computer industry will
likely never recover from its doldrums of 1983; discretionary
retail purchases will slow down first, then followed by a
slowdown in necessary items like food and clothes, so watch for
inventory statistics by retail chains, as they accelerate their
personnel and inventory trimming. Government unemployment and
Commerce statistics should be disregarded, together with the
planned assurances for the media and Government to make: THAT
ALL IS WELL. [TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: Can't you just remember
George Bush speaking soothing words to that effect during the
debates and elsewhere during his campaign? ..."Yes, everything
is just fine America, now please go back to sleep..."] Personal
moves to be made to deflect the effect of the Depression should
be to replicate for yourself the PRINCIPLE OF NATURE manifested
by certain mammals like chipmunks and squirrels, as they
accumulate a personal reservoir of storage items to hold them
through known impending lean seasons. This impending Depression
in the United States off in the 1990's will be unique in the
sense that the United States will also be simultaneously finding
itself engaging in military defense operations internally; and
the disruptions to Commerce such military intervention created
will cause regional areas of where there are literally no
commodities available for purchase at any price (unlike the
somewhat quiescent domestic scene in the 1930's and World War II
where the stores had merchandise to sell and the problem then
was lack of purchasing money).
...No, Edgar Bronfman will never publicly say anything
revealing, as Gremlin Conspirators, like Lucifer, do not operate
in the open; but having our EARS CLOSE TO THE GROUND and by
watching people who interface with Mr. Bronfman, those
CIRCUMSTANCES tell us more than what we need to know: That the
world's Gremlins have a few surprises; planned for us. And
today, just like in the 1930's, the next Depression is also
being brought to you courtesy of international Gremlin intrigue
-- and not by some confluence of market factors that collegiate
INTELLIGENTSIA economist clowns, and others sponsored into
positions of prominent administrative power would like you to
believe, such as this little imp:
"The problem of controlling booms and depressions is a major
part of any country's economic problem, at its broadest... The
problem of preventing booms and depressions has to do mainly
with the question of utilizing our resources as fully and
continuously as possible."
- Marriner S. Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in
CONTROLLING BOOMS AND DEPRESSIONS, Fortune Magazine, page 88a
(April, 1937).
Sorry Marriner, depressions originate with the massaging of the
economy under the plans of Gremlins; a situation made
technically feasible since the economy is under the central
control of an instrumentality of the King. Giving the Gremlins
more control of the house management, FULLY AND CONTINUOUSLY,
will not end the depressions, as Gremlins have been more than
competent to manufacture depressions with less than the degree
of control they now have. Only getting rid of the Gremlins
themselves will end depressions -- but this is not the kind of
talk that Gremlins want to hear propagated.
