In a Contract Law Judgment setting, questions sounding in the
Tort of unfairness regarding the interference of a person not a
party to a contract in causing a person who is a party to a
contract not to honor his contract is irrelevant, as I will
explain later on; and so when cries of unfairness wallow up at
the Judgment Day, as claims of unfairness will be heard in
having had Lucifer's low key assistants hacking away at us down
here, those cries will then be in vain, as the unfairness in
Contract Law of outside interference in contract administration
is irrelevant in measuring contract performance itself. For
example, the fact that an Employer terminated your livelihood,
and you subsequently experienced a cessation of money coming in,
and so that now you are unable to pay your apartment lease
payments, is irrelevant in an Tenant Eviction Proceeding. Either
you have paid your rent as the Lease Contract calls for, or you
haven't. Even though the secondary effect of your livelihood
being terminated directly restrained you from honoring your
Lease Contract due to a lack of money, your Employer is not a
party to that apartment Lease Contract, so what your Employer
did or did not do is not relevant in a leasehold Eviction
Proceeding. That is Contract Law Jurisprudence; its cold, mean,
and it isn't really very "fair" -- so now addressing that face
on, we should start to negotiate our personal business contracts
on terms we can live with, rather than snicker at Judges when we
are in default later on. Remember the reason why "fairness" is
not relevant in a contract grievance: Because if judges allowed
"fairness," so called, to enter into one side of the grievance
and benefit one party, the effect of the entrance of such
"fairness" into the evidentiary setting presented to the Judge
for a ruling, will always work a Tort on the other party. What
is the correct solution? Ignore all claims for "fairness" and
just enforce the contract. Cold, brutal, mean, harsh? Yes...
but proper. Rather than snicker at Judges at that late date well
after you are in default, you might want to address the origin
of your problem: You entered into a contract you could not
handle under a worst case scenario (worst case meaning loss of
livelihood).
And those are the kinds of very narrow and precise lines that we
need to think in, in understanding Contract Law. You may very
well have legitimate mitigating circumstances to justify why you
could not honor a contract -- but is an ELECTION OF REMEDIES for
the Party that you are in default to, to decide what he intends
to do with you, and it is not anything for an enforcement judge
to take notice of.
But contrary to the SUB ROSA silence of Lucifer on the existence
of any Contracts in effect with Father, Father is in fact
operating on Contracts and under Contract Law Jurisprudence with
all of us down here, and not on the principles, fairness,
equality, and justice of pure natural moral Tort Law. So only
the content of our Contracts will be of concern to Father at the
Last Day. Under the justice of natural Tort Law, the equality of
judgment fairness requires that a person be adjudged on the
basis of how other similar people are being adjudged; but this
is not relevant to Father for our purposes at our Final
Judgment.1
Those Torts that are committed by us and those great things that
are done by us outside of our Contracts are irrelevant to Father
(and to ourselves at the Judgment Day); also irrelevant will be
those factors of natural Tort Law, such as fairness, rights,
equality, and justice. So the Illuminatti, going into the
Judgment Day with their pure natural moral Tort Law excuses all
very neatly lined up to justify, vitiate, and excuse their
incredible abominations under Lucifer's brilliant counselling,
will be just like a Constitutionalist, so called, going into a
7203 prosecution judgment with a bank account contract and
arguing principles of natural and moral Tort Law (want of a MENS
REA, morality, rights, basic justice, privacy rights, no CORPUS
DELECTI damages, unfairness, excessive Eighth Amendment
punishment for a mere omission, Common Law says..., etc.) and
then demanding justice, and all of these elements of Tort Law
pronounced very well through numerous Supreme Court rulings and
Constitutional clauses; but they are not applicable to the
merits of a Contract Law Judgment setting. Both the
pseudo-clever Illuminatti Gremlin and well-meaning
Constitutionalist who still needs intellectual development on
Contract Law Jurisprudence, are both totally convinced that they
are absolutely correct -- but the unknown reality is that they
are both just plain wrong, and for the identical same reason:
Their arguments, reasoning, and justifications, although
absolutely correct in another judgment setting of pure natural
moral Tort Law, are off-point by a wide variance: Because in
both of those Judgment Day and 7203 judgment settings that the
Illuminatti Gremlin and well-meaning Constitutionalist are being
adjudged by, are under invisible Contract Jurisprudence and
Contract Law, not Tort Law.2
Knowing what you do now about Tort Law rationale and our First
Estate Contracts with Father, let us examine, just for the
moment, the Old Testament's account of Sodom. There was a city,
we are told, full of licentiousness and whoremongering, and
although that behavior doesn't sound too attractive to most
folks, let us consider the fact that in such behavior there are
no damages being experienced by anyone, there is no MENS REA,
and that all of the persons who participate in those orgies have
consented -- and furthermore, biological benefits are present.
(When criminals are about to work a crime on someone else, that
advance planning in their minds is called the MENS REA. The
reason why their mind is evil is because they were about to try
and damage either another person, or someone else's property).3
So if everyone is consenting, and there are no damages, and
there is no MENS REA, then there is nothing to remedy, and there
is no cause of action to effect a "retort," and there is no
retortional corrective justice to apply, since nothing went
amiss in the first place. General reasoning in this area is very
prevalent today (meaning that many folks today have no concern
for the inappropriate use of those ecstatic circumstances which
initiate mammalian reproduction). Heathens don't like to hear
this kind of talk, but Father actually operates in an unchanging
straight doctrinal line, without any skew to accommodate the
pleasing intellectual music devils propagate that are sounding
in the justifying Tort of liability mitigation, that now, just
somehow, enhanced relative levels of technical knowledge ["this
is the Information Age"] or that self-perceived aggrandizement
of intellectual sophistication, relegates such anachronistic
Stone Age bugaboo standards to a classification status demeaning
to your enlightened standing.4
What then gives Father the right to expect technical compliance
with such ecstatic extracurricular circumstances that every
person knows Father does not approve the inappropriate use of?
What gives Father the right to penalize us for engaging in
circumstances that not only damage no one, but are actually
biologically beneficial -- circumstances which when administered
clinically during the formative years under a therapeutic
factual setting will actually correct impending deviancy
inclinations? The answers lies in Contracts, for where there
lies a Contract, a regulatory jurisdiction is in effect and
there doesn't have to be any damages experienced for someone to
be penalized for technical Contract violations; and furthermore,
your excuses for non-compliance are irrelevant should a
grievance ever come to pass. That is where Father got the right
to turn Sodom upside down and terminate all people living
therein, and Father did so without any nymph in Sodom being
damaged, everyone consenting to that behavior, and the residents
of Sodom never manifesting an evil state of mind towards other
residents, as pure, raw fleshy Hedonism was practiced without
let up.5
The questions of damages, of the presence of a MENS REA, and of
consent are Tort Law arguments, and are not relevant when
contracts are in effect. But wait,
"I was never baptized, I never entered me into no Contracts
with Father. My parents never got me involved with no church. I
don't have me no baptism certificate in my closet."
Yes, even you have invisible Contracts now in effect with
Father. We all have Contracts in effect, and we all took out
these contracts, all of us without any exceptions did this, back
in the First Estate as Spirits. And it was then and there that
we were on our knees before Father taking out Contracts in the
angelic language we were then speaking, back before our memories
were temporarily abated down here, that's when.
This then is the Grand Key towards understanding why people want
contracts out of you: Because that contract you gave them gives
them the right to deal with you effectively at a later time. In
the case of Heavenly Father, those previous existing First
Estate Contracts give Father the right to deal effectively with
us at a later time, both individually and collectively down
here, should our degenerate Contract wickedness exceed his
patience and threshold level of tolerance (as the Old Testament
documents over and over again), as well as providing a Contract
Law Jurisprudential judgment setting at the Last Day where Tort
Law arguments of EVIL ACCOMPLISHED IN THE GOOD NAME OF JUSTICE
are ignored. In the case of the King, he too wants contracts out
of us to accomplish his revenue raising objectives, and then
later enforceable against us under threat of incarceration
otherwise not permissible absent a Commercial contract. In the
case of Lucifer and certain Mafia Families, they too deal in
contracts to deal effectively at a later time with a dissenter
who leaves their ranks and starts to talk or otherwise creates
troubles: By having the dissenter killed. In a contemporary
Commercial setting, merchants, lending institutions, landlords,
etc. all want recourse contracts out of you so they can deal
effectively with you at a later time in Summary Judgment
proceedings should there be a default. And on and on.6
Those who want to go forth and FILL THE MEASURE OF THEIR
CREATION, just like Prophets and Patriarchs, need to go out and
get some replacement Contracts with Father;7
[FILE CORRUPTION]
1 There are many people who take the view, seemingly very
reasonably that, since they have accepted Jesus Christ into
their lives, and since they are just as good and moral as anyone
else they know (and a lot more moral than many other people),
then it is quite reasonable that they will be going to Heaven.
This view is very widespread today, and it is also quite
defective. First, the fact that you are just as good and moral
as anyone else is irrelevant to Father in our impending Judgment
Day to be held under a Contract Law jurisprudential setting.
Father has no interest in any relative or collectively weighed
anything. You, individually and personally, have either
progressed under your Contract, or you haven't; and what some
guy down the street does or avoids is not relevant to you and
your Contract. The unfairness of possibly being treated worse
than someone else in a grievance is a Tort Law argument. Second,
the fact that you have accepted Jesus Christ into your life is
very significant -- but only as a point of beginning, and not as
a terminating wrap up to anything. The error made by many
Christian folks -- that their acceptance of Jesus Christ
completes their forward motions on Heavenly matters -- is the
same error that many other folks make by assigning either a
terminating or concluding attribute to the execution of
contracts [like walking out of an automobile dealership with a
sigh of relief that since you've the contract and the car is
your's, well, that ends the matter; sorry, but that PURCHASE AND
SALE CONTRACT only started the matter]. Entering into a contract
-- whether with Heavenly Father or anyone else -- is always just
a point of beginning, a fact that sharp Gremlins have taken very
astute notice of. While taking about a Diplomatic Treaty that
was just signed (and Treaties between Governments are contracts):
"It is a fundamental mistake to assume that the treaty ends
where it really begins. The signing of the document on June 28,
1919 at Versailles did not complete its history; it really began
it. THE MEASURE OF WORTH LIES IN THE PROCESS OF ITS EXECUTION
AND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT IS CARRIED OUT BY ALL OF THE PARTIES
TO THE CONTRACT."
- Bernard Baruch in THE MAKING OF THE REPARATIONS AND ECONOMIC
SECTIONS OF THE TREATY, at page 8 [Harper & Brothers, New York
(1920)]. (The italics formation of the last sentence was that
way in the original, so it represents an idea Bernard Baruch
deemed important).
Here is a Gremlin -- Bernard Baruch _telling us that when he
participated in partially negotiating the Treaty of Versailles
in 1919, he knew that many folks commonly view the execution of
Treaties to be the end of the matter; but sharp Gremlins know
that contracts only start the action in motion; so we too should
be cognizant of this attribute in Nature.
2 As a concluding by-line to this digressionary discussion here
on Father and Contracts, if you'll but give it a few moments
thought and imagination, it is interesting to note that this
impending Judgment Day arrangement that Father designed, gives a
generous built in structural edge to those persons who are
trying to become the Sons of Eloha, and the procedure itself
also creates obstacles for those who have no interest in such a
Celestial Objective (as if the operation of the Judgment Day
mechanical procedure itself assists in separating embryonic
Eloha from their ministrants). So now we need to ask ourselves a
question: Does that structural arrangement sound like it comes
from someone who knows what he is doing? Yes, it sounds like
Father knows exactly what he is doing; and if that is true, then
we should listen very carefully to anything Father has to say
and would like us to do. And consistent with Father's intentions
to give his Sons the edge whenever possible, while exposing them
to the same environment and standards as everyone else, comes
the following arrangement: That after we enter into Father's
Advanced Contracts down here there are some other circumstances
we can go through down here to accelerate the Judgment Day to
the present time (but that is another Letter). I am only making
the comparative point here that the lack of national collective
interest on the extreme significance of that Judgment Day
accelerant statement replicates the lack of national collective
interest on the extreme significance of bank accounts and other
high-powered contracts as those Equity instruments define our
sub-parity relationship with the King. In both cases, this
information is freely floating around the countryside, but one
first has to define objectives, ask questions, and then exert
efforts in order to get to and then understand answers to
questions. (And it is the discipline and serious attitude such a
procedure requires which largely explains why there are so few
people around who possess such important knowledge; not that
there are few knowledgeable persons that is an inverse indicia
to gauge the importance of the knowledge).
3 Furthermore, just to make things seem psychologically
interesting back then, I am sure that Lucifer blended in some
ceremonial flair into those orgies, by conveying the image that
orgies were officially sanctioned, somehow. Like contemporary
Witches emulating their mentors in Sodom by performing Fertility
Rites on the Witches' Sabbath, an interesting sounding excuse
will satisfy most folks. When Witches are not otherwise busy
PULLING DOWN THE MOON, almost all of their rites involving
licking down some slice of meat [see Raymond Buckland's THE
TREE, THE COMPLETE BOOK OF SAXON WITCHCRAFT, from Seax-Wica
Voys, Box 5149, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455].
4 "We do not believe in situation-itis; we do not go with the
people who think that there is a different age, that this is a
different time, that these people are more enlightened, or that
[this standard] was for old times. Always the Lord will hold to
his statements that he has given through the ages, and he will
expect men to respect themselves, to respect their wives, and
the wives to respect their husbands."
- Spencer W. Kimball in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["God The Same
Today"], page 162 (April, 1975).
5 "As a young man David demonstrated a courage and a strength
and a power that likely has not been equaled in all of the great
characters of the scriptures. He fought with wild beasts and
overcame them, defeated the giant Goliath virtually with his
hands, and then served through many years as the leader of
Israel and demonstrated in the process tremendous control,
tremendous discipline. The greatest enemy he had, perhaps,
through most of these years -- at least the greatest threat to
his existence -- was the man Saul. Yet on several occasions when
David could have removed this threat by taking the life of Saul,
who was in his hands, [David] withheld [himself] and controlled
those impulses. That demonstrated tremendous power and control.
Then later in life, as a mature man with all the strength that
kind of life had brought him, David was unwise. It was not
because David was weak that he fell. He was unwise. I suspect
that David had reached the point where he felt he was strong
enough to indulge the entertainment of some enticing
possibilities. On the day he stood on his rooftop and observed
the wife of one of his officers, instead of taking himself by
the nape of the neck, so to speak, and saying `David, get out of
here!' David remained. David thought about the possibilities [of
getting involved with this slice of meat], and those thoughts
overcame David and eventually controlled him. One of the saddest
entries in all the scriptures, I think, is that which the Lord
gave the Prophet Joseph Smith in Section 132 of the DOCTRINES
AND COVENANTS. Speaking of David's situation today, he said,
`For he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his
portion.' (D&C 132:39).
"...David, King David, one of the greatest and powerful men of
the Old Testament times, could have been today among the Gods if
he had controlled his thoughts."
- Dean L. Larsen in 1976 SPEECHES OF THE YEAR, at 121 [Brigham
Young University Press, Provo, Utah (1976)].
The chronicles of David's life are presented in FIRST and SECOND
SAMUEL. Notice how there was never any unjust damages created by
David in his life down here; David did not lose his exaltation
because he carefully avoided damaging others, as a lot of folks
in Christiandom incorrectly believe is important, but actually
David lost his Celestial Status in the impending Heavenly realms
that lie ahead because of an infracted Contract under
circumstances that created no damages whatsoever [David mentions
that he entered into Father's EVERLASTING COVENANT in II SAMUEL
23:5], the content of which prohibits promiscuous masculine
excursions into the interior contours of feminine musculature,
under certain circumstances. The defense argument that such
ecstatic circumstances create a wide ranging array of beneficial
biological and psychological side effects (which is factually
correct) is not going to be relevant at the Last Day -- just
like Tax Protesting arguments sounding in the Tort of
Constitutional unfairness are not relevant when Federal Judges
are enforcing express Commercial contracts (even though the
Protestor is also factually correct as well in his
Constitutional research). And Protestors continue to lose today
on the same grounds and for the same reasons that good Christian
folks will lose the Celestial Kingdom and take an honorable
second place as an Angel: Because of failure to identify and
come to grips with a series of invisible Contracts, and for
failing to appreciate the extent to which contracts are elevated
in Nature to an overruling dominate position in settling
Judgments. Father's Covenants were deliberately designed to
provide PERSONS operating under its jurisdictional penumbra with
a confluence of contrasting incentives to exercise judgment on,
and it is the outcome of those decisions which Covenant operants
make for themselves -- that is what Father wants to see. Yet
David, while he was still alive down here, knew that he had
blown it but good:
"[Jesus Christ told me that] he that ruleth over men must be
just, ruling in the fear of God [and this is important to Father
because impending Gods will themselves be ruling over angels and
the like in the realms to come]. [...These just persons, who are
potential Gods], shall be as light in the morning, when the sun
riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass
springing out of the Earth by clear shining after rain."
After describing such a potential Celestial person in those
terms, David admitted that he did not qualify:
"...although my house be not so with God."
- II SAMUEL 23:3 et seq.
6 Illuminatti Gremlins, vipers, Bolsheviks, witches and other
associated imps who circulate in that genre are not the only
ones to be fooled and taken in on Tort Law reasoning down here.
Certain eremitical monks are another prime example of well
meaning people arranging their acts and behavior down here to
take maximum advantage of the "avoidance of damages" question
that haunts so many people. Of the numerous orders of monks
around, such as the Trappists, the Carthusians, and the
Benedictines, perhaps it is several of the Black Monk abbeys in
Europe that are exemplary in their zeal not to damage anything,
anyone, or any property, at any time. These particular Black
Monks are doctrinaire Benedictine Monks. But unique to their own
monastery sect, they walk through the air slowly and lead
isolated and inactive lives. On their minds, they are taught not
to influence the direction of anything else (i.e., avoid
potential damages there). In Saint Benedictine's Rules [E.C.
Butler, BENEDICTINE MONACHISM (1924)], chapters 23 to 30 talk
about the relationship in effect between fault for damages and
punishments to be expected. The head monk, the Abbott, is taught
that he will be held accountable to answer for the souls of all
of his monks before the judgment seat of God (chapters 2, 3, 27
and 64). Both the willful avoidance of damaging anything, and
the doctrine that the Abbott is responsible before Father for
the acts of others are Tort Law arguments, and are defective.
Heavenly Father is dealing in Contracts; and expecting yourself
to be magnified in stature before Father at the Last Day due to
the mere absence of not having caused any damages down here or
assuming responsibility for what a third person does or does not
do, is absolutely incorrect. The only third party line of
liability down here that we need to be concerned originates with
Contracts, such as one that deems parents to be responsible for
the acts of their offspring, if the child goes off on a negative
tangent.
7 Our old Patriarch Jeremiah once had a few words to say about
the Principle of Nature that provides for a superseding layer of
Covenants replacing a previous layer of Covenants that have
fulfilled their purpose. While quoting Jesus Christ, Jeremiah
said that:
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW
COVENANT with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah;
Not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers in
that day [when] I took them by the hand to bring them out of
Egypt; which my Covenant they [broke], although I was a
husbandman to them; but this shall be the Covenant that I will
make with the House of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord,
I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it
