I N V I S I B L E   C O N T R A C T S

George Mercier



BANK ACCOUNTS

[Pages 131-193]



Some years preceding his multiple prosecutions in 1984, Mr.
Condo went down to a bank, and initiated an Equity relationship
with that corporation and the King. Yes, Commercial contracts in
effect with banks are invisible juristic contracts in effect
with the King. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that banks
are in a special Status with the King, and likewise so are the
individual people who experience profit and gain from any
Commercial contract they enter into with a bank. This relational
effect of doing business in King's Commerce is pronounced quite
clearly in the INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE the Supreme Court
initiated publicly with DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS:



       "National banks are instrumentalities of the Federal
Government, created for a public purpose, and as such
necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United
States."1



This Instrumentality Doctrine is very significant, and the word
INSTRUMENTALITY means an Equity Relationship that is quite
strong in American Jurisprudence. As nationally chartered banks
are the Instrumentality of the Congress, consider the
subordinate Party (the banks) as being the "right hand" of the
Master (the Congress). This is a very powerful Doctrine indeed,
and it needs to be understood for what it really means. In the
Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that, from a Judicial
Perspective, any profit or gain experienced from a bank carries
with it the same identical full force and effect as if the King
himself created the gain. Consider, for a moment, the
application of the Instrumentality Rule to corporations:



       "Under this Rule, corporate existence will be disregarded where
a corporate subsidiary is so organized and controlled and its
affairs so conducted as to make it only an adjunct and
instrumentality of another parent corporation."2



Now think what happens if the King is substituted for the parent
corporation, and your local bank is substituted for the
subsidiary corporation. Under the Instrumentality Doctrine, the
local bank as a Person and a legal entity fades away in
significance as if it was transparent, and the King and the
Secretary of the Treasury then appear as the real contracting
Persons you are entering into Commercial agreements with. Are
you beginning to see the legal significance of this Doctrine?
Are you beginning to appreciate the deeper meanings of the bank
account in that it is the King that you are really contracting
into Commerce with, and the bank is just the King's local agent?
That bank is literally the private personal property of the
King. Entrepreneurs who go out and capitalize a new bank from
scratch do not own that bank. The bank is owned by the King who
created the corporation, and his Comptroller of the Currency
later issued out a banking charter to; and the individual
shareholders only hold an equitable interest in the bank's
operations.3



The shareholders are only entitled to a limited withdrawal of
some of the bank's net earnings, under some limited
circumstances.4



Many incarcerated Protestors were unaware of the existence of
the Commercial contract that they were into, and so having the
strong political views that they do, their political feelings,
skewing off on a defiant tangent, retained the upper hand over
their better judgment -- an inquisitive judgment that would be
searching for answers to questions. So although the Protestors
was at one time unaware of the existence of a contract being in
effect, the King was very much aware, and so the Protestor's
defiant behavior is increasingly improvident when viewed from
the perspective that the Commercial contract was written to
strongly favor the King, and is interstitially dispersed
throughout with penal clauses IN ESSE for no more than mere
administrative negligence and default, and any outs that exist
for persons in default are the unintended default technical
errors that the King's LEX statutes can correct at the
discretion of the Congress.



Today, great Tax Protesting Patriots like Condo, Schiff, and
Saussey -- who have established themselves in forward political
positions -- have the strong advantage of learning in advance
the single most important fundamental starting point in this
Life; a starting point that most other folks won't even know of
until it is too late; a starting point that bifurcates the Law
of Judgment into two great subdivisions; Tort and Contract.
Unknown to the world at large, Heavenly Father has invisible
Celestial Contracts operating on us all, just like the King had
multiple layers of Commercial and invisible political contracts
operating on Schiff, Condo, and Saussey (I will discuss those
layers later on). Maybe I am missing something somewhere, but I
wish someone would explain to me the prudence of Armen Condo's
MODUS OPERANDI, as I cannot find any; when presented with such
valuable information (that invisible contracts were actually in
effect) Armen Condo summarily rebuffed that information without
any inquiry being made into its authenticity. I had told Armen
something he did not want to hear in his non-teachable state of
mind; and in ways similar to those invisible juristic contracts
the King has on us that so few people know much about, likewise
our previous existence First Estate Contracts with Father cast a
regulatory contract jurisdiction over us all, and all contract
jurisdictions always call for our being self damaged by our own
mere neglectful technical default, nonchalant indifference
swirling in carefree insouciance, and miscellaneous compliance
deflection Tort Law rationalizations:



       "... yea, I lived with her for a while -- she was NICE, but
there was no damages nowhere and everyone consented -- so Father
can't hold that against me."



And just as Schiff, Condo, and Saussey were given unpleasant
advance introductions into what a contract Star Chamber is all
about, so too will the Last Day be a Contract Star Chamber --
the worst imaginable to those who have used Tort Law behavioral
defense arguments down here, as a well sculptured slice of meat
was repetitively bewitched into an elevated state of enchantment
("Gee, I didn't damage anyone").5



But the Last Day will also be transparent for those who entered
into, and were successfully tried under, Father's NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANT; for these, the Last Day will be a smooth
procedural formality, nothing that should be of any impending
concern.6



To Heathens and agnostics, who spent their time playing with
their own salvation down here by fighting and resisting what
they will then view as something as simple as giving Father what
he wanted, there will be no opportunity then to throw multiple
exploratory defense lines at Father by going through multiple
judgements, but much to our advantage we can have all the
prosecutions thrown at us that we want down here, to
repetitively argue our defense lines before Judges over and over
again; and it is for this reason that incarcerated Protestors
will one day look back and be ever grateful that the
consequential significance of being in mere technical default on
invisible

contracts was driven into them, under such strong circumstances.7



Yes, today, Condo, Schiff, and Saussey are either in a cage, or
close to being thrown into one, because of their default in
juristic contracts; tomorrow - after they have OPENED THEIR
EYES, they will go forth and inherit, create, and preside over
Thrones, Dominions, and WORLDS WITHOUT END, also by Contract.
Having known the bitter Agony, they can cleave to the Celestial
Ecstasy; in both cases, contracts were the initiating catalytic
instrumentality.



This banking INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE is a pretty strong
relational status for the Judiciary to take cognizance of, so
when we probe back down the line to uncover why chartered banks
are in such a status, we should not be too surprised to uncover
our old friend: A contract.8



Originally applicable only to nationally chartered banks, the
INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE has since been expanded under the
enlarging regulatory penumbra of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913
to include all state and Federally chartered member banks of the
Fed. During the Depression, banks who became members of the FDIC
and FSLIC insurance programs were deemed Instrumentalities, and
this doctrine is now applied in the United

States to include all financial institutions where there is any
Federal regulatory interest in them. This now includes stock
brokerage houses, credit unions, insurance companies, and
pension funds. (For example, people acquiring a Merrill Lynch
Cash Management Account, which is a negotiable withdrawal
instrument, are in the same Juris

tic Personality Status (in King's Commerce) with a Merrill Lynch
checking account that they are with a checking account from any
conventional depository banking institution, such as
Manufacturer's Hanover.) When a person initiates such a bank
account relationship with the King, an examination of Fourth
Amendment Search and Seizure cases relating to account records
that banks send to depositors reveals that the Federal appellate
judiciary considers the Fourth Amendment to be non-applicable to
Seized bank account records.9



In those cases, the Supreme Court will talk about how Courts
cannot exclude evidence under the Fourth Amendment unless that
Court finds that an unlawful Search or Seizure violated the
defendant's own Constitutional rights. But that the
Constitutional rights of criminal defendants, who are being
hanged with their own bank account statements, are violated only
when the Search and Seizure conduct violated the defendant's own
legitimate expectation of privacy, rather than that of a third
party.10



Since the "zone of privacy" inherent in the Papers Clause of the
Fourth Amendment does not facially protect information you have
deposited into the hands of third parties, like banking
institutions,11 Federal Courts find it unnecessary to probe any
deeper and explicitly tell you the real underlying reason why
bank accounts fall outside the protective penumbra of the Fourth
Amendment; Because a Commercial contract is in effect, and the
Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with or obstruct the
contemporary execution of Commercial contracts, for either party
(and properly so). But wait, as those Supreme Court cases dealt
with bank accounts Seized from a bank itself, and banks as
regulated Commercial establishments have no Fourth Amendment
rights whatever. So there are no privacy rights in any
information you deposit with those banks, and this remains true
whether or not there was a Commercial contract in effect or not.
Hmmm. But what if those bank account records were Seized from a
person's home where the Fourth Amendment does apply?  Now what?
The Fourth Amendment still does not apply, and properly so.12



This is what is really meant when the bank account evidence
taken from a patently unlawful residential Search and Seizure in
a person's home is deemed admissible, even though the Fourth
Amendment's Exclusionary Rule would otherwise attach if the
property that was seized did not belong to the King (guns,
cocaine, etc.). Federal Judges will

skew their Seizure of bank accounts annulment justifications off
to the side and talk about the "special facts in this case" when
annulling Fourth Amendment rights on bank account records
unlawfully Seized from a residence.13



And now we are finally getting down to the one real reason why
the Bill of Rights in general, and the Fourth Amendment, in
particular, means absolutely nothing when a bank account is
involved with a contested Search and Seizure; this special
reason is never talked about by law schools; and this reason is
not to be found anywhere in any law book in any library that I
am acquainted with: But the reason is, as stated, because a
Commercial contract with the King is in effect, and so as a
point of beginning, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant from the
scratch, and properly so; but you will never hear that explicit
explanation from anyone else, other than George Mercier. Never
in any

Court Opinion is there any blunt discussion of Commercial
contracts being in effect; rather, Judges will continue to focus
distracting attention and discussions around the Fourth
Amendment, creating the potential image, in some peripheral
factual setting cases, that the Fourth Amendment is the center
of gravity here, rather than the Commercial contract itself. Yet
it is very proper and correct that the Bill of Rights should not
be allowed to interfere with, obstruct, intervene, or otherwise
restrain the execution or operation of contemporary Commercial
contracts -- for either party; but getting an official admission
like that from a Federal Judge will result in a can of worms
being opened up (as they perceive it), a can of worms they don't
want to talk about and deal with in the future.14



Additionally, but to a lesser extent, those bank account records
are the private personal property of the King, and so it is
irrational that the King cannot reclaim his own property
whenever he feels like it, all pursuant to the terms of the bank
account contract.15



Those are the real reasons why the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
are irrelevant in bank account Administrative Seizures and in
judicial prosecutions evidentiarily based on bank accounts.
Within the same line of Fourth Amendment cases, those Federal
Judges will also refer to bank accounts as being interstate
merchant and Commercial instruments, but never is there any
discussion to be found anywhere on the special Equity
Relationship in effect between Persons entering into such
Commercial contracts, and the King.



Some folks have taken the position that if they entered into
Equity with the King by signing a bank account card under
Objection on the grounds of necessity, that Objection somehow
will vitiate future liability; but there is an inherent defect
in that reasoning. Unlike signing Driver's License applications
under Objection and Notice of Duress to avoid incarceration, the
Supreme Court has ruled that the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a
Substantive and Fundamental Right that cannot be infringed upon,
absent very strong and compelling state interests; and there are
state statutes which criminalize the act of an unlicensed driver
operating a motor vehicle down the road. Taking that Driver's
License scenario as a model and applying it to justify
possessing bank accounts just does not cut it. Bank accounts are
not entered into to avoid incarceration, and banking is not a
Substantive Right, and direct personal financial profit and gain
enrichment is experienced when possessing bank accounts that is
without parallel with a Driver's License. So, all factors
considered, the likelihood of escaping an Excise Tax liability
by arguing bank account possession by necessity, is remote. This
remains true even though the California Supreme Court ruled once
that:



       "For all practical purposes, the disclosure by individuals or
business firms of their financial affairs to a bank is not
entirely volitional, since it is impossible to participate in
the economic life of contemporary society without maintaining a
bank account. In the course of such dealings, a depositor
reveals many aspects of his personal affairs, opinions, habits
and associations. Indeed, the totality of bank records provides
a virtual current biography."16



The California Supreme Court is not a Federal Tribunal, and
statements to the effect that bank accounts are necessary for
practical economic survival, and perhaps are not purely
volitional [VOLITIONAL means freely choosing or will to do so,
as in making a decision], although an interesting perception of
the passing scene, will in no wise vitiate your legal liability
to the adhesive Federal taxation reciprocity expectations
resident in Title 26. Notice how the California Supreme Court
did not say that possession of bank accounts under a documented
factual setting of economic survival annuls Title 26 liability.
So let's not read out of that state court what it does not say;
and even if that state court did state inferentially that
possession by necessity annuls expectation of reciprocity
liability in areas of taxation, then the California Supreme
Court is still not a Federal Judicial Forum. Federal Judges are
taught and

trained certain things in those Seminars of theirs, and that
BENCH BOOK of theirs makes the Government's position sound more
than reasonable, and so as a result, Federal Judges are
collectively sensitive towards certain things [such as the
significance of a Commercial contract] that State Judges are
indifferent to.



This DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS Instrumentality Doctrine
occasionally surfaces in Supreme Court rulings, by sometimes
being lightly mentioned in passing in OBITER DICTUM, such as in
ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK VS. LUCKETT,17 and on other occasions,
this Instrumentality Doctrine is bluntly reaffirmed by the
Supreme Court, as in MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK VS. FIRST OF
OMAHA.18 But if the Law of King's Commerce is correctly
understood, there is no need for the Supreme Court to reaffirm
anything, as the circulation of paper money, notes, or the
circulation of any juristic currency, even carrying intrinsic
value, in King's Commerce (as distinguished from privately
minted coins and notes), has always been the closed private
domain of the King of England. And it has been the exclusive
domain of the King ever since paper money was first printed and
circulated by King Richard II to finance an offensive war
against France that Parliament declined to levy taxes to wage.19



So the circulation of paper money by Gremlins through the
instrumentality of kings, was born in tortious fraud intended to
damage people, and was designed to accomplish in the practical
setting (the damages of taxation by Inflation) what was not
accomplished legally on the Floor of Parliament by common
consent.20 So paper money has been designed from the outset to
damage people, and the unnecessary circulation of paper money
today in the United States carries along with it identical
underlying enscrewment objectives.21



Back in an era when the United States was the American Colonies,
the Framers to our Constitution never abated or restricted the
King's standing right to issue out his own money or to declare
that someone else's money or notes are legal and tender for
those debts existing under the King's General Commerce
Jurisdiction; and neither did the Framers ever restrict the
King's right to delegate any or all of the circulating process
to a third party (as arguments in this area of FEDERAL RESERVE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY DUE TO LACK OF COINAGE DELEGATION
JURISDICTION are in error). The Supreme Court has ruled often
that the Constitution of the United States must be applied today
in light of English Common Law then in effect at the time the
Declaration of Independence was executed, and properly so.22



       "... Congress possesses all of the powers which existed in the
States before the adoption of the National Constitution, and
which have always existed in the Parliament in England."23



So let us briefly examine English Common Law and see just what
type of monetary powers the King of England had. Consider the
following words from a landmark case in 1604:24



       "[A]s the king by his prerogative may make money of what matter
and form he pleaseth, and establish the standard of it, so may
he change his money in substance and impression, and enhance or
debase the value of it, or entirely decry and annul it...



       "And so it is manifest, that the kings of England have always
had and exercised the prerogative of coining and changing the
form, and when they found it expedient of enhancing and debasing
the value of money within their dominions; and this prerogative
is allowed and approved not only by the common law, but also by
the rules of the imperial law."25



And so if the King of England had the right to invoke
Sovereignty Jurisdiction to circulate debased currency, then so
also does the Congress of the United States now have similar
Sovereignty Jurisdiction, absent an explicit and blunt
jurisdictional restraining mandate to the contrary in this
charter, the Constitution -- paper currency restrainment
language which does not exist.26



Nowhere in our Constitution did the Framers state that "no paper
currency shall issue out of Congress," or "circulating currency
is required to physically contain gold and silver," and Patriot
arguments to the effect that Article I, Section 10 constitutes
such a restrainment are defective, as I will explain later on.
Nor did the Framers state that "monetary matters reside
exclusively within the Congress, and cannot be delegated..." Are
you beginning to see what happens when some agreement is reduced
into writing? With the passage of time, oral expectations in
effect at the time the agreement was executed diminish away into
nothingness, and only the exact, literal content of the
agreement, as written, means anything.27



Today when we enter into contracts with one another down here,
as unforeseen circumstances surface later on, regrets are always
quietly expressed about how this or that should have been
originally included into the agreement. It was that way with
Moses and the Ten Commandments, it was that way with the United
States Constitution of 1787, and this attribute of Nature [of
people enlarging their basis of factual knowledge over time, and
therefore also changing their desires] remains in full force and
effect down to the present day with Commercial contracts. An
honest assessment of the Framers would suggest that they were
unable to guard against all possible evils, since they simply
did not have, then, the exposure to the magnitude of evil that
we have had thrown at us today.



But as for currency28 itself as we now have it, synchronous with
King Richard II's unsuccessful conquest against France in the
1300's (and long before the King of England's chartering of the
Bank of England in 1694 under Gremlin prompting and intellectual
guidance), 29 the special SUB ROSA relationship that was
developed between the circulation in King's Commerce of paper
money by the King and a grand Tort the King intends to work,
still remains in full force and effect down to the present day
in the United States.30



Anglo-Saxon Kings have a long history of never bothering to stop
pulling off whatever they can get away with.31 For example, in
the 1500's, the King of England (actually Queen Elizabeth)
ordered a debasement of Britain's national currency for the
express purpose of working a Tort on rebels in Ireland. This
carefully planned currency debasement was explicitly designed to
damage these Irish adversaries of the Crown as an act of war.
When these debased coins were issued out all over England to the
public at large, they became known as MIXED MONEY due to the
novel alloy composition in the coins, meaning a hybrid of part
precious and part ordinary metals. This degenerate mixed money
was then sent by the King of England to Ireland as a covert war
military measure against the rebels there. The rebels were
buying supplies abroad, and they were making their purchases by
using valuable Britannic gold and silver coins, which always had
an international allure to them, and properly so. So the King
decided that the best way to stop the rebels from making their
arms purchases would be by making their money unattractive to
their suppliers, foreign gun runners. In making their purchases
of guns and armaments, the rebels had been obtaining their gold
and silver English Crown coins from loyal British subjects in
the course of ordinary dealings, and those subjects in turn had
received it from Queen Elizabeth's soldiers and others
functioning as Crown distribution agents. So the King, knowing
what he does about using both devalued coin and soft paper
currency to damage adversaries, simply reduced the value of the
money the rebels were getting, by clever debasement. Although
debasing the currency to damage a rebel out in some remote place
carries the secondary consequence of damaging loyal subjects who
mean the Crown no harm; so as to not offend the Crown's
subjects, the Queen promised to redeem this debased money at
face value later on [sound familiar today?]32



But as for the rebels in Ireland, now the debased Crown coins
were being rejected by the foreign gun runners as payment for
goods they had been selling to the rebels, and so, as the
supplies to the rebels were cut off at the source in this slick
and clever way, the plans for conquest by the rebels was
frustrated.33



The English Case of 1604 that I had quoted from above called THE
MIXED MONEY CASE was a challenge to the authority of the King of
England to pull off what he did against Irish rebels, and as you
read above in a quotation from the Case, the Judiciary has
declared that it is a Sovereign prerogative of the King to
debase his own currency, whenever and however the King feels
like it. [And rather than snicker at Judges today for tossing
aside your challenges to paper money, the correct remedy lies in
writing explicit and blunt restraining language into the King's
Charter (the Constitution), but our Framers in 1787 never did
that; and the Framers of 1787 did not write in such explicit and
blunt restrainments for a very good reason; Because there was
strong reservations expressed on the floor of the Convention on
whether such proposed restrainments were really provident.34



That Mixed Money Case was a sleeper, as our Framers never
correctly designed the Constitution to repel this special type
of quiet SUB ROSA political aggression; and 250 years later,
that Mixed Money Case surfaced in the Supreme Court of the
United States, in the context of justifying the Civil War era
Legal Tender Acts.35 Down to the present day, the excitement of
war is used as a justification to either initiate or continue
one more turn in Gremlin enscrewment objectives.36



So now we should have some minimum discernment to see why
contemporary representations to the effect that gold is just too
unsuitable by its heavy bulk weight to be a modern circulating
denomination of currency, as both fraudulent and factually
defective. Paper money is characterized by its depreciating
nature.37 Fraudulent because people with sinister intentions use
debased currency (and non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes that
quietly lose a little decremental value with each passing year
are debased currency) for political conquest and to damage their
adversaries.38



And such representations are factually defective because the
King's new proposed money (which the Treasury Department has
already quietly circulated prototypes of) has thin strips of
metal imbedded in between layers of paper, and those strips of
metal could just as easily have been alloyed with gold and
silver if our King wanted it -- but no, our King is not quite
through with his MAGNUM Tortfeasance, not just yet.39



And just as Patriots go right ahead and argue defective
reasoning based on the milktoast language in Article I, Section
10, so too do Patriots go right ahead and try to argue the line,
that well, since the United States has no express grant of
jurisdiction to create corporations, therefore, the Federal
Reserve Board is unConstitutional for this reason. I have
concluded that if I were on the Supreme Court, I would uphold
the inherent jurisdiction of the King to organize corporations
(or any other instrumentality that had its own separate
treasury, with the King calling that instrument whatever he
feels like).40



That idea of a separate treasury is important to the Supreme
Court, since that is the determining logic behind their rulings
making municipalities exempt from the 11th Amendment, which
otherwise operates to immunize actions against states.41 My
reasoning comes from a confluence of factors. First, getting a
feel for the lack of specificity in the Framer's drafting of the
Constitution; for example, no where is the King given permission
to hire employees, to excavate sites for office buildings, to
sign leases, or to purchase assets or land in foreign lands,
etc. In examining those areas where the Supreme Court has ruled
on inherent meanings of Clauses, they have ruled, for example,
that the "Adversary Nature" of criminal prosecutions is inherent
in the Sixth Amendment [MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA and the counsel
cases], and that Courts created by the United States have
inherent Contempt jurisdiction, regardless of the absence of the
conferment of any such jurisdiction.42



And on and on. For these reasons there is very much a basis for
an implied grant of jurisdiction for the King to do something,
not otherwise specifically denominated in his Charter. The test
to be applied to see if some jurisdiction claimed operative by
the King, but not exactly specified anywhere in that
Constitutional Charter of his which breathed life into the King
his breath of juristic life, lies in another strata: First, is
the challenged LEX even inferentially in conflict with any
restraining mandate the Framers wrote into the Constitution? In
the limited question of creating corporations, the answer is no,
it isn't. Next, we shift into the broader question and ask: Is
the creation of corporations even out of harmony with the LEIT
MOTIF of the Constitution to restrain the King from functioning
as a Tortfeasor?43



Does the challenged act of Congress (creating corporations or
other political instruments with separate treasuries), have the
effect, in the practical setting, of allowing or in any way
assisting the King to function as a Tortfeasor against us
countryside folks? In other words, does the creation of
privately held corporations by the King, such as the Federal
Reserve System, provide the King with a mechanism to damage us
that he would not otherwise be privileged to do, or able to do
in the practical effect with his own direct employees? In the
case of creating corporations, or in the creation of separate
juristic organizations with their own treasuries, the
administrative form of the corporation (the wording on the piece
of paper that is its charter) offers no possibility of a Tort on
us that could not be otherwise worked by Executive Agencies
operating under direct Presidential administrative jurisdiction.
This is true even in the case of the Federal Reserve System. The
Fed is very much a Tortfeasor in its control over the rate of
inflation,44 and in its proclivities to do so; and from its
being such a dominate financial market maker and control of
re-discount rates its Open Market Committee can and will fix
rates of interest at whatever level it feels like; and the
Gremlins running the Fed know very much that they posses
considerable power to determine prosperity levels.45



By controlling these financial market forces, the Fed
single-handedly controls the relative level of economic
prosperity or decline in the land.46 If the Fed were an
administrative agency under, perhaps, the Comptroller of the
Currency, then all of the regulatory assertions it now makes
over member banks would remain in effect, and it would still
control prosperity through its regulatory mechanisms.
(Incidentally, the mere absence of prosperity, under such highly
managed and tightly controlled monetary circumstances, is a Tort
against us by the Fed).47



If the Federal Reserve were an Article II Executive Agency under
Presidential Jurisdiction (which as a privately owned and
independently managed business entity, it is not), then every
single decision made by the Federal Reserve Board and its Open
Market Committee (and its predecessor) down to the present time,
would still have been made and carried out.48 The only
existential reason for the Fed's corporate organizational legal
structure lies in the fact that the Fed was sponsored, as you
know, by a Special Interest Group for their own private
enrichment:49 A network of Gremlins operating under the
intellectual aegis of Rothschild nominee Paul Warburg and
associates, who prodded and tricked an otherwise reticent and
naive Congress into enacting the initiating legislation in
1913.50



Designed by Gremlins the way it was,51 and because of its
private corporate ownership and lack of public accountability to
the Congress and to the public.52 The Fed has never been audited
by the GAO,53 the Fed as a privately owned corporation is able
to provide its European owners with an exceptionally lush
American gold mine they would not otherwise experience if title
to Federal Reserve stock were ever to be reclaimed by the
Congress under EMINENT DOMAIN JURISDICTION, or simple repeal, or
repurchased under a reservation in its charter.54



So the Fed exists as a private independent corporation because
it was created to act as a financial enrichment velocity
accelerant for its owners [I have a hunch that it is also the
single most profitable wealth institution in the world,
outdancing and outdazzling the top Fortune 100, as well as the
Vatican and several "for profit" political jurisdictions]. The
Status of the Federal Reserve System as a Tortfeasor is not
related to its legal charter organization as a corporation, and
neither would its Tortfeasance be changed, either negative or
positive at all, if it ever were to be absorbed into the
Executive Presidential bureaucracy of Article II. As an
Executive Article II agency, then it would still control
inflation since it would still be controlled by Gremlins; and it
would continue to control interest rates and relative levels of
prosperity through its regulatory mechanisms.55



That this Tortfeasance is transparent to its organized form is
true because all Torts originate with people, and at the Fed,
there is now a man as chairman who is uniquely qualified to
operate as a joint Tortfeasor with the Rothschilds and work
MAGNUM OPUS Torts on us all: Gremlin Paul Volcker.56



This is the same Treasury Department staff member Paul Volcker
who played a supporting role in the theft of American gold
bullion deposits from Fort Knox in the 1960's,57 and the same
Paul Volcker who now holds a controlling executive position in
the Fed, a position that when he campaigned for it in 1978, he
openly called for the "controlled disintegration" of the United
States.58



Since the corporate structure of the King's peripheral
Commercial interests, of and by themselves, do not provide the
King with a mechanism to work Torts on us he would be otherwise
restrained from doing through executive agencies, I have no
objection to the King creating corporations, and I would suggest
that arguments to the contrary will likely be rebuffed by the
Supreme Court.59 If at all you question the legal authenticity
of my conclusory statements, then please read M'CULLOCH VS.
MARYLAND,60 and tell me that the Congress cannot create
corporations or nationally chartered banks. In that case, the
Supreme Court specifically talks, at length, about the
Constitutionality of creating corporations, and the implied
powers of Congress to do so.61



Also foolish is the line that I hear that no tax could possibly
be due to the King, because the IRS is not an Article II
Executive Agency and functions as a private contracting
corporation.62 I see no general impediment to the King hiring
private contractors to assist him in tax collections.63 Private
contract bounty hunters have been used to find criminal
fugitives for centuries, so why aren't you Protestors objecting
to that? Incidentally, in the old days of our Mother England in
the 1700's, there was a practice going around Europe called
PRIVATEERING, which is when small privately owned armed navies
would roam the High Seas in search of prizes to steal for
themselves. A PRIVATEER, then, is an armed vessel, owned, fitted
out, and manned by private parties with a legal commission from
a political jurisdiction authorizing it to capture the vessels
and cargo's of the enemy. This legal commission, called a LETTER
OF MARQUE, impressed upon the PRIVATEER'S banditry an aura of
legitimacy in International Law, without which Privateers would
be hung as pirates by any nation's ships fast enough to capture
one. But back safely at home, the LETTER OF MARQUE also served
as a legal basis for an Admiralty Court to condemn the captured
property, the Prize, and assign it over to the Privateers
themselves who stole it (this was also called PRIZE
JURISDICTION).64



       [In remarkably similar ways today in the United States, private
contracting Privateers are at work in the IRS, acting under a
legal commission, which largely precludes the imposition of
Civil Rights damages because of their operating under the
recourse protective umbrella (color) of Governmental authority;
and like the Privateers of old, today's tax loot is also handed
over to a private party: To the owners of the Federal Reserve
System, for payment on the King's National Debt. And even more
astounding in parallel, today's IRS collection of loot and
banditry is also governed under a Federal Court acting under the
rules of Admiralty Jurisdiction, as I will explain later on.]



That analogy between the PRIVATEERS of old out on the High Seas,
and of today's private contracting termites inside the IRS
sounds pretty good, doesn't it? The requisite blend of
comparative background elements of thievery are present, an
underlying tone of IRS illegitimacy runs throughout the analogy,
and that, generally is the kind of talk Tax Protestors like to
hear... "looters," "theft," "banditry" and the like. Yes,
analogies like that are music to the ears of Tax Protestors
EXTRAORDINAIRE like Irwin Schiff,65 and Representative George
Hansen.66



But just one tiny little problem surfaces here which makes the
PRIVATEERS TO IRS TERMITES analogy fall apart and collapse, a
tiny little problem Irwin Schiff and George Hansen do not want
to talk about -- a tiny little problem most folks had better
start to talk about, NOW, before getting in front of Father at
the Last Day: An invisible Contract. Today, the Protestor has
entered into a series of invisible contracts with the King,
numerous contracts which are invisible to the Protestors, as I
will explain later on, so now all of those termites in the IRS
are merely collecting monies rightfully due the King by
contract, whereas in contrast the PRIVATEERS of old had no such
contract in effect to grab the property belonging to others.
Therefore, if I was a Federal Magistrate, I don't know if I
would be as patient as some of the State and Federal Magistrates
I have seen in hearings and trials in trying to explain error to
a Constitutionalist, so called, but whose words were falling on
death ears. One prime example of how the carefully chosen words
of a Federal Judge falls on death ears, occurs when a petitioner
is being rebuffed when throwing a challenge to the
Constitutionality of either the Federal Reserve System or
Federal Reserve Notes at the Judge. One of the reasons why
Federal Magistrates and the United States Supreme Court are so
reluctant to declare the Fed or its Notes as being
unConstitutional [aside from the fact that many Federal Judges
find the idea to be philosophically uncomfortable and
ideologically irritating] is because, as a matter of Law, the
use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes falls under the
governing doctrine applicable to Commercial Contract Law
Jurisprudence, so the Constitution is largely irrelevant right
from the beginning, as the entire closed private domain of
King's Commerce is a benefit/privilege created by the Congress,
and there is nothing in the Constitution to restrain it.67



Assuming for a moment, ARGUENDO, that the interposition of
Contract Law was irrelevant, then aside from that there are a
large number of separate and distinct sources of jurisdiction
the King can claim as authority to issue out debased paper
currency. But before listing those sources, we need to back up a
step. An examination of the Federal Reserve's Charter also
reveals that, in Warburg's devilishly brilliant cleverness, the
Congress never recited any specific sources of Constitutional
Jurisdiction when it created the Fed. Nowhere in its Charter
does it say something like "... the powers of Article I, Section
10 are hereby invoked..." An examination of numerous other
statutory programs reveals that the Congress rarely ever bothers
to recite its claimed sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction for
those programs either (in those Acts that I have searched
through). Since the Congress did not recite any Constitutional
sources of authority when it allegedly passed the Federal
Reserve Act,68 this now means that whenever a Protestor comes
forward today and throws a Case at a Federal Judge where the
Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is being challenged,
the United States Attorney General is thereby free to throw any
set of defensive arguments back at the Protestor that the
Attorney General feels like, in order to justify the
Constitutionality of the challenged Act of Congress. The bottom
line is that the Attorney General can and will claim sources of
Constitutional Jurisdiction at some future date that the
Congress never really contemplated when it originally created
the program (if a quorum ever really did exist to create the
Fed). However unfair this appears to be, would someone please
show me where the Constitution requires the Congress to recite
its enabling Jurisdiction on each Act it passes? The Framers
were also negligent in this respect, and so there is no such
recital requirement, and so now the Attorney General is free to
come up with a long list of claimed sources of Constitutional
Jurisdiction that the Protestor never ever dreamed of; a list
that the Congress never really considered at the time of
possible enactment; a list that Federal Judges are well
acquainted with; a list that I will be showing you later on.



But first, we need to cover some background material so the
concepts I am about to explain can be understood easily.
Remember that correct Principles of Nature operate across all
factual settings; if the Principle is correct, what works in one
factual setting will work for similar reasons in another
setting. So with that in mind, if we had a power boat built for
us, and that boat had say, 12 gas tanks built into it (perhaps
distributed throughout the hull as ballast to achieve some
desired weight and loading balancing effects), or if we were
piloting an L-1011 jet aircraft with the numerous bladder, wing,
and fuselage fuel tanks that it has located throughout its body,
then in order for the boat or jet to be stopped dead cold, all
fuel tanks individually need to be empty, first. If so much as
one fuel tank has any fuel in it at all, then the boat or jet
will continue forward at maximum cruising velocity, without any
letup, until all tanks are completely empty. Only the complete
exhaustion of all fuel from all of the separate fuel tanks,
without any exceptions, will return the jet or boat into that
quiescent state of rest that it once came from. The fact that
one or several of the fuel tanks may be vacant of fuel will
offer no propulsion impairment or reduction in velocity -- NONE
WHATSOEVER.



As we turn from a high-powered machine or aviation setting where
a manufactured product is under propulsion from multiple and
independent sources of fuel, as we turn from that setting to a
setting where a legal product was also manufactured by men, like
the Federal Reserve Board (Incorporated), we found out that its
propulsion also originates from multiple sources of
jurisdictional fuel. And so in order to return the Federal
Reserve Board to its quiescent STATUS QUO ANTE state of
non-existence, of pre-December, 1913, then a large number of
separate and distinct sources of Constitutional fuel need to be
individually voided. If so much as one single source of
Constitutional fuel is left remaining -- just so much as one
single Clause -- by having survived the blows of a Protestor in
adversary judicial proceedings, then the Federal Reserve Board
will carry on at maximum cruising velocity with the same
identical full force and effect as if the Protestor had never
thrown anything at the Fed. Mindful of this background
information, now we can discuss the multiple sources of
jurisdictional fuel that the King has got up his sleeve to
retortionally throw back at pesky little Protestors.



While examining the main Legal Tender and National bank related
cases in the Supreme Court,69 we see that the right of the
Congress to create a bank and have that bank issue out national
currency, as well the right of Congress to designate anything it
wants as Legal Tender, is a power directly related to the right
of the Congress, by both express and incidental powers:



       1.      To declare war;70

       2.      To suppress insurrection;

       3.      To raise and support armies;71

       4.      To provide and maintain a navy (notice the words "maintain"
and "support," as they mean financially through taxes and money);

       5.      To regulate Interstate Commerce;72

       6.      To facilitate the laying and collecting of taxes;73

       7.      Existing as an attribute of Sovereignty;74

       8.      To coin and circulate money pursuant to Article I, Section 8;

       9.      To pay debts and facilitate the borrowing of money on the
credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8);75

       10.     To provide for the common defense and general welfare.



all of which were involved, to a lessor and greater extent, at
the time the LEGAL TENDER ACTS were enacted by the Congress in
the Civil War era of the 1800's.76 And the correlation in effect
between the right to enact Legal Tender Statutes and the various
War Powers of the Congress applies both in times of war,77 and
also in times of peace. 78



So what is important for Tax Protestors to understand is that
when they attack either the Federal Reserve in whole or part, or
the designation of its CIRCULATING EVIDENCES OF DEBT at Legal
Tender -- and the Protestor goes through all of the Supreme
Court rulings on the MONEY COIN CLAUSE in Article I, Section
8,79 and all the Constitutional Convention debates on the MONEY
COIN CLAUSE, and the material discussed in secret Convention
meetings back in 1787, and all of the Legislation enacted
pursuant thereto, and all of the quotations from the Founding
Fathers, such as in Max Farrand's works80 or "The Federalist,"
and numerous other private correspondence, and all the lower
court opinions on CHOSES IN ACTION and coins and debasement
theories, and of their citations on the monetary disabilities of
the United States; after the Tax Protestor goes through all that
work and effort, he has only told the Supreme Court about 10% of
what the Supreme Court needs to hear in order to invalidate the
Status of Federal Reserve Notes as Legal Tender instruments:
Because the right to create banks and let that bank circulate
Legal Tender is also related to WAR POWERS and the SUPPRESSION
OF DOMESTIC INSURRECTIONS, to RAISING TAXES,81 the INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, the Article I, Section 8 MONEY COIN CLAUSE, and
the RAISING AND FINANCING ARMIES AND NAVIES CLAUSES, and of
course SOVEREIGNTY itself -- and they are independent
stand-alone sources of jurisdiction that have to be attacked
individually, just like a jet or boat with several fuel tanks
needs to have each separate tank vacated before the vehicle will
come to a stationary state.82



Will someone please tell me how to challenge the Fed based on
the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE?83 What grant of intervening and
manipulative power is more broad than the Interstate Commerce
Clause? With that Clause, anything goes. How are you going to
attack Federal Reserve Notes as being a defective use of the
RAISING AND FINANCING OR ARMIES AND NAVIES CLAUSES?84



The answer is that you are not going to. There are some sharp
attorneys like Edwin Vieira (Mr. Solyom's attorney),85 and on
the other hand there are some INTELLIGENTSIA clowns; and any
judicial rebuffment experienced by attorneys throwing Protestor
caliber arguments at Federal Judges is a FULLY EARNED ACCOUNT
>phrase originated by Ayn Rand<, as any flaky arguments centered
singularly around just the GOLD AND SILVER COIN CLAUSE of
Article I, Section 10 are just plain stupid: You are misleading
your readers, delivering naught to your clients for your fees,
and as attorneys you should know better.86



Other rulings also affirm the broad application of monetary
powers. Later on in VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO,87 the Chief Justice,
speaking for the Supreme Court, ruled that it is the
Constitutional right of the Congress to provide a currency for
the whole country; and that this might be done with coin, or by
United States Notes, or by notes of banks chartered by the
Congress. Other cases replicate the same line. For example:



       "In VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO [75 U.S. 533 (1869)], decided at the
present term, this court held, after full consideration, that it
was the privilege of Congress to furnish this country with the
currency to be used by it in the transaction of business,
whether this was done by means of coin, of notes of the United
States, or of banks created by Congress."88



So asking a Federal Judge to declare the Federal Reserve System
or its Notes as being unConstitutional based on the MONETARY
CLAUSE of Article I, Section 8 is facially only a small slice of
the larger total argument pie that Judges need to hear.89 One of
the reasons lies in the right of Congress to regulate Interstate
Commerce through its COMMERCE CLAUSE (and arguing deficiencies
in that jurisdiction is foolishness). So any Constitutional
infirmity or tension in effect between the Federal Reserve
System and Article I, Section 8 offers no reason whatever for
dissolving the Fed; as the COMMERCE CLAUSE neatly picks up all
the loose ends where the restrictive coinage jurisdiction
conferred by Article I, Section 8 might possibly be imperfect,
and renders Judicial dissolution of the Fed inappropriate.90



Yes, Virginia, Paul Warburg knew what he was doing. But even
that is not the full story.



QUESTION: How are you Protestors going to attack Federal Reserve
Notes on the floor of the United States Supreme Court? How are
you going to attack Sovereignty itself? Are you going to try and
attack the essence of Sovereignty itself by quoting from the
devil himself? If you can't find a quotation from Lucifer
slicing down Sovereignty, then maybe a quotation from one of his
hard working Gremlin assistants might be a point of beginning.91



Well, an attack on Sovereignty like that, although a majestic
goal for Gremlins as they tear down our existing Constitution
and the Juristic Institution it created, and try and replace it
with their own, is not much. So now just how does an inherent
prerogative of the Sovereign, of this right to issue out money
any way he feels like it, violate the King's Charter? Answer:
There is no violation -- there is no express Clause restraining
the Congress to circulate only that currency that physically
contains gold and silver -- and you are not going to get the
chance before the Supreme Court to attack it.92



Our Founding Fathers did not tie the King's giblets down tight
enough with that level of explicit and blunt language that all
Kings need to be restrained by.93 And so any attack on Federal
Reserve Notes will require such an explicit and bluntly worded
Constitutional Amendment, and that is a political operation for
the Legislatures to handle, not something lending itself well in
nature to a Judicial remedy. At best the Judiciary can rule on
cases with the outcome carefully designed to give the Congress
an incentive to get going. An honest assessment of the total
factual setting of monetary history in the United States will
emphasize general naivete among the members of the American
legislatures in 1787: They didn't know what they were doing,
collectively speaking, although there were a few who did raise
their voices in opposition to paper money, like Roger Sherman.94



Remember that the Britannic Crown was still quite popular then,
and the American Revolution was a minority rights operation,
with many bleeding heart native Americans opposing severance
from the Crown. And there were also just too few George Masons
to go around. The experientially wise know that you never, ever
deal with a King with negative restraining clauses in contracts
except under the most explicit and blunt words that the English
Language offers, because the King will always figure out ways to
claim some implicit permission to work his way around a
restraining clause that is sounding in milktoast; but our
Fathers didn't do that. And compounding the problem drafting
such specific language, sprinkled in between the floor debates
and political comprises, were a few traitors of strong influence
(like Alexander Hamilton, who married indirectly into the House
of Rothschild),95 who knew exactly what they were doing, for and
on behalf of their sponsors.96



One might think that with the passage of time, an increase in
political SAVOIR FAIRE might just develop nationally. But no. If
a Constitutional Convention were held over again today, as is
quite close to happening, I am afraid of the consequences. We
need a Constitutional Convention today in the 1980's like we
need the Ortega Brothers >of Nicaraguan infamy< in the United
States Senate representing the State of New Hampshire.
Conservatives believing a new Constitutional Convention, called
for the purpose of a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, are playing into
the hands of Gremlins, who fully intend to use that
Constitutional Convention to replace our Father's Constitution
with their own; in fact that is how the Constitution of 1787 was
proposed to the States, as a replacement for the ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION. And if you don't think Gremlins are smart enough
to use parliamentary devices to work their way around wording in
some State Resolutions calling for such a Convention (attempting
to limit the subject matter discussed in the Convention to just
the content of the BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT), then you have no
knowledge whatsoever of Gremlins, and you are not even qualified
to exercise such political judgment today when in fact Gremlins
now hold the upper hand in the United States.97 And Gremlins are
not about to let a Constitutional Convention come and go in the
United States without putting up a good fight. 98



If you want to get a good preview and feel for the class of new
Constitution that such a convention would produce, just examine
the caliber of Presidents elected in recent history99

1 DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS, 161 U.S. 275, at 283 (1896).

The factual setting giving rise to DAVIS was a Bankruptcy
proceeding. In the many quotations from the United States
Supreme Court and other judicial forums in this Letter,
sentences were rearranged and then quoted out of original order
for enhanced logical continuity; and in other places I made
nominal punctuation and capitalization changes. Therefore,
please refer to the original citations before requoting.

2 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, under the "Instrumentality Rule [case
cites deleted].

3 The corporation is the legal owner of all of the property of
the bank, real and personal; and within the powers conferred
upon it by the charter, and for the purposes for which it was
created, can deal with the corporate property as absolutely as a
private individual can deal with his own. This is familiar law,
and will be found in every work that may be opened in the
subject of corporations. A striking exemplification may be seen
in the case of THE QUEEN VS. ARMOUND, 9 Ad. & Ell. N.S. 806. The
question related to the registry of a ship owned by a
corporation. Lord Denman observed:

       "It appears to me that the British corporation is, as such, the
sole owner of the ship. The individual members to the
corporation are no doubt interested in one sense in the property
of the corporation, as they may derive individual benefits from
its increase, or loss from its decrease; but in no legal sense
are the individual members the owners."

       - THE BANK TAX CASES, 70 U.S. 573, at 584 (1865).

4 "The interest of the shareholder entitles him to participate
in the net profits earned by the bank in the employment of its
capital, during the existence of its charter, in proportion to
the number of his shares; and, upon its dissolution or
termination, to his proportion of the property that may remain
of the corporation after the payment of its debts."

       - THE BANK TAX CASES, id., at 584.

5 Not that Father is throwing us all into a LAKE OF FIRE AND
BRIMSTONE to scorch us thoroughly (Heathens really get a good
kick out of that foolish idea of being roasted in a scorcher by
a revengeful god for a few little impish smatterings); but the
Last Day Judgement will actually be the WORSE IMAGINABLE because
of knowledge we will then possess of the magnitude of the lost
benefits involved, and how stupid it was to lose it down here
over some interesting feminine musculature, and other
inappropriate adventurism into peripheral areas that are defined
as being illicit by First Estate Covenants, but are not really
illicit practically due to the omission of damages. The LAKE OF
FIRE AND BRIMSTONE analogy that the Prophets of old were
referring to is their characterization of this state of mental
anguish.

6 The NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT has been of particular
interest with all of our Patriarchs and Prophets of old, right
back down the line, clear back to Adam:

       Question: What is this NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT?

       Answer: Without referring to anyone's commentary or
explanation, the name of this particular Celestial Covenant
reveals a slice of history by itself, as the words NEW AND
EVERLASTING possibly imply that other Covenants exist that might
be just the opposite: OLD AND TEMPORARY. Are there in fact such
Covenants floating around? Yes, there are, but they are
invisible; Father extracted them out of us in the First Estate
before we came down here, and by their nature those temporary
First Estate Covenants were designed to be replaced with NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANTS, Covenants that would never again be
replaced, Covenants that are EVERLASTING. The anonymous author
who once wrote a Letter now known as HEBREWS in the New
Testament, once had a few words to say about OLD Covenants and
NEW Covenants, average Covenants and better Covenants, FIRST
Covenants and SECOND Covenants:

       "... now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how
much also he is the mediator of a better Covenant, which was
established upon better promises. For if that FIRST COVENANT HAD
BEEN FAULTLESS, THEN SHOULD NO PLACE HAVE BEEN SOUGHT FOR THE
SECOND [Covenant]. For finding fault with them, he saith,
`Behold, the days come,' saith the Lord, `when I will make a NEW
Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah.'
.. In that he saith, `A NEW Covenant,' he hath made the first
old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to varnish
away."

       - HEBREWS 8:6, et seq.

       The next chapter in HEBREWS talks about the HOLY OF HOLIES,
Temples, the ARK OF THE COVENANT, and First and Second
Covenants, which is advanced material I will talk about in
another Letter. I do not know who wrote this LETTER TO THE
HEBREWS; within its content the text contains little information
about either its author, its original readers and their
circumstances, its date, its overt purpose, or its theological
background. HEBREWS commences immediately by laying on the heavy
stuff, while the greetings appear at the end. Even its literary
form is somewhat mysterious in the sense that by probing into
dimensionally deep Christian doctrines, the left the other
Commentators behind him biting the dust; words and phrases
appearing in HEBREWS appear nowhere else [for example, the
phrase JESUS, THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW COVENANT -- (see 12:24,
9:15, and 8:6) -- does not appear anywhere else in either the
Old or New Testaments]. Martin Luther once made the suggestion
that Apollos of Alexandria was the writer [APOLLOS is described
in ACTS 18:24-28 as being a caliber of a fellow who would and
could write HEBREWS]. Suffice it to say that the doctrinal ideas
and ecclesiastical commentary presented in HEBREWS will feel
very comfortable to folks today after they have first been
steeped in the DOCTRINES OF THE NEW COVENANT for a while, as
both originated from the same Source (the significance of
HEBREWS will be appreciated once you have an enlarged basis of
factual knowledge on the successive organic nature of Covenants
serving their purpose and then replacing previous Covenants, and
in turn being replaced by still other Covenants). While calling
itself a WORD OF EXHORTATION [13:22], the LETTER TO THE HEBREWS
contains some of the most eloquent writings and sermons in the
New Testament, and whoever its author was, had to be a gifted
Christian thinker who probed into the deeper doctrines of
Christianity where few others did. I

will have more to say about HEBREWS in some other Letter.

       -- I said that this NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT has been a
source of interest to all

of the great Patriarchs back down the line -- and I meant what I
said -- so here are the citations:

       "... and I will look upon it, that I may remember the
EVERLASTING COVENANT between God and every living creature..."

       - GENESIS 6:18

       "... I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy
Seed [SEED meaning offspring] after thee in their generation for
an EVERLASTING COVENANT, to be a God upon thee, and to thy Seed
after thee."

       - GENESIS 17:7

       "... my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an EVERLASTING
COVENANT."

       - GENESIS 17:13

       "And God said `Sarah, thy wife, shall bear thee a son indeed;
and thou shalt call his name Isaac: And I will establish my
Covenant with him for an EVERLASTING COVENANT, and with his Seed
after him."

       - GENESIS 17:19

       "Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord
continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an
EVERLASTING COVENANT."

       - LEVITICUS 24:8

       "And he shall have it, and his Seed after him, even the
Covenant of an EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD..."

       - NUMBERS 25:13

       "Although my house be not so with God, yet he hath made with me
an EVERLASTING COVENANT, ordered in all things, and sure: For
this is all my Salvation, and all my desire..."

       - II SAMUEL 23:5

       "He is the Lord our God; His Judgements are in all the Earth;
be mindful always of His Covenant; the word which He commanded
to a thousand generations; even of the Covenant He made with
Abraham, and of his Oath unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same
to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an EVERLASTING COVENANT..."

       - I CHRONICLES 16:14 et seq.

       "He is the Lord our God; His Judgments are in all the Earth; He
hath remembered His Covenant for ever; the word which He
commanded to a thousand generations; which Covenant He made with
Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same to
Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an EVERLASTING COVENANT..."

       - PSALM 105:7 et seq.

       "... the Earth is also defiled under the inhabitants thereof;
because they have transgressed the Laws, changed the Ordinance,
broken the EVERLASTING COVENANT."

       - ISAIAH 55:3

       "... everlasting joy shall be unto them.. and I will direct
their work in Truth, and I will make an EVERLASTING COVENANT
with them."

       - ISAIAH 61:8 et seq.

       "... and I will make an EVERLASTING COVENANT with them..."

       - JEREMIAH 32:40

       "... nevertheless, I will remember my Covenant with thee in the
days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an EVERLASTING
COVENANT."

       - EZEKIEL 16:60

       "Moreover, I will make a Covenant of peace with them; it shall
be an EVERLASTING COVENANT with them; and I will place them, and
multiply them..."

       - EZEKIEL 37:26

       "... now the God of peace... that great shepard of the sheep,
through the blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT."

       - HEBREWS 13:20

       "For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken
mine EVERLASTING COVENANT..."

       - DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 1:15

       "Wherefore, I, the Lord... gave commandments to others, that
they should proclaim these things unto the world... that mine
EVERLASTING COVENANT might be established."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 1:17 et seq.

       "Behold, I say unto you that all old Covenants have I caused to
be done away with in this things; and this is a NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANT, even that which was from the beginning."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 22:1

       "Wherefore I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine
EVERLASTING COVENANTS, even that which was from the beginning."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 49:9

       "Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine
EVERLASTING COVENANT... sent forth unto the children of men,
that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories
which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by
the Prophets and Apostles in days of old."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 66:2

       "... in the telestial world... [there will be goofs;]... these
are they who say they are some of one and some of another --
some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of
Elias, and some of Esaisis, and some of Isaiah, and some of
Enoch [by being of Moses, of John, of Jack, of Pete, of Harry,
of Bob, of Ted -- they are

spiritually disorganized in that they are OF anyone except the
right One]; but received not the Gospel, neither the testimony
of Jesus, neither the Prophets ["... it's all the same God -- I
just don't need me none of that Contract stuff"], neither the
EVERLASTING COVENANT."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 76:98 et seq.

       "Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, to prepare and
organize yourselves by a bond or EVERLASTING COVENANT that
cannot be broken."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 78:11

       "He that is appointed to be president, or teacher,... let him
offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or
remembrance of the EVERLASTING COVENANT."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 88:128 et seq.

       "I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or
remembrance of the EVERLASTING COVENANT, in which Covenant I
receive you to fellowship, in a determination that is fixed,
immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother
through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to wait in all
the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and
ever."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 88:133



       "When men are called unto mine Everlasting Gospel, and Covenant
with an EVERLASTING COVENANT, they are accounted as the salt of
the Earth and the savor of men..."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 101:39

       "For behold, I reveal unto you a NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT,
it was instituted for the fullness of my Glory, and he that
receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the Law, or he
shall be damned, saith the Lord God. [Yes, those are pretty
strong consequences; but where there are high powered benefits,
there will always be found correlative high powered
consequences]."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 132:6

       "... verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word,
which is my Law, and by the NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT... ye
shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers
dominions, all heights and depths... they shall pass by the
angels, and the gods, which are set there, to the exaltation and
Glory in all things... and the angels are subject unto them."

       - DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 132:19

7 "The object of our earthly existence is that we may have a
fullness of joy, and that we may become the sons and daughters
of God, in the fullest sense of the word, being heirs of God and
joint heirs with Jesus Christ, to be kings and priests unto God,
to inherit glory, dominion, exaltation, thrones, and every power
and attribute developed and possessed by our Heavenly Father.
This is the object of our being on this Earth. In order to
obtain unto this exalted position, it is necessary that we go
through this mortal experience, or probation, by which we may
prove ourselves worthy, through the aid of our elder brother
Jesus."

       - Joseph F. Smith, in a Funeral Service delivered over the
daughter of Daniel H. Wells, on April 11, 1878; 19 JOURNAL OF
DISCOURSES 258, at 259 [London (1878)].

8 "A charter is certainly in form and substance a contract; it
is a grant of powers, rights, and privileges;

       "... A charter to a bank... is certainly a contract, founded on
valuable consideration."

       - Joseph Story, in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at
page 258 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1833).

       This Joseph Story, who I will be quoting from throughout this
Letter, was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts in September of
1779. He entered Harvard College and graduated in 1798. When
leaving Cambridge, he immediately entered into the study of Law
in the office of Mr. Samuel Sewall, then an advocate at the
Essex bar. In 1801, Joseph Story was admitted to the
Massachusetts bar. He was elected to the Massachusetts
Commonwealth Legislature in 1805, and was then elected to the
Congress in 1808, and was soon Speaker of the House of
Representatives. In 1810 he argued the great Georgia case
FLETCHER VS. PECK, which involved contracts, before the Supreme
Court. He edited a book called CHITTY ON BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND
PROMISSORY NOTES, and others. On November 18, 1811, Joseph Story
was commissioned to be an Associate Justice of the United States

Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Justice Cushing.
He was then 32 years of age, the youngest man ever to be called
to such a position in either England or America, except for
Justice Buller. While on the Supreme Court, Joseph Story
wrestled down questions on Admiralty and Maritime regarding the
rights and duties of ship owners,

insurance companies, and mariners. He was a major architect of,
and wrote extensively about, Patents and their role in English
history [see THE INFLUENCE OF MR. JUSTICE STORY ON AMERICAN
PATENT LAW by Frank Prager in 5 American Journal of Legal
History, at 254 (January, 1961)]. He created a doctrine to
settle frictional disputes between the Federal-State layers of
Government, called the COMITY DOCTRINE, which is still quoted by
the Supreme Court down to the present day [see JOSEPH STORY'S
CONTRIBUTION TO AMERICAN CONFLICTS LAW: A COMMENT by Kurt
Naddleman in 5 American Journal of Legal History, at 230
(January, 1961)]. And he also dealt with the banditry of PRIZE
JURISDICTION, which was still in vogue. Back at a time when
banking in the United States was operating under a LAISSEZ-FAIRE
relational status to Government, Joseph Story wrote that banking
affects a public interest [very significant words], and that
banking involves that most ancient prerogative of national
Sovereignty, THE MONEY POWER, which our Framers never restrained
or abated in the Charter they created for our King. >namely, the
U.S. Constitution< [See JUSTICE STORY AND THE AMERICAN LAW OF
BANKING by Gerald Dunne, in 5 American Journal of Legal History,
at 205 (January, 1961)]; and this is a dominant theme in
American Jurisprudence remaining in effect down to the present
day with George Mercier enlarging on what Joseph Story started.
While studying his COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, I have been
able to uncover only a few of Justice Story's opinions and legal
statements that were later reversed or otherwise toned down in
subsequent Federal rulings, and none of the reversals were
really on-point factual settings. Down to the present day in
1985, many of Joseph Story's statements of Law that he applied
to the hypothetical factual scenarios which he created in 1833
for his COMMENTARIES were actually made with great foresight, as
they would later be coming to pass long after he returned Home
in 1845. [For detailed biographies on all of the early Supreme
Court Justices, see THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES by
Hampton Carson [John Huber

Company, Philadelphia (1891)]; and also worthwhile is Morgan
David's JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY: A STUDY OF THE LEGAL PHILOSOPHY OF
A JEFFERSONIAN JUDGE in 18 Vanderbuilt Law Review, at 643
(March, 1965).

9 Exemplary perhaps would be two EXCLUSIONARY RULE based cases
from the Supreme Court:

       - UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). A criminally
accused person made a pre-Trial Motion to Suppress of copies of
checks and other bank records which federal agents had gotten a
hold of. HELD: That the Motion to Suppress was properly denied
since the accused person possessed no Fourth Amendment interest
that could be vindicated by a challenge to the bank accounts;
and any infirmities or deficiencies in the bank

account record acquisition process, by way of a defective
Subpoena or Search Warrant, were irrelevant arguments since
Subpoenas and Search Warrants were unnecessary document
acquisition tools to begin with; those bank account records are
the property of the Government, and they are available to the
Government under administrative devices (meaning an
investigator's phone call or letter inquiry); and

       - UNITED STATES VS. PAYNER, 447 U.S. 727 (1979). A criminal
defendant had been charged with falsifying his income tax return
by denying that he held a foreign bank account. Federal agents
in Florida had broken into an apartment and then surreptitiously
copied bank records that a bank manager from the Bahamas had
brought with him on a trip, under circumstances that you or I
would be incarcerated for. Later on, detective work back at the
office uncovered the fact that the poor defendant did indeed
maintain foreign bank accounts, so the Government then threw a
criminal prosecution at the fellow caught in the act of
defilement. Since the Government had violated the Constitutional
rights of a third party [the bank manager from the Bahamas], and
not the criminally accused, the Fourth Amendment offered no
protection to the Defendant, since the Defendant had no rights
violated.

       State in other words, perhaps more explicitly, emphasizing the
consequences of maintaining bank account records: When
Government obtains your bank account records, regardless of how,
through whom, when, or under any circumstances, then arguing
Fourth Amendment rights defensively will likely not produce any
sympathy from Federal Appellate Forums.

10 Paraphrased from UNITED STATES VS. PAYNER, id., at 731.

11 "... no interest legitimately protected by the Fourth
Amendment is implicated by governmental investigative activities
unless there is an intrusion into a zone of privacy, into `the
security a man relies upon when he places himself or his
property within a constitutionally protected area.'"

       - HOFFA VS. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 293, at 301 (1966).

12 "Respondent [bank account holder] urges that he has a Fourth
Amendment interest in the records kept by banks because they are
merely copies of personal records that were made available to
the banks for a limited purpose and in which he has a reasonable
expectation of privacy... Even if we direct our attention to the
original checks and deposit slips [that the bank account holder
kept in his home], rather than to the microfilm copies actually
viewed and obtained by means of a subpoena, we perceive no
legitimate `expectation of privacy' in their contents. The
checks are not confidential communications but negotiable
instruments to be used in commercial transactions. The lack of

ANY legitimate expectation of privacy concerning the information
kept in bank records was assumed by Congress in enacting the
BANK SECRECY ACT, the express purpose of which is to require
records to be maintained because they `HAVE A HIGH DEGREE OF
USEFULNESS IN CRIMINAL, TAX, AND REGULATORY INVESTIGATIONS AND
PROCEEDINGS' [12 U.S.C. Section 1829b(a)(1)]."

       - UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 442 (1976)

       The ITALICS were added here to underscore the extreme
significance of those statements; the Law in this FOURTH
AMENDMENT/BANK ACCOUNT area is well settled:  COMMERCIAL
contracts are in effect, and challenging it is improvident.
Notice how the Congress is playing cutesy by calling a
sequential family of statutes the BANK SECRECY ACT, freely
conveying the initially impressive image that these statutes
protect or otherwise

enhance the public's secrecy in banking accounts and related
records -- but in reality the BANK SECRECY ACT is a high-powered
statutory device, as the Supreme Court here exemplifies, to
promote the usefulness of those bank records in criminal
prosecutions that the Government will one day be throwing at
you. Among other things, this Act empowers the Secretary of the
Treasury to adopt broad regulations compelling banks to record
their customer's transactions and requiring that the banks, as
well as private persons using banking services, also report a
broad range of financial transactions TO THE GOVERNMENT [now
where is the "Secrecy"?] Pursuant to this grant of statutory

jurisdiction, the Treasury Secretary then turned around and
created his own multiplying slice of LEX by administrative
promulgations directing that each bank report each and every
single deposit, withdrawal, and transfer that took place in
domestic transactions of $10,000 or more [see 31 CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS Section 103.22].

13 Banking records seized from residences merely contain the
same information that other documents located in public places
contain; and so although those seized records are "private
papers," all the Government has to do is go down to the bank
[now that they know which bank to go to, and which account to
sift through], obtain duplicate copies of banking records, and
then throw those copies that were obtained directly from banks
at Defendants:

       "On their face, the documents [bank accounts] subpoenaed here
are not respondent's `private papers.' Unlike claimant in BOYD
VS. UNITED STATES [116 U.S. 616 (1886)], respondent [bank
account holder] can assert neither ownership nor possession.
Instead, these are the business records of banks."

       - UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 440 (1976).

14 As I mentioned in the Armen Condo Letter, Federal Judges have
been asked not to let the "cat out of the bag" by discussion the
special and very quiet relationship between bank accounts and
Income Tax statute liability (although bank accounts are not
exclusive Equity Jurisdiction attachment instruments, they are
air-tight instruments of CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE whenever the King
has a burden of proving the defendant's entrance into Interstate
Commerce).

15 "The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to
another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to
the Government... This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth
Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information
revealed to a third party and conveyed by [the third party] to
Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on
the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose
and the confidence placed in the third party will not be
betrayed."

       - UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 443 (1976).

       If you don't know what contract I am referring to that gives
the King the right to simply reclaim his own property, then ask
a bank for a copy of their bank rules that all depositors and
borrowers have agreed to be bound by. Under normal
circumstances, banks are reluctant to give depositors copies of
Bank Rules those depositors have

agreed to be bound by. Sounds irrational, doesn't it?
Withholding the terms of contracts those depositors have just
taken upon themselves criminal compliance liability for? Yet,
numerous attempts by people associated with me have attempted to
obtain a copy of these Bank Rules, and all attempts resulted in
the banking officer clamming up tight, deflecting attention over
to the "irregular and unusual" nature of the request, and then
telling the requesting person to go see MR. SO AND SO at the
Federal Reserve Board, who in turn also clammed up tight. So
much for domestic American bank accounts.

16 BURROWS VS. SUPERIOR COURT, 13 Cal 3rd 238, at 247 (1974).

17 321 U.S. 233, at 252 (1943).

18 439 U.S. 308 (1978).

19 Gremlins have had a few words to say about the utterly
heinous issuance of paper currency:

       "Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of
mankind, none is so effectual as that which deludes them with
paper money. It is the most perfect expedient ever invented for
fertilizing the rich man's fields by the sweat of the poor man's
brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation, these
bear lightly on the happiness of the community compared with
fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated
paper. Our own history has recorded enough, and more than
enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice and
intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well disposed, of a
degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way
countenanced by Government."

       - Gremlin Nelson W. Aldrich, United States Senator, at a New
York City dinner speech on October 15, 1913 (two months before
his pet Federal Reserve System was passed by the Congress to
create the very conditions he fraudulently represented to
oppose, in IV PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
#1, at 38 [Columbia University, New York (1914)].

20 When the United States Congress removed the last remaining
attachment of paper Federal Reserve notes to gold reserve
requirements in 1968 -- the Gremlins were there. From out of his
nest on the 17th Floor of the Chase Manhattan Bank descended one
David Rockefeller on Congress, taking his jet and making his
attack sortie on Washington with Gremlin enscrewment in mind --
whose very appearance itself at a Committee Hearing was designed
to make an important Statement: That we Gremlins now hold the
upper hand in the United States, and our grand plans for
monetary enscrewment will no longer be restrained on account of
some lingering silly little anachronistic gold ratio
requirements left over from another era. This is the modern age
with computers, Congress, and you just don't need to concern
yourself none with that old medieval stuff. See the "Statement
of David Rockefeller" in the GOLD COVER HEARINGS ["Hearings
Before the Committee on Banking and Commerce of the United
States Senate"], at page 141, 90th Congress, Second Session
["Repeal of Gold Reserve Requirement"] (January, 1968)].

21 The Legal Tender Acts, enacted during the Civil War, were
billed as a war measure:

       "... to handle the vast amount of means necessary for the
prosecution of this war, to enable the people to pay in and the
Government to pay out, we must have a larger and more abundant
currency that we have heretofore found to be necessary. The
accustomed currency is wholly inadequate. The Government has for
many years used only gold and silver for this purpose... The
business of the Government and the business of the country
require some substitute for coin. We must therefore create a new
[paper]... currency. We must therefore create a public debt,
establish a currency, and  impose new taxes."

       - Speech by Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, favoring
enactment of the Legal Tender Statutes [CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE,
37th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 43 et seq. (February
5, 1862)].

22 - UNITED STATES VS. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649, at 645 (1897);

       - VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533 (1869);

       - LOCKE VS. NEW ORLEANS, 71 U.S. 172 (1866), etc.

23 GILMAN VS. PHILADELPHIA, 70 U.S. 713, at 725 (1865).

24 I call this a "landmark" case because it was later cited by
the Supreme Court of the United States in the LEGAL TENDER
CASES, 79 U.S. 457, at 548 (1871).

25 CASE OF MIXED MONEY, Sir John Davies Reporter, at page 48
(1604).

26 Yes, the Congress can do whatever it feels like with issuing
currency, as an attribute of its sovereignty:

       "Congress, as the legislature of a sovereign nation, being
expressly empowered by the constitution to lay and collect
taxes, pay the debts, and provide for a common defense... [and
also] to charter national banks, and to provide a national
currency for the whole people in the form of coin, treasury
notes, and national bank bills, and [also has] the power to make
the notes of the Government a legal tender in payment of private
debts being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other
civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress by
the Constitution..."

       - JULLIARD VS. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421, at 466 (1884).

27 Earlier, I mentioned that Contracts we enter into now down
here with Heavenly Father overrule and supersede our First
Estate Contracts, and that the First Estate Contracts then fade
away in significance. The Principle of Law that this is based on
is called by business lawyers in Commerce as the MERGER
DOCTRINE, contracts that we enter into today overrule and
extinguish contracts entered into in a previous era; in other
words, the most recent contract absorbs previous contracts. The
application of this MERGER DOCTRINE is found in many settings.
For example, in real estate transactions, just as the old prior
oral negotiations between a Seller and a Purchaser are washed
out by the Deed [23 AM JUR Deeds Section 261], so too do oral
precontract negotiations lose their identity and existence as
those negotiations later unite in the confluence of the written
contract [PRICE VS. BLOCK, 124 F.2nd 738]. This MERGER DOCTRINE
is a correct Principle of Nature I touched on in the Armen Condo
Letter [that Commercial contracts we enter into today with the
King overrule the restrainments resident in the Constitution of
1787], and this Principle now operates, and has operated, in all
factual settings. The MERGER DOCTRINE recognizes that there are
different levels of importance or priorities in NATURE, and what
is done in the past is always of less significance than what is
done in the present (which is simply reason, logic and COMMON
SENSE); so lesser important contracts from out of the past,
together with their lingering oral expectations and the like,
fade away in significance as they are MERGED into contracts of
greater importance:

       "Whenever a greater Estate and a less [Estate] coincide and
meet in one and the same person, without any intermediate
estate, the less is immediately annihilated; or, in the law
phrase, is said to be merged, that is, sunk or drowned in the
greater."

       - 2 BLACKSTONE COMMENTARIES 177.

       When corporations are said to MERGE, what actually happens is
that the two independent corporations lose their existence
altogether as separate entities having separate assets,
liabilities, franchises, legal rights, and powers; and are
totally absorbed into the new single corporation [see MORRIS VS.
INVESTMENT LIFE INSURANCE, 272 N.E.2nd 105, at 108].

       And since NATURE, so called, merely replicates the mind, will
and intention of its great Creator, the Principle of Nature that
lawyers practicing Commercial Law call the MERGER DOCTRINE, also
applies to have our great contemporary Celestial Contracts with
Father overrule and wash out our lessor previous existence First
Estate Contracts. Yes, when you know the Law in one setting, you
know the Law in all settings, as nothing changes from one
factual setting to the next.

28 When words have several different meanings, the word is said
to be an ENTENTE. In Law, the word CURRENCY is such an ENTENTE.
Over a period of time, words change meaning as new factual
circumstances surface to alter the use or perspective of
something:

       "The meaning of words changes. It is curious to note how many
words wholly lose their original or etymological meaning, and
from usage and change of circumstances acquire sometimes an
opposite and often a different meaning... The common legal word
INDORSE, from the Latin IN, upon, and DORSUM, the back. It used
to be applied literally and strictly to a writing upon the BACK
of a paper. It is now well settled that a good instrument may be
made on the FACE of a bill or note."

       - PILMER VS. STATE BANK, 16 Iowa Reporter 321, at 329 (1864).

       And on one hand, speaking like an economist, CURRENCY has been
defined to be:

       "Currency is capital seeking investment. While invested, it
takes the form of money, or of promises to deliver money on
demand, but so soon as it is invested, it loses its character of
currency, and assumes that of stocks, houses, or commodities."

       - Hugh Carey in ANSWER TO THE CURRENCY QUESTION, at page 6 [Lea
& Blanchard, Philadelphia (1840); RARE BOOK COLLECTION,
University of Rochester, Seward Collection #410].

       Before the Civil War there were actually few United States
Treasury Notes floating around the Countryside, as Currency at
that time, because the King's LEGAL TENDER ACTS had not yet been
enacted, and the King had not yet decided that the time had come
to pull another grab and enact penal statutes to create a
national exclusive monopoly on currency instruments for himself.
Privately minted coins, bank notes, and mining company script,
and the like, then constituted the nation's currency. With that
in mind, the Illinois Supreme Court once defined CURRENCY as:

       "By the term currency is understood bank bills, or other paper
money issued by authority, which pass as and for coin... In the
case of JUDAH VS. HAINS [19 J.R. 144],  the Court decided that a
note, payable in bank notes current in the City of New York, was
a valid note. The Court said they will take notice that notes
current in the City of New York are of cash value throughout the
State, and are distinguished by those words from other bank
notes, which are received at a discount, and hence it is
immaterial whether the notes of banks of other States might be
tendered in payment, provided they are current in the City of
New York; in that case they are considered cash, equally with
the current bills of this State.

       "From those authorities, it would seem that current bills, or
currency, are of the value of cash, and exclude the idea of
depreciated money. If, then, currency is taken as and for coin,
it follows that such is its value..."

       - RICHARD SWIFT VS. JAMES WHITNEY, 20 Illinois 144, at 146
(1840).

       The Supreme Court of Iowa once wrestled with a definition of
CURRENCY:

       "Currency is bank bills or other paper money which passes as a
circulating medium in the business community as, and for, the
constitutional coin of the country. The term `current funds'
means currency money, par funds, or money circulating without
any discount..."

       "The word CURRENCY is, as we have seen, far from having a
settled, fixed and precise meaning. And even if it had such a
meaning in general, it might acquire in certain localities, or
among certain classes, a different signification."

       - PILMER VS. STATE BANK, 16 Iowa Reporter 321, at 328 (1864).

       And in more recent times, the King, having sealed up with his
gun barrel muscle tactics a national monopoly on circulating
currency instruments, an Appellate Court in Illinois now changed
the meaning of CURRENCY once again:

       "Currency has been defined as funds or money circulating in the
business community without any discount, excluding the idea of
depreciated paper money."

       - JAKE LESS VS. S. ALPORT, 217 Illinois Appellate 14, at 17
(1920).

       Here in the 1980's, the editors of BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY,
functioning as the Government Billboards in the sense that the
focus point of everything is always juristic: Some slice of LEX
over here, or some Case over there. Continuing on with their
Government center of gravity on everything the way they do,
BLACK'S defines CURRENCY as only to include those coins,
banknotes, and paper money that the King has officially
recognized in his Legal Tender LEX [as if either we or our
Fathers in the 1800's really needed the King]:

       "CURRENCY: Coined money and such banknotes or other paper money
as are authorized by law and do in fact circulate from hand to
hand as the medium of exchange. See... LEGAL TENDER [no cases
are cited]."

       - BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Edition.

       When those cases from the 1800's stated that CURRENCY meant
Notes [and NOTES are promises to pay] that are exchanged AT PAR,
what they mean is that those paper Notes carry an immediate or
CURRENT maturity date. To redeem a Note AT PAR meant to receive
100% exchange for the Face Value that was stated on the Note; if
the Note stated the Face Value of 10 Gold Eagles, then if the
Note was redeemed AT PAR 10 Gold Eagles would then be yours; if
redeemed at 90% of par, then 9 Gold Eagles would be yours.
Therefore, when the Maturity Date was current (immediate), the
Note could be exchanged for gold or silver AT PAR, if in fact
you wanted the coin instead of the Note. If the Note was
exchangeable for hard coin say, one or five years out in the
future, then such a Note was not CURRENT, and would only be
exchanged for coin at below par (the percentage differential
between the par and the sub-par negotiated was the interest
carrying cost the new Note holder had to bear while he sat and
waited for the Maturity Date to arrive). But today, BLACK'S has
done away with all of this, we have Legal Tender statutes now in
the modern era, and you just don't need to concern yourself with
none of that privately minted stuff.

29 The King modeled his bank after the BANK OF AMSTERDAM. Before
the Bank of England was established, English mercantile writers
such as Sir Josiah Childe and Thomas Yaranton placed the Crown
on notice that "... the Amsterdam bank was of so immense
advantage to them..." because Dutch Government Debt Instruments
"... go in Trade equal with Ready Money, yea, better in many
parts of the World than Money." [quoted by Dickerson in THE
FINANCIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND: A STUDY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
PUBLIC CREDIT, 1688-1756, at page 5 (MacMillian Company, London,
1967)]. The Bank of Amsterdam had begun as a Warehouse for the
safe storage of gold and silver belonging largely to Merchants.
A Merchant would deposit his precious metal for safekeeping,
with a receipt given in return; and the banker charged a fee for
the safekeeping. But soon a few Merchants wanted the receipts to
be divisible, because they wanted to negotiate just the receipt
itself, without having to bother making arrangements to
physically arrange an exchange of the gold or silver. While the
Merchants were looking at ways to save time here and there, the
bankers themselves were developing a few ideas of their own; the
bankers noticed that only some small percentage of the gold and
silver actually came and went in and out the doors, so they
started to loan out gold that was not theirs. Now this was
getting interesting -- charging both for the storage and also
collecting interest on the property of others; and its allure
attracted the attention of a Gremlin, Mr. John Law, who used
this concept as a basis for developing a Government monetary
theory similar to what Gremlin John Maynard Keynes would be
writing about two centuries later:

       "This theory [of John Law's] was that the economic system of
that day was being starved because of insufficient supplies of
money. And using the Bank of Amsterdam as a model, he had a
scheme for producing all the money a nation needed."

       -       John Flynn in MEN OF WEALTH, at 51 [Simon and Schuster, New
York (1941)].

For nearly two decades, John Law shopped his theories around
European Juristic Institutions, with his plans falling on death
ears, but one day a window opened for his intrigues to be used.
After King Louis the 14th of France had depleted his Treasury
funds in 1716, he turned to John Law who he had previously
rebuffed. John Law established the BANQUE GENERALE with himself
at the top; soon it was named the ROYAL BANK with a monopoly
charter granted on the issuance of money -- and John Law issued
bales of paper money, and so, not surprisingly, prosperity was
rampant.

       "It is not to be wondered that for a few brief months Paris
hailed the magician who had produced all these rabbits from his
hat. Crowds followed his carriage. People struggled to get a
glimpse of him. The nobles of France hung around his anteroom,
begging a word from him."

       -       MEN OF WEALTH, id., at 75.

John Law followed the Gremlin script for enscrewment right down
the line; all gold and silver was accumulated in the hands of
his ROYAL BANK; public ownership of gold was outlawed;
devaluations transpired; inflation mounted and illiquidity was
in the air as debt instruments began to be difficult to service.
John Law fled France in 1720, with the mobs who had once hailed
him for being a financial genius now calling for his head. If
this economic scenario sounds at all familiar to you, it should,
because Gremlins find it unnecessary to change, alter, modify,
or rearrange their MODUS OPERANDI with the passage of time, as
they go about their work running one civilization into the
ground after another:

       "As a NEW DEALER [John Law] was not greatly different in one
respect from the apostles of the mercantilist school -- the
Colberts, the Roosevelts, the Daladiers, the Hitlers and
Mussolinis... who sought to create income and work by
state-fostered public works and who labored to check the flow of
gold away from their borders. He introduced something new,
however, that the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Roosevelts, the
Daladiers and the Chamberlains have imitated -- the creation of
funds for these purposes through the instrumentalities of the
modern bank. Law is the precursor of the inflationist redeemers."

       -       MEN OF WEALTH, id.

So the Bank of England was modeled after the Bank of Amsterdam
which had been created early in the 1600's, and the Dutch bank
in turn had been modeled after the Bank of Venice [as reported
by Charles Wilson in THE DUTCH REPUBLIC AND THE CIVILIZATION OF
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, at page 25; McGraw Hill, New York
(1968)]. The Bank of England became so successful at selling
Government debt instruments that it soon became the prototype
for public banks where looters in other nations sought similar
objectives of grabbing more money for themselves without having
to ask their subjects for it. Under the direction of a series of
astute financial moves, England's new Bank quickly created
investor confidence in Government funded debt instruments,
enabling the Crown to borrow large sums of money at steadily
declining rates of interest, rather than go through the nuisance
and irritation of raising taxes dramatically. Writing in THE
SPECTATOR, Joseph Addison once compared Government credit loans
to:

       "... a beautiful Virgin seated upon a throne of Gold possess'd
of the powers of a Croesus to convert whatever she pleas'd into
that precious Metal [CROESUS was a King of Lydia in the 6th
Century, B.C., and possessed vast wealth; hence CROESUS means
any fabulously wealthy man.]"

       -       quoted by Dickerson in THE FINANCIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND: A
STUDY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC CREDIT, 1688-1756, inside the
front page [MacMillian Company, London, 1967)].

30 "The history of the law of money evidences a constant
struggle between the customs of trade and the doctrine of
freedom of contract, on the one hand, and on the other, the
exercise of the political power for the needs of Government or
the relief of private debtors [meaning banking Gremlins]."

       -       Phanor J. Eder, writing in "Legal Theories of Money," 20
CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY 52, at 53 (1934).

31 There is some value in turning around and looking back at the
past to uncover the movements of men in other ages, because once
their behavior in that setting is known, then the real meaning
of the movements of men today are exposed:

       "If we consider the shortness of human life, and our limited
knowledge, even of what passes in our own time, we must be
sensible that we should be forever children in understanding,
were it not for this invention, which extends our experience to
all past ages, and to the most distant nations; making them
contribute as much to our improvement in wisdom, as they had
actually laid under our observation. A man acquainted with
history may, in some respect, be said to have lived from the
beginning of the world, and to have been making continual
additions to his stock of knowledge in every country."

       -       David Hume in PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS ["Of the Study of
History"], at page 390; [Longmans Green, London (1898); Greene
and Grosse, Editors].

But Anglo-Saxon Kings are not the only looters to play this
game. For a discussion of Monetary Debasement being pulled off
in B.C. times, see the writings of Phanor J. Eder in THE GOLD
CLAUSE CASES IN LIGHT OF HISTORY, 23 Georgetown Law Journal 369,
at page 722 (Part II) (1935).

32 The Queen died shortly after making this promise to her
subjects, but her successor honored her commitment. See Simon,
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRISH COINS, at page 38 (1749).

33 For additional Commentary on the use of debased currency
against the Irish rebels, see generally, John Hannigan, THE
MONETARY AND LEGAL TENDER ACTS OF 1933-34 AND THE LAW, 14 Boston
University Law Review 485, at 504 (1934).

34 "Once the Convention was under way, proposals that the
Federal Government be given the power to coin money and fix its
value and that both the Federal and State Governments be vested
with authority to emit bills of credit triggered heated debate
over the appropriate limits of governmental monetary power."

       -       Getman, THE RIGHT TO USE GOLD CLAUSES IN CONTRACTS, XLII
Brooklyn Law Review 479, at 489 (1976). See generally, Max
Farrand, editor, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787
[Yale University Press (1937)], 4 volumes.

So what we are left with today is the milktoast of Article I,
Section 10.

35 THE LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U.S. 457, at 548 (1871).

36 Professors Peacock and Wiseman correctly point out that a
Government's call for a spirit of sacrifice leads to the general
acceptance of a higher tax rate at the end of a major war,
rather than at the beginning of the war [see A.T. Peacock and J.
Wiseman in THE GROWTH OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURES IN THE UNITED
KINGDOM (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1961);] but as
is the caliber of collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA, never is there any
discussion of the quiet movements of Gremlins in the shadows
directing the administrative operations of their nominees that
they had previously planted and placed in political
jurisdictions; and so as a result, the true illicit nature of
the LEX designed to create Special Interest benefits and damages
not related to legitimate juristic police power operations,
remains obscured. The last annulment institution in the United
States for illicit LEX, the Supreme Court, is moving in the
right direction generally, but they still need some fine tuning:

       "The requirement of a legitimate public purpose guarantees that
the State is exercising its police power, rather than providing
a benefit to special interests."

       -       ENERGY RESERVES VS. KANSAS POWER, 459 U.S. 400, at 412 (1983).

37 "But the history of paper money, without any adequate funds
pledged to redeem it, and resting merely upon the pledge of
national faith, has been in all ages and in all nations the
same. It has constantly become more and more depreciated; and in
some instances has ceased from this cause to have any
circulation whatsoever, whether issued by the irresistible edict
of a despot, or the more alluring order of a republican
congress."

       -       Joseph Story, III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at page
225 ["Prohibitions - Paper Money"] (Cambridge, 1833).

38 "... the reader should note especially the `striking
parallels to modern times' [in comparison to King Solon in 594
B.C., when he pulled off currency debasement acts by]...
military adventures draining treasuries, threats of national
bankruptcy, inflations, massive liquidations of debt, debasement
of all coinage, disputes over sovereign prerogatives concerning
money..."

       -       Henry Holzer, GOVERNMENT'S MONEY MONOPOLY, page 15 [Books in
Focus, New York City (1981)].

39 Down to the present day, pleas and petitions for a
reinstatement of the Gold Standard, of just some type,
continuously falls on death ears in Congress [maybe because that
is not OUR Congress]. In December of 1981, the House Banking,
Finance and Urban Affairs Committee entertained such a petition
[see GRASSROOTS HEARINGS ON THE ECONOMY, PART III, "Petition for
Hearings on HR 391 -- Rhode Islanders for a Gold Standard," 97th
Congress, First Session, starting at 499 (GPO, 1981)], but the
petition was tossed aside and ignored.

40 "A strange fallacy has crept into the reasoning on this
subject. It has been supposed, that a corporation is some great,
independent thing; and that the power to erect it is a great,
substantive, independent power; whereas in truth, a corporation
is but a legal capacity, quality, or means to an end; and the
power to erect it is, or may be, an implied and incidental
power. A corporation is never the end, for which other powers
are exercised; but a means, by which other objects are
accomplished."

       -       Joseph Story, in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 131,
["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).

41 LAKE COUNTY ESTATES, 440 U.S. 391, at 401 (1978).

42 IN RE: RUSSO, 53 Federal Rules Decisions 564 (United States
District Court, 1971).

43 "The Bill of Rights is the primary source of expressed
information as to what is meant by Constitutional liberty. Its
safeguards secure the climate which the Law of Freedom needs in
order to exist. It is true that they were added to the
Constitution to operate solely against Federal power [BARRON VS.
BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243, at 247 (1833)]. But the Fourteenth
Amendment was added in 1868 in response for a demand for
national protection against abuses of State power. A series of
decisions over the last 25 years has held that many rights were
indeed extended against the states by that Amendment. It is
indeed fair to say that from 1962 to 1969 the very face of the
Law changed. Those years witnessed the extension to the States
of nine of the specifics of the Bill of Rights, decisions which
have profound impact on American life, requiring the deep
involvement of State courts in the application of Federal Law."

       -       Justice William Brennan in REMARKS, 36 Rutgers Law Review
725, at 727 (1984).

Patriots and Tax Protestors can carry on all they want with
demanding, and believing, that they posses some Constitutional
Rights, and just like Justice Brennan's REMARKS, there are many
high, noble and lofty characterizations of those Rights
available -- but those REMARKS, together with the Tax
Protestor's demands, are all for naught when one tiny little
device surfaces in a grievance: A Commercial Contract. By the
end of this Letter the elevated priority in Nature that
contracts ascend to in settling grievances should become
apparent, whenever they are in effect; a doctrinal concept if
unlearned now, Mr. May, will be learned in on uncertain terms
before Father at the Last Day.

44 Inflation is a Tort, and can be claimed as such in damage
awards. See the Supreme Court in JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORPORATION VS. PFIFER, 462 U.S. 523 (1983). And Inflation is
also a tax, and is treated as income by the Treasury Department;
in the ANNUAL REPORT of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1919,
on page 213, there lies the interesting admission that the large
federal deficits of 1917 to 1919, totaling then some $23
billion, were financed by money creation, and other devices.

45 "The purpose of the Federal Reserve System is to contribute,
to the maximum extent that monetary policy can contribute, to
the achievement of sustained high employment, stable values, and
a rising standard of living for all Americans."

       -       William McChesney Martin, Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, in THE FEDERAL RESERVE AFTER 50 YEARS ["Hearings before
the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd
Session, Volume I, page 16 [GPO Washington (January and
February, 1964)].

46 Economists watch Fed monetary statistics quite closely, as if
they were national policy tools (which they are). Statistics
generally targeted for close observation are those two monetary
velocity instruments called M-1 and M-2, as they are indications
of the direction of the future percentage advance of the GNP and
Inflation. See THE VELOCITY OF MONEY by George Garvey and Martin
Blyn, [Federal Reserve Bank, New York (1969)]. The true point of
origin of all directional changes in the economy necessarily
originates with that institution that controls the aggregate
issuance of its circulating instruments; at the present time,
this is the Fed and its OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE, a fact that the
Congress collectively is well aware of but not always
acknowledged publicly. See CONDUCT OF MONETARY POLICY in
Hearings before the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs, House of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session,
Serial Number 96-22 (July, 1979), which discusses the cascading
effect of decisions of the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE on multiple
macroeconomic indicia.

47 An INTELLIGENTSIA clown once hired by Gremlins to do some
writing for them wrote a few words to talk about the Gremlin
perception of prosperity:

       "An economic system does not have to be expansive -- that is,
constantly increasing its production of wealth -- and it might
well be possible for people to be completely happy in a
nonexpansive economic system if they were accustomed to it. In
the twentieth century, however, the people of our culture have
been living under expansive conditions for generations. Their
minds are psychologically adjusted to expansion, and they feel
deeply frustrated unless they are better off each year than they
were the previous year. The economic system itself has become
organized for expansion, and if it does not expand it tends to
collapse [and when it does collapse, it is because the Gremlins
were there]."

       -       Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 497 [MacMillian
Company, New York (1966)].

48 The Federal Reserve Board is a very handy instrument to
massage economies, create depressions, and run civilizations
into the ground with. For example, in the late 1920's, there was
an era of speculation in the securities markets of the United
States; after a while in any market, what appears to be
SPECULATION will always surface when rising prices and highly
leveraged loans make their institutionalized appearance on the
scene. Economists, bureaucratic theorists, and other clowns will
cast SPECULATION into an illicit image, but SPECULATION, so
called, is nothing more than a manifestation of strong
prosperity -- and Gremlins do not want you and I to have
sustained protracted prosperity, they want us to experience
economic starvation like they wanted physical starvation for
those millions of Ukrainians who were murdered in the great
manufactured Famine of 1932-33. Easy high percentage loans are
an important ingredient to create SPECULATION, so one of the
devices used by Rothschild Gremlins to create a balloon of
American speculation was to lower the rate of interest charged
by the Federal Reserve Board to member banks:

       "Nothing did more to spur the boom in stocks than the decision
made by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, in the Spring of
1927, to cut the rediscount rate. Benjamin Strong, Governor of
the bank, was chief advocate of this unwise measure, which was
taken largely at the behest of Montagu Norman of the Bank of
England [Montagu Norman was a Rothschild nominee planted in the
Bank of England]. Ostensibly, this easy money policy was
designed to stop the flow of gold out of England [as usual,
DECEPTION is present when Gremlins are running the show]. Its
primary effect, however, was to cause a reevaluation of all
securities [upward], and to further inflate our already
inflationary credit system by making large sums of money
available for financing stock speculation."

       -       Bernard Baruch,, in his autobiography BARUCH: THE PUBLIC
YEARS, at 221 [Holt Rheinhart & Winston, New York (1960)].

The well known Gremlin economist John K. Galbraith dismisses the
view that the action of the Federal Reserve Board authorities in
cutting the rediscount rate in the Spring of 1927 had much
effect on the elevated speculation which followed, on the
grounds that this:

       "... explanation obviously assumes that people will always
speculate if they can get the money to finance it. Nothing can
be farther from the truth. There were times before and there
have been long periods since when credit was plentiful and cheap
-- far cheaper than in 1927 to 1929 -- and when speculation was
negligible. Nor, as we shall see later, was speculation out of
control after 1927, except that it was beyond the reach of men
who did not want in the least to control it."

       -       John K. Galbraith in THE GREAT CRASH, page 16 [Houghton
Mifflin, Boston (1955)].

SPECULATION is actually fueled by the ability to easily obtain
highly leveraged loans in a market characterized by rapidly
rising prices. Your analogy of 1927, Mr. Galbraith, to previous
eras is defective because other previous periods of cheap credit
was deficient in possessing the twin important structural
SPECULATION requirements of easily obtainable highly leveraged
loans and rapidly rising prices; if both highly leveraged loans
and rapidly rising prices are not present, then cheap credit
loans will not induce SPECULATION. And so the failure of cheap
and plentiful credit loans in previous eras to trigger
SPECULATION then, is not relevant and does not negate the highly
stimulating effect that such inexpensive credit loans created in
the American securities markets from 1927 to 1929, since
declining rates of interest very much act as an accelerant on
markets already structurally conditioned for SPECULATION by the
twin important indicia of highly leveraged loans and rapidly
rising prices. You really are not competent to be an economist,
Mr. Galbraith -- and incidentally, managing SPECULATION, so
called, was very much WITHIN the reach of your brothers who very
much wanted to control it, TOTALLY. Sorry, Mr. Galbraith, but
you don't do a very good job of covering the tracks of your
Gremlin brothers from the First Estate who, like you, are
repeating the same judgment mistakes now that you made then.

Having created something ILLICIT, having created something that
just NEEDS and IS BEGGING for a corrective solution, Gremlins
acting through their instrumentality, the Federal Reserve Board,
in 1929 now had just the right medicine to fix this wicked
SPECULATION, as one visible Rothschild nominee, Mr. Montagu
Norman, once again made his descent sortie on Washington in
vulture trajectory, and told Andrew Mellon what to do next:

       "... the Federal Reserve Board issued a formal statement today
declaring that it conceived it to be its duty in `the immediate
situation' to restrain the use, either directly or indirectly,
of Federal Reserve credit facilities in aid of the froth of
speculative credit...

       "No information could be obtained from Mr. Norman or American
officials concerning the purpose of his visit [to Washington]
other than he had come here for a general discussion of
international financial conditions with the System and members
of the [Federal Reserve] Board...

       "All efforts to obtain any further interpretation of the action
of the Federal Reserve Board than that contained in its formal
statement were futile...

       "The decision by the Federal Reserve Board to take so definite
a stand in connection with its attitude towards speculative
activities, was made, it is understood, only after a conference
in which Secretary Mellon, as Chairman [of the Federal Reserve]
EX-OFFICIO participated [meaning that Gremlin Andrew Mellon
DIRECTED, after having received his instructions from the
Rothschilds through Montagu Norman]...

       "The frankness of its announcement today therefore added to the
interest it caused in financial circles."

       -       THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Loan Curb Hinted by Federal Reserve
Board; States Duty in `the Immediate Situation' is to restrain
Speculative Credit"], page 1 (February 7, 1929).

Who is Montagu Norman? A Gremlin who was recognized as being
very powerful at that time [Carroll Quigley claims the WALL
STREET JOURNAL for November 11, 1927 characterized Montagu
Norman as "... the currency dictator of Europe."] Like all good
hardworking Gremlins putting in their honest days' labor, they
are answerable to another person up the line [even the
Rothschilds know from whence their benefits originate]; and like
a few other WORLD CLASS Gremlins, Montagu Norman held the high
honor of running an entire civilization into the ground:

       "... Norman held the position [of CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER]
for twenty-four years (1920-1944), during which he became the
chief architect of the liquidation of Britain's global
preeminence."

       -       Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 325 [MacMillian
Company, New York (1966)].

He had brilliance, he had genius, he had SAVIOR-FAIRE, and
Montagu Norman tied it all together with slick Gremlin FINESSE
when he so smoothly ran Great Britain into the ground with so
very few people even knowing that he had done so; and so when
Montagu Norman brought his conquests to other continents, for
and on behalf of his Rothschild sponsors, he would also be
leaving the ruins of those once majestic civilizations with
little indication that he had been there.

The year 1929 started out to be a great year, and American
businessmen had positive expectations [see the many businessmen
quoted through the WALL STREET JOURNAL for January 1, 1929]; but
the world's Gremlins had a few ideas of their own:

       "On February 15, 1929, the Federal Advisory Council adopted the
following resolution:

       "The Council believes that every effort should be made to
correct the present situation in the speculative markets before
resorting to an advance in rates.

       "The Council in reviewing present conditions finds that in
spite of the cooperation of member banks, the measures so far
adopted have not been effective in correcting the present
situation of the money market. The Council, therefore,
recommends that the Federal Reserve Board permit the Federal
Reserve banks to raise their rediscount rate immediately and
maintain a rate consistent with the cost of commercial credit."

       -       Transcript of the minutes of the 3:10pm Meeting of the
FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL in the Federal Reserve Board Room
(April 19, 1929) {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board
File"], Washington, D.C.}. The Federal Reserve Board's FEDERAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL was abolished in the 1930's.

The FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL had also met twice earlier that
day, at 10:05am and at 12:10pm. There had been an ominous
atmosphere of excitement in the air that day:

       "The prospect of further developments of importance in regard
to the Government's attitude on the credit situation appeared
today when members of the Federal Advisory Council... met in a
special session and later held a joint conference with the Board
[the 12:10pm meeting]. Resolutions were adopted by the Council
and transmitted to the Board, but their purport was closely
guarded. ... An atmosphere of deep mystery was thrown about the
proceedings both by the Board and the Council. No advance
announcement had been made that an extraordinary session of the
Council was contemplated, and in fact that the members were in
the city became known only when newspaper correspondents
happened to see some of them entering the Treasury Department
building. Even after that evasive replies were given, until it
became apparent that such tactics were futile... While the joint
meeting was in progress at the Treasury Department, every effort
was made to guard the proceedings and a group of newspaper
correspondents were asked to leave the corridor. The meeting of
the Council attracted particular attention in view of the fact
that it had met here in regular session on February 14th, a week
following the Reserve Board's warning statement against the
excessive use of Reserve System credit in speculative operations
on the stock market."

       -       THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Reserve Council Confers in Haste:
Atmosphere of Mystery is Thrown About Its Meeting in
Washington"], page 9 (April 20, 1929).

A month later, one more Gremlin turn of the screws was
administered to the economy:

       "The Federal Advisory Council has reviewed carefully the credit
situation. It continues to agree with the view of the Federal
Reserve Board as expressed in its statement of February 5, 1929
that `an excessive amount of the country's credit has been
absorbed in speculative security loans.' The policy pursued by
the Federal Reserve Board has had a beneficial effect due
largely to the loyal cooperation of the banks of the country.
The efforts in this direction should be continued, but the
Council notes that while the total amount of Federal Reserve
credit being used has been reduced, `the amount of the country's
credit absorbed in speculative security loans' has not been
substantially lowered.

       "Therefore, the Council recommends to the Federal Reserve Board
that the time has come to grant permission to raise the
rediscount rates to six percent to those Federal Reserve Banks
requesting it, thus bringing the rediscount rates into closer
relation with generally prevailing commercial money rates. The
Council believes that improvement in financial conditions and a
consequent reduction of the rate structure will thereby be
brought about more quickly, thus best safeguarding commerce,
industry, and agriculture."

       -       Resolution approved by the FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, in its
2:30pm Meeting on May 21, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal
Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.

While the Gremlins controlling the Federal Reserve were busy
raising interest rates, the analytical staff of the Federal
Reserve was cognizant of the extreme economic damages such an
elevated rate of interest was doing to Commerce, Industry, and
Agriculture [directly contrary to the beneficial effect claimed
by the Federal Advisory Council]:

       "The higher money rates do not appear to have restricted short
term commercial borrowings, but in a number of ways the present
high level of money rates is beginning to have a detrimental
effect upon business.

       "1.     The volume of building operations has been declining
largely because of difficulty in obtaining second mortgage money
and loans for building operations and also difficulty in selling
real estate bonds. Stock financing which has been resorted to in
some cases has only partly met the requirements.

       "2.     A good many state, municipal, railway and other projects,
ordinarily financed through bonds and notes, have been postponed
because of difficulty in securing at reasonable prices...

       "3.     Reduced foreign financing in the United States... are
diminishing the purchasing power of those countries for our
products, a tendency which is likely to be reflected sooner or
later in reduced exports.

       "It thus seems reasonably certain that present money
conditions, if long continued, will have a seriously detrimental
effect upon business conditions, and the longer they are
continued the more serious will be the effect. The volume of
business now appears to be sustained in part by the production
of automobiles considerably in excess of retail purchases with a
consequent stimulating effect upon the steel industry..."

       -       PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM FOR THE OPEN MARKET INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE ["Effects on Business"]; Prepared for the 5:00pm
Meeting of the Fed's Open Market Investment Committee on April
1, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"],
Washington, D.C.}.

In September of 1929, the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE would be warning
that:

       "... there are some indications of a possible impending
recession."

Six months earlier in April, the economy was still experiencing
the stimulating effect of surplus automobile production, but by
September, now automobile manufacturing was going to the dogs:

       "Building activity has been reduced still further; automobile
production has been receding, and steel production has reflected
these tendencies."

And as for the claimed STIMULATING effect high rates of interest
would be having on agriculture, in fact Gremlin enscrewment was
beginning to produce its desired objective of damages:

       "The size of the year's crops is expected to be generally
smaller than a year ago. With higher prices the total return to
the farmer may be not short of a year ago... The continued
pressure on the credit situation has also been reflected by
increasing reports from some localities of difficulties of
agriculture in securing an adequate supply of credit."

       -       All three quotations are from the MINUTES OF THE OPEN MARKET
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, September 24, 1929 {National Archives
["Federal Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.

That greasy little Gremlin, Paul Warburg, very much had his nose
in all of this. He slipped into a FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting that was held on May 21, 1929, as the alternate for W.C.
Potter, and he made a Statement and engaged in conversation that
Walter Lichtenstein, Council Secretary, did not feel like
recording [see MINUTES OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL for May 21,
1929].

The combined effect of the many manipulative devices pulled by
Gremlins in the Fed in the latter 1920's was a great contraction
in the economy [see generally a protracted chapter called "The
Great Contraction" in A MONETARY HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES,
1867-1960 by Milton Friedman [Princeton University Press,
Princeton (1963)].

49 "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to
protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent.
Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of the
liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty
lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but
without understanding."

       -       Justice Louis Brandeis in OLMSTEAD VS. UNITED STATES, 277
U.S. 438, at 479 (1927).

Although the Gremlins who sneaked the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT
through Congress were by no means well meaning, they did try to
convey the image that this piece of legislation was so oriented.

50 Greasy little Gremlins like Paul Warburg are steeped in the
strategic use of deception as a tool to accomplish their
objectives; and like the mentor from the First Estate, Lucifer,
they find many circumstances come to pass where the use of such
deception has yielded impressive immediate benefits -- yet
Father continues to warn against it. This deceptive intellectual
orientation of Gremlins has been so ingrained in them from the
First Estate, that Gremlins find the accurate presentation of
facts now to be very difficult to construct. This deception
surfaced, for example, when one Gremlin was speaking highly of
another Gremlin:

       "... it is known only to a very few exactly how great is the
indebtedness of the United States to Mr. Warburg. For it may be
stated without fear of contradiction that in its fundamental
features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more
than any other man in the country... the Federal Reserve Act has
frankly accepted the principles of the Aldrich bill; and these
principles... were the creation of Mr. Warburg and Mr. Warburg
alone... But having set out on the task [to create the Federal
Reserve], there was no stopping [Paul Warburg], and from year to
year essay upon essay flowed from his facile pen, giving more
precision and point to his fundamental principles until he was
recognized as the real leader in the new movement. The Federal
Reserve Act will be associated in history with the name of Paul
Warburg..."

       -       Gremlin Edwin Seligman offering introductory remarks in IV
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE #4, at 387
[Columbia University, New York (April, 1914)]; there then
follows numerous essays written by Paul Warburg praising the
circulation of paper currency and the Federal Reserve System.

Yet Paul Warburg did not intellectually create the Federal
Reserve System -- the Rothschilds did, but the Rothschilds
wanted to stay in the background and blend themselves into the
shadowy corners of Europe; Paul Warburg was hired by them to
take all the flack among those who could be expected to probe a
little deeper in searching for the Fed's Gremlin sponsors.

       "Paul Warburg is the man who got the Federal Reserve Act
together after the Aldrich Plan aroused such nationwide
resentment and opposition. The mastermind of both plans was
Baron Alfred Rothschild of London."

       -       Elisha Garrison in ROOSEVELT, WILSON AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE
LAW [Christopher Publishing Housing, Boston (1931)].

51 The illicit statutory sponsorship of the Federal Reserve
Board is often disputed by collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA clowns who,
without possessing any factual elements to countermand the
background workings of determined Gremlins, continue to point to
Congress itself as the institution responsible for the creation
of the Federal Reserve. Gremlin Paul Warburg himself has had a
few words to say about just where the true origin of statutes is
to be found:

       "I am told that Congress and the State Legislatures make the
laws... Instead of saying that legislators make the laws, it
would be far more correct to say that legislatures merely put
the finishing touches on the law. To say that they "make the
laws" is like saying that the books are made by bookbinders,
forgetting that there are authors, printers, and proofreaders
too.

       "... The motive power in lawmaking is all supplied from
somewhere outside the legislative halls... Some intellect
outside the realm of active politics first conceives an idea. It
spreads to the minds of other individuals, slowly at first, but
gradually gaining momentum. Presently there is an organized
movement in its favor; then comes the deluge of propaganda,
until the proposal becomes an issue and the politicians begin to
take note of it. A law is half made, and more than half made,
when a large body of aggressive support has been mobilized among
the voters; yet during this part of the process the legislative
bodies have nothing whatever to do with it."

       -       Gremlin Paul Warburg explaining himself in Volume I THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM: ITS ORIGINS AND GROWTH, at 3 [MacMillian
Company, New York (1930)].

52 General Public accountability of the Fed is appropriate to
the extent that the Fed has been endowed by its creator with a
limited juristic mission in monetary areas touching a general
public interest; and one of the most important instruments of
Federal Reserve power lies in the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE.
Numerous attempts just to get some minimal public dissemination
on transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings has
fallen on death ears; shrouding their daily maneuverings behind
a veil of secrecy -- a veil they would like to maintain erected
for as long as possible (time has a way of greatly diminishing
the possible adverse reaction that unfavorable information
triggers). The Congress was once propositioned with the idea of
requiring the FOMC to publish publicly, detailed minutes of
their meetings. In trying to disable the Congress from doing
this, an old Gremlin stratagem was relied upon: Agree with the
necessity for the idea being expounded (so now your adversary is
off guard), but create impediments to the idea by raising
technical reservations that appear to be difficult to overcome
and otherwise discredit the idea as being infeasible for some
technical reason. And in overcoming HR 4478, this is just what
Gremlins in the Fed did (Gremlins do not want Government in the
sunshine) [see the testimony of imp bureaucrat Fredrick Schultz
as he said he agreed with the objectives, but then turned around
and threw technical reservations at the idea to try and
discredit the idea on its merits, in A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL
RESERVE ACT ["Hearings Before a Subcommittee on Domestic
Monetary Policy on HR 4478 of the House Committee on Banking,
Finance and Urban Affairs"], 97th Congress, First Session
(September, 1981)].

53 "It is no secret that I have long been concerned about the
aloofness of the Federal Reserve from both the executive branch
and the Congress. Although the Federal Reserve System is a
creature of Congress, it is not subject to any of the usual
Government budgetary, auditing and appropriations procedures."

       -       Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Committee on Domestic
Finance, in THE FEDERAL RESERVE AFTER 50 YEARS ["Hearings before
the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd
Session, Volume 1, page 8 [GPO, Washington, D.C. (January and
February, 1964)].

54 But don't expect such a repurchase to ever take place; the
Federal Reserve Board gives the Congress all profits from
certain selected trading activities. In the latter 1970's, this
was amounting to approximately $10 billion a year; not an easy
loss of revenue for a greedy fat Congress to go without. So the
Congress does not want to disturb the Fed, and your letters to
them, encouraging them to do so, will continue to fall on death
ears.

55 Those Rothschild Gremlins never stop with their conquests.
After mentioning the dominance of the Rothschilds in European
financial affairs, a United States Senator once wrote:

       "... it might be... possible for 20 or 30 individuals if they
controlled the United States Federal Reserve Board, the Bank of
England, the Bank of France, and the Bank of Germany, to enter
into a conspiracy to regulate the volume of the world's
currency, thereby resultantly controlling the prices of the
world's commodities, so vitally affecting the happiness,
contentment, occupation, and prosperity of the world's
population. If successful in effecting such a control, by
expanding the world's currency they could inflate prices of all
the world's commodities and then distribute at fictitious values
the securities which they had accumulated. After such
accomplishments the could then decrease the volume of money thus
resultantly deflating or diminishing the prices of all the
world's commodities with resultant greatly diminished prices in
securities and then buy back at bargain prices the securities
that they had distributed previously at inflated prices. If such
a conspiracy existed and continued unchecked this expansion of
the volume of money with increased prices and distribution of
securities held by the few followed by a period of decreased
volume of money with resultant decreased prices of all the
world's commodities with reaccumulation of securities at bargain
prices would ultimately result in all the people outside of the
few conspirators becoming practically vassals and peons with the
inevitable result that the people themselves would rise up in
their wrath and take from the conspirators their wealth and
probably their lives."

       -       Senator Jonathan Bourne, Jr. of Oregon, expressing comments
on the Wheeler Bill (S. 2487), in Senate Document #109 entitled
INDEPENDENT BIMETALLISM OR BOLSHEVISM, 72nd Congress, First
Session, pages 8 and 9 [GPO (June 15, 1932)].

Senate Bill 2487 provided for the free coinage of silver and
gold at a ratio of 16-to-1.

56 After characterizing Gremlin Volcker's politics as being
something of an enigma, the NEW YORK TIMES went on to say that
Paul Volcker:

       "... recognizes `that Gold and the fates have put him in a
unique position,' a role for which he believes... that he is
singularly well equipped."

       -       THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Sacrificial Way of Life for Reserve
Chairman"], page 26 (Sunday, June 19, 1983).

Yes, Mr. Volcker is VERY well equipped for his mission -- but
not to usher in a generation of prosperity; neither is his
Federal Reserve position attributable to "God and the fates,"
but actually to his brother from the First Estate, Lucifer, whom
Paul Volcker once betrayed -- and now Lucifer is going to get
even at Father's Last Day.

57 The theft of American gold bullion deposits from the Fort
Knox Depository in Kentucky by the Four Rockefeller Brothers, in
which Paul Volcker participated, was a smooth inside job -- a
job which only duplicated a previous inside Treasury job that
was pulled off earlier in 1943:

       "... 14,000 tons of silver from the Treasury reserve of
American paper money was secretly taken from the Treasury vaults
(although still carried publicly on the Treasury balance
sheets)..."

       -       Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 855 [MacMillian
Company, New York (1974)].

[Mr. Quigley wants us to believe that the 14,000 tons of silver
in its entirety went into an Oak Ridge Government building for
electrical wiring].

58 During a speech at a FRED HIRSCH MEMORIAL LECTURE at Warwick
University, Coventry, England, on November 9, 1978.

59 During Constitutional ratification discussions, our Founding
Fathers did not want to even talk about the possibility that a
National Bank might be created someday, due to the possible
rejection the draft Constitution might encounter as it went from
one State to the next for Ratification:

       "The power to incorporate a bank is not among those enumerated
in the constitution. It is known, that the very power, thus
proposed, as a means, was rejected, as an end, by the convention
[of 1787], which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made
in that body, to authorize Congress to open canals, and an
amendatory one to empower them to create corporations. But the
whole was rejected; and one of the reasons of the rejection
urged in debate was, that they then would have a power to create
a bank, which would render the great cities, where there was
prejudices and jealousies on that subject, adverse to the
adoption of the Constitution [Volume 4, Jefferson's
Correspondence, pages 523 and 524]."

       -       Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 128
["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).

However, just because the CREATION OF CORPORATIONS CLAUSE never
made it into the final draft of the Constitution, does not
disable the United States today from creating corporations,
since many other enabling acts were written into the
Constitution that, although sounding nice and making the
Constitution look complete in appearances, were actually
jurisdictionally unnecessary.

60 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

61 "That a national bank is an appropriate means to carry into
effect some of the enumerated powers of the Government, and that
this can be best done by erecting it into a corporation, may be
established by the most satisfactory reasoning. It has a
relationship, more or less direct, to the power of collecting
taxes, to that of borrowing money, to that of regulating trade
between the states, and to those raising and maintaining fleets
and armies. And it may be added, that it has a most important
bearing upon the regulation of currency between the states. It
is an instrument, which has been usually applied by Governments
in the administration of their fiscal and financial operations."

       -       Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 134,
["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).

62 The IRS is not a Federal Agency; see:

       -       Title 5, Section 903 [PRESIDENTIAL REORGANIZATION
JURISDICTION];

       -       GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ORDER Number 26 (1952);

       -       GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ORDER Number 1 (1950);

       -       39 THE FEDERAL REGISTER, Number 62 (26 March 1974), Section
1111.4, et seq.

63 Responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the
Revenue Laws is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury,
pursuant to Title 26, Section 7801(a). In turn, by one more
layer of delegation, the Internal Revenue Service is vested with
the tax collection responsibilities for the Secretary. See
DONALDSON VS. UNITED STATES, 400 U.S. 517, at 534 (1970), and 39
THE FEDERAL REGISTER 2417, et seq. (1970).

64 PRIVATEERING and all of its associated intrigue of smuggling,
thievery, and pirates, was once quite active on the High Seas
from the 1600's up until the American Civil War. On the North
Coast of Africa there was once numerous occasions in the early
1800's when American hostages were grabbed and military
engagements were entered into against those little hoodlums
called the BARBARY CORSAIRS. [See THE BARBARY CORSAIRS by S.
Lane-Poole, State Mutual Books and Periodical Service, New York
(1985)]. PRIVATEERING was somewhat abolished, or perhaps toned
down, by the DECLARATION OF PARIS in 1856; but PRIVATEERING was
extensive during the Civil War, and the United States Congress
soon would be giving President Abraham Lincoln a grant of
jurisdiction to commission Privateers. [See THE BARBARY COAST by
Henry Field, C. Scribner's Sons, New York (1893); and THE
BARBARY SLAVES by Stephen Clissold, P. Elek Publishers, London
(1977)]. For a short story on PRIVATEERS during the Civil War,
see the NEW YORK TIMES for Tuesday, September 29, 1863, page 1,
in an article entitled "Another Privateer Fitting Out,"
discussing how the Confederate ship THE FLORIDA was offered
French police protection from seizure from Union ships by France
while she was parking at Brest shipyards for repairs. Yet, a
variation on PRIVATEERING continued into the 1900's, as Russian
volunteer vessels once seized neutral commerce in the Red Sea
[see Edwin Moxen in RUSSIAN RAIDS ON NEUTRAL COMMERCE, 3
Michigan Law Review 1 (1904)]. For a discussion from a legal
perspective on Privateering and LETTERS OF MARQUE, see THE FIRST
FEDERAL COURT by Henry J. Bourguignon, page 3 [American
Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (1977)]. Today, PRIVATEERING
is a crime for American Citizens [see Title 18, Section 1654
"Arming or Serving as Privateers"].

65 HOW ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES [Freedom Books,
Hamden, Connecticut (1982)].

66 TO HARASS OUR PEOPLE: THE IRS AND GOVERNMENT ABUSE OF POWER
[Positive Publications, Washington, D.C. (1984)].

67 Federal Judges took their cue long ago to lay off legislative
prerogatives in this area of circulating paper money:

       "The case of TREVETT VS. WELDON, in 1786, in Rhode Island, is
an instance of this sort... The judges in that case decided,
that a law making paper money a tender in payment of debts was
unconstitutional and against the principles of magna carta. They
were compelled to appear before the legislature to vindicate
themselves; and the next year... they were left out of office
for having questioned the legislative power."

       -       Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 469,
footnote 1 (Cambridge, 1833).

68 Whether or not there was a legal minimum quorum in the United
States Senate on that pre-Christmas December day of 1913, is
disputed.

69 -    M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316 (1819);

       -       HEPBURN VS. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870);

       -       KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871);

       -       JULLIARD VS. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

70 The Legal Tender statutes were enacted in the Civil War era,
when national resources were stretched thin:

       "... to handle the vast amount of means necessary for the
prosecution of this war, to enable the people to pay in and the
Government to pay out, we must have a larger and more abundant
currency that we have heretofore found to be necessary. The
accustomed currency [of hard gold and silver] is wholly
inadequate. The Government has for many years used only gold and
silver for this purpose, and it is deeply lamented that it is
obliged to depart from this desirable standard. But we are left
with no option."

       -       Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech before
Congress on February 5, 1862 [CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th
Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.].

71 "... the National Government [can] exercise... its powers to
establish and maintain a bank, implied as an incident to the
borrowing, taxing, war, and other powers specifically granted to
the National Government by Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution."

       -       HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 (1937).

72 "The power to regulate commerce is general and unlimited in
its terms. The full power to regulate a particular subject
implies the whole power, and leaves no residium."

       -       Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 513
["Powers of Congress -- Commerce"] (Cambridge, 1833).

73 "Here the substantive power to tax was allowed to be employed
for improving the currency."

       -       KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 544 (1871).

74 "The power to coin money is one of the ordinary prerogatives
of Sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised in order to
preserve a proper circulation of good coin of a known value in
the home market... In England, this prerogative belongs to the
Crown; and in former ages, it was greatly abused; for base coin
was often coined and circulated by its authority, at a value far
above its intrinsic worth; and thus taxes of a burdensome nature
were indirectly laid upon the people."

       -       Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 17
["Powers of Congress -- Coinage"] (Cambridge, 1833).

75 "A bank has a direct relation to the power of borrowing
money, because it is an unusual, and in sudden emergencies, an
essential instrument, in the obtaining of loans to Government. A
nation is threatened with a war; large sums are wanted on a
sudden [basis] to make the requisite preparations; taxes are
laid for this purpose; but it requires time to obtain the
benefit of them; anticipation is indispensable. If there is a
bank, the supply can at once be had; if there be none, loans
from individuals must be sought. The progress of these is often
too slow for the exigency; in some situations they are not
practical at all."

       -       Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 139
[footnote -- "Powers of Congress -- Bank"] (Cambridge, 1833).

76 "We do not propose to dilate at length upon the circumstances
in which the country was placed when Congress attempted to make
Treasury Notes a Legal Tender. They are of too recent occurrence
to justify enlarged description. Suffice it to say that a Civil
War was then raging which seriously threatened the overthrow of
the Government and the destruction of the Constitution itself.
It demanded the equipment and support of large armies and
navies, and the employment of money to an extent beyond the
capacity of all ordinary sources of supply. Meanwhile, the
public Treasury was nearly empty, and the credit of the
Government, if not stretched to its utmost tension, had become
nearly exhausted. Moneyed institutions had advanced largely of
their means, and more could not be expected of them. They had
been compelled to suspend specie payments. Taxation was
inadequate to pay even the interest on the debt already
incurred, and it was impossible to await the income of
additional taxes. The necessity was immediate and pressing. The
army was unpaid. There was then due to the soldiers in the field
nearly a score of millions of dollars. The requisition from the
War and Navy Departments for supplies exceeded fifty millions,
and the current expenditure was over one million per day. The
entire amount of coin in the country, including that in private
hands, as well as that in banking institutions, was insufficient
to supply the need of the Government for three months, had it
all poured into the Treasury. Foreign credit we had none. We say
nothing of the overhanging paralysis of trade, and of business
generally, which threatened loss of confidence in the ability of
the Government to maintain its continued existence, and
therewith the complete destruction of all remaining national
credit.

       "It was at this time and in such circumstances that Congress
was called upon to devise means for maintaining the army and
navy, for securing the large supplies of money needed and,
indeed, for the preservation of the Government created by the
Constitution. It was at such a time and in such an emergency
that nothing else would have supplied the absolute necessities
of the Treasury, that nothing else would have enabled the
Government to maintain its armies and navies, that nothing else
would have saved the Government and the Constitution from
destruction, while the Legal Tender Acts would, could any one be
bold enough to assert that Congress transgressed its powers? Or
if these enactments did not work these results, can it be
maintained now that they were not for a legitimate end, or
`appropriate and adapted to that end?' in the language of Chief
Justice Marshall? That they did work such results is not to be
doubted. Something revived the drooping faith of the people;
something brought immediately to the Government's aid the
resources of the nation, and something enabled the successful
prosecution of the war, and the preservation of national life.
What was it, if not the Legal Tender enactments?"

       -       KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 539 (1871).

77 -    KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871).

78 JULLIARD VS. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

79 As a point of beginning, Article I, Section 10 limits itself
to the STATES ["No State shall..."], and not to the Congress.

       "The states can no longer declare what shall be money, or
regulate its value."

       -       KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 545 (1871).

Protestors trying to argue now that Article I, Section 10
restrains the Congress -- meaning something directly contrary to
what is written, is considerable foolishness.

80 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 [Yale
University Press, New Haven (1937); 4 volumes].

81 See THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER AS A MEANS OF ESTABLISHING A
UNIFIED BANKING SYSTEM, Notes ["Legislation"], 46 Harvard Law
Review 143 (1932).

82 "It is absolutely essential to independent national existence
that Government should have a firm hold on the two great
Sovereign instrumentalities of the sword and the purse, and the
right to wield them without restriction on occasions of national
peril. In certain emergencies Government must have at its
command, not only the personal services -- the bodies and lives
-- of its Citizens, but the lessor, though not less essential,
power of absolute control over the resources of the country. Its
armies must be filled, and its navies manned, by the Citizens in
person. Its materials of war, its munitions, equipment, and
commissary stores must come from the industry of the country.
This can only be stimulated into activity by a proper financial
system, especially as regards the currency."

       -       KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 [Justice Bradley, concurring]
(1871).

83 "The power of Congress over interstate commerce is `complete
in itself, may be executed to its utmost extent, and
acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the
Constitution'."

       -       UNITED STATES VS. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, at 114 (1940).

84 Remember the Legal Tender statutes were born in the fires of
the Civil War, when there was a great exigency and importance
associated with the idea of raising a lot of money very quickly;
yet, there were also disagreements on the floor of the Congress,
and reservations were expressed then as to the Constitutionality
of the proposed paper money that would be circulating:

       "The sum of the whole argument has been made in favor of the
Constitutionality of the power of Congress to declare the
Treasury notes contemplated by this bill a legal tender in
payment of all debts, public and private, may be stated in these
three propositions:

               "First, Congress may declare these notes a legal tender
because it is not inhibited;

               "Secondly, the Government must maintain itself, and Congress
may exercise all the power and adopt any measure it judges
necessary for that object;

               "Thirdly, that the power to declare these notes a legal tender
is a means necessary and proper to the full execution of the
power to regulate commerce.

       "This provision is as inexpedient as it is unconstitutional. It
is a legislative declaration of national bankruptcy. It is
saying to the world that this Government is unable to meet its
obligations at their real value; and must compound with its
creditors at a discount...

       "This provision attempts the impossible thing of giving to
paper the value of gold..."

       -       Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech in
Congress on February 5, 1862 [CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th
Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.]

85 Edwin Vieira represented Richard Solyom in a Stated related
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING, and challenged the right of a State
to force the acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes as the QUID PRO
QUO for his land that the State wanted to grab. Edwin Vieira
argued the monetary disabilities of Article I, Section 10 in an
action against a STATE, which at least is a correct point of
beginning -- a lot more than what I can say for Tax Protestors
throwing Article I, Section 10 arguments at THE CONGRESS. Edwin
Vieira also wrote a book discussing the monetary powers and
disabilities of the United States Constitution; see PIECES OF
EIGHT by Edwin Vieira, Jr. [Devin-Adair, Old Greenwich,
Connecticut (1983)].

86 You lawyers use that license of your's as a tool to impress
and intellectually intimidate people, and since that is your
standard, I would then hold you to it and order your disbarment
if I had any supervisory jurisdictional interest in your
license, just like Jerome Daly from Minnesota was once suspended
from the Practice of Law for his flaky money arguments. In the
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT for Credit River, Minnesota, on
December 7, 1968, Jerome Daly once scored an impressive victory
before a jury, on what was largely a stipulated factual setting
of FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION on a $14,000 mortgage that Jerome
Daly had defaulted on. Seemingly, he was off to a good start,
but a continuing series of rebuffments later on before judges
cast his money arguments off on an illicit tangent, and when he
refused to back off, his license was suspended.

87 75 U.S. 533 (1869).

88 HEPBURN VS. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870).

89 When I advocate folks taking cognizance of the fact that the
King has many different independent sources of jurisdiction to
pull from in order to justify the existence of the Federal
Reserve Board and those paper notes that his Legal Tender
statutes have designated to be his currency, please do not
construe that with any philosophical inclination on my part that
might appear to favor the King issuing out such paper based
circulating instruments that excite Gremlins so much in elevated
enscrewment ecstacy; I am different from Protestors only in the
limited sense that I always evaluate both sides of an issue
before throwing something at a Judge. Refusing to badmouth
adversaries does not mean that you agree with them
philosophically, nor does it inferentially suggest that one is
in alignment with the adversary's objectives; refusing to
badmouth means no more than realizing that the true remedy for
correcting these currency Torts will not lie in a Courtroom.
Therefore, by examining the case from the adversary's
perspective, frequently I uncover real error in positions taken
by Protestors, but by examining the case from the King's
perspective, that does not mean that I am sympathetic with the
King's MODUS OPERANDI or his objectives. Unlike Protestors, I do
not walk into a judicial confrontation with anyone assuming that
I am absolutely right, convinced that there is nothing the other
fellow has to say that is of any value, and then simply
expecting justice to be administered in my favor -- such a
person is necessarily in a very UNTEACHABLE state of mind -- he
will miss many low profile movements going on that are
suggestive of error. There may very well be some error in my
position that I did not see (or understand the significance of),
so my excursions into judicial arenas are always exploratory in
nature, and I keep myself in a teachable state of mind (a MODUS
OPERANDI Protestors would be wise to consider emulating).

90 Some Federal Reserve Protestors I know are planning to throw
some novel protesting arguments at Federal Judges. Having
concluded that quoting Constitutional restrainments is unlikely
to perfect judicial dissolution of the Federal Reserve System
[and correctly so as a factual matter], these Protestors have
decided to step down one level and just cite judicial reasoning
in an attempt to dismantle a small appendage of the Fed, called
the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE, or FOMC. By researching
Supreme Court cases back in the 1930's, an era when Judicial
annulment of Nelson Rockefeller's social welfare LEX [through
his public nominee, imp FDR] was in vogue, these Protestors
intend to cite Cases like:

       -       PANAMA REFINING COMPANY VS. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388 (1934);

       -       SCHECHTER POULTRY VS. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935);

       -       JAMES CARTER VS. CARTER COAL COMPANY, 298 U.S. 238 (1936);

and then pursuant to reasoning in those Cases, argue that the
delegation of regulatory commercial matters by the Congress to a
non-juristic business association of some type, is
unConstitutional:

       "But would it be seriously contended that Congress could
delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial
associations or groups as to empower them to enact the laws they
deem to be wise and beneficent for the rehabilitation and
expansion of their trade or industry? Could trade or industrial
associations or groups be constituted legislative bodies for
that purpose because such associations or groups are familiar
with the problems of their enterprises? And could an effort of
that sort be made valid by such a preface of generalities as to
permissible aims as we find in [this NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT that the Supreme Court is about to run into the
ground]? The answer is obvious. Such a delegation of legislative
power is unknown to our Law and is utterly inconsistent with the
Constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress."

       -       SCHECHTER POULTRY VS. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, at 537
(1935).

No where in the Constitution does it state that "... the
Congress shall not delegate any of its regulatory powers over
Commerce to business associations..." -- as there are numerous
negative restrainments and positive requirements deemed binding
on the Congress, but no where appearing in the Constitution;
many are reasonably inferred as existing incidental to what the
Constitution otherwise expressly mandates.

By going after just the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE appendage
within the Fed, and not the Fed itself, these Protestors are
emulating a successful MODUS OPERANDI used extensively by
Gremlins themselves -- by selectively hacking away at something
here a little, and there a little -- slowly and patiently.

Whether or not these Protestors will ultimately succeed is
inconclusive at the present time. There is some merit to their
DELEGATION QUESTION arguments as limited just to the FEDERAL
OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE itself within the Fed; and these arguments
are not overruled by the other wide ranging fundamental sources
of jurisdictional fuel the King has to create the larger Federal
Reserve.

.. And for Protestors searching for something to throw at the
Gremlin's enrichment Goliath, that's enough.

I am concerned about whether or not these Protestors can create
a sound JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, which is another question; to
the extent that the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE massages
around and regulates with juristic force banks and related
financial institutions, STANDING is necessarily limited to the
affected parties absent an evidentiary presentation of the
cascading train of damages originating within the inner sanctums
of the FOMC, that were eventually experienced by the Plaintiff.
I would feel more comfortable with the probable outcome of this
impending Case if an FOMC regulated institution itself appeared
as the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, these Protestors will find that
judicial reaction will be mixed -- there are Federal Judges who
are sympathetic with their arguments (as there is merit to
them), while there are other TOUGH COOKIE Federal Judges who
will take advantage of the factual opportunity this impending
Case presents to them, by throwing snortations at the Protestors.

91 Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski writing in BETWEEN TWO AGES:
AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, once advocated that the
fiction of Sovereignty must be replaced with reality:

       "The doctrine of sovereignty created the institutional basis
for challenging the secular authority of established religion,
and this challenge in turned paved the way for the emergence of
the abstract conception of the nation-state. Sovereignty vested
in the people, instead of Sovereignty vested in the king, was
the consummation of the process which in the two centuries
preceding the French and American revolutions radically altered
the structure of authority in the West and prepared the ground
for a new dominant concept of reality...

       "The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life
has ceased to be the principal creative force: `International
banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in
terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the
nation-state.' But as the nation-state is gradually yielding its
sovereignty, the psychological importance of the national
community is rising, and the attempt to establish an equilibrium
between the imperatives of the [Corporate Socialist Rockefeller
Cartel's] new internationalism and the need for a more intimate
national community is the source of frictions and conflicts."

       -       Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES: AMERICA'S
ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, at 70 and 56 [Viking Press, New
York City (1970)].

92 Juristic institutions descend to the level of Commercial game
players whenever they enter into the world of Commerce; so it
can be argued that Sovereignty takes a back seat under some
circumstances [this interesting Supreme Court Doctrine on the
declension in status and loss of Sovereignty whenever the King
enters into Commerce, appears in this Letter later with
discussing those CIRCULATING EVIDENCES OF DEBT, Federal Reserve
Notes].

93 For example, the original draft versions of the Second and
Fifth Amendments were far more specific and restrictive than the
negotiated comprised milktoast versions that finally made it
through the Congress of 1787. Yes, the Constitution was an
INSPIRED DOCUMENT, but an INSPIRED DOCUMENT does not mean
PERFECT DOCUMENT:

       "We believe that God raised up George Washington, that He
raised up Thomas Jefferson, that He raised up Benjamin Franklin
and those other Patriots who carved out with their swords and
with their pens the character and stability of this great
Government which they hoped would stand forever, an asylum for
the oppressed of all nations, where no man's religion would be
questioned, no man would be limited in his honest service to his
Maker, so long as he did not infringe upon the rights of his
fellow men. We believe those men were inspired to do their work,
as we do that Joseph Smith was inspired to begin this work; just
as Galileo, Columbus, and other mighty men of old... were
inspired to gradually pave the way leading to this Dispensation;
Sentinels, standing at different periods down the centuries,
playing their parts as they were inspired of God; gradually
dispelling the darkness as they were empowered by their Creator
so to do, that in culmination of the grand scheme of schemes,
this great nation, the Republic of the United States, might be
established upon this land as an asylum for the oppressed; a
resting place [a sanctuary] it might be said, for the ARK OF THE
COVENANT, where the Temple of our God might be built; where the
PLAN OF SALVATION might be introduced and practiced in freedom,
and not a dog would wag his tongue in opposition to the purposes
of the Almighty. We believe that this was His object in creating
the Republic of the United States; the only land where His work
could be commenced or the feet of his people come to rest. No
other land had such liberal institutions, had adopted so broad a
platform upon which all men might stand. We give glory to those
Patriots for the noble work they did; but we given first glory
to God, our Father and their Father, who inspired them. We take
them by the hand as brothers. We believe they did nobly their
work, even as we would fain do ours, faithfully and well, that
we might not be recreant in the eyes of God, for failing to
perform the mission to which He has appointed us."

       -       Orson F. Whitney, in a discourse delivered at the Tabernacle
on April 19, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at 200 [London
(1886)].

94 For example, in the Continental Congress on August 28th,
1787, "Article 12 was being discussed. Article 12 was proposed
to be as follows:

       "Article XII. No state shall coin money; nor grant letters of
marque and reprisals; nor enter into any treaty, alliance, or
confederation; nor grant any title of Nobility."

"Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roger Sherman moved to insert after the
words COIN MONEY the words TO EMIT BILLS OF CREDIT, NOR MAKE ANY
THING BUT GOLD AND SILVER COIN A TENDER IN PAYMENT OF DEBTS,
thus making those prohibitions against paper money absolute.

"Mr. Ghorum thought the purpose would be well secured by the
provision of Article XIII, which makes the consent of the
General Legislature necessary, and in that mode, no opposition
would be excited; whereas an absolute prohibition of paper money
would rouse the most desperate opposition from its partizans.

"Mr. Sherman thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper
money. If the consent of the Legislature could authorize
emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every
exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it."

       -       see Max Farrand's II RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF
1787, at page 439 [Yale University Press, New Haven (1911-1937)].

Notice how Mr. Sherman and Mr Ghorum were concerned,
knowledgeable and aware of the exterior opposition to
prohibiting the emission of paper bills. There was opposition
lying around the Countryside, opposed to making hard gold and
silver mandatory with no legislative discretion allowed to
substitute paper bills for gold and silver coin. So the reason
why we have fraudulent Federal Reserve Notes running around
today is because our Founding Fathers failed to tie the King
down yesterday -- and Federal Judges are not Commie pinkos when
tossing out arguments attacking Federal Reserve Notes. Our
Founding Fathers specifically declined to make explicit and
blunt prohibitions against the emission of paper bills because
they knew then that few people wanted such a mandatory
restrainment operating on the Congress, and our Fathers in 1787
did not want to create opposition to the proposed new
Constitution designed to replace the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.
So what we are left with today is the milktoast of Article I,
Section 8. Gremlins have merely take advantage of what our
Fathers circumvented back then; and our Fathers found themselves
in such a position because a lot of folks did not want
prohibitions against the emission of paper bills. We did this to
ourselves, and Patriots are snickering at the wrong people.

95 Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish
lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name
and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler, the
second daughter of Phillip Schuyler, at the bride's home in
Albany, New York, on December 14, 1780. The bride's mother was
Catherine van Rensselaer, daughter of Colonel John R. van
Rensselaer, who was the son of Hendrik, the grandson of
Killiaen, the first Partroon, and Engeltke (Angelica)
Livingston. The bride had been characterized as:

       "... a brunette with the most good natured, dark, lovely eyes
that I ever saw, which threw a beam of good temper and
benevolence over her entire countenance."

The bride was just over 23, and the groom was 25. Alexander's
courtship with Elizabeth that year had been very brief, as the
arranged marriage that it was. While others have uncovered
payment records in the British Museum in London from the
Rothschilds to their nominee Alexander Hamilton, an examination
of his political orientation [particularly his drive to create a
national bank] magnifies his Gremlin stature. There is quite a
large number of Alexander Hamilton related biographics and
profile sketches floating around. See "THE INTIMATE LIFE OF
ALEXANDER HAMILTON," by Allan Hamilton [Charles Scribner's Sons,
New York (1910) [quote on the bride's description, id., at page
95]; and "ALEXANDER HAMILTON: YOUTH TO MATURITY, 1755 - 1788,"
by Broades Mitchell [MacMillian Company, New York (1957)].

96 There has always been a period of Time in the United States
when well sponsored imps have ascended into positions of
political prominence; sometimes into Juristic Institutions, and
other times they operate on the outside, perhaps as a director
of a foundation, a historian, or a university professor of some
type. One such imp, financially sponsored by Rockefeller Cartel
interests, has been Rexford Tugwell, who likes to create the
image that he is a historian. In one of his books, entitled THE
EMERGING CONSTITUTION, he really shows off his Gremlin colors.
He tries to throw derogatory characterizations at our Founding
Fathers by pointing attention over to such things as the acreage
of land once owned by Thomas Jefferson and other economic
profile information; but the fact that the Four Rockefeller
Brothers are financially sponsoring little Tug himself to write
a new Constitution to enrich the Brothers is, of course,
something this little imp, speaking with a forked tongue,
remains silent on. And he has, of course, just the right
solution for all those CRUCIAL American legal ailments: A new
Constitution >see TEXT FILE on THE NEWSTATES CONSTITUTION,
available on some BBS's for downloading< -- designed along
Corporate Socialist lines that would enrich his sponsors in the
Rockefeller Cartel. Under this new Constitution, large private
corporations assume several of the functions once held
exclusively by Juristic Institutions -- such as criminal
prosecutions, the regulation of business, issuance of commercial
licenses, and, of course, there is no Trial by Jury. Rexford
Tugwell shows off his true Gremlin colors by coming down on
those great triple Gremlin irritants: LAISSEZ-FAIRE,
INDIVIDUALISM, and the INDEPENDENCE of national Sovereignty:

       "So much for the Constitution. But it did not end there;
continuing suspicion of authority allowed LAISSEZ-FAIRE to
thrive beyond its time and allowable scope; and the propensity
to contrive produced an affluence we did not use to advantage
because we held to INDIVIDUALISM and INDEPENDENCE in theory
although we created a system of social and economic complexes
requiring integration and organic management. If these
generalizations are accepted, they describe a curious and
unanticipated outcome. It is not certain, for instance, how much
of our affluence is owed to the INDIVIDUALISM that now threatens
to choke its own further growth...

       "Yet the myth of INDEPENDENCE and INDIVIDUALISM persists,
mostly nowadays as a political appeal, but it furnishes
assurances to unthinking citizens. These words are regarded with
cynical tolerance by intellectuals; but they still have an
appeal to the electorate, and they will until a more realistic
approach has made its way into people's minds...

       "The laws establishing [administrative] agencies did not
clearly recognize that the businesses involved were using
resources belonging to the people, and lacking this, their
authority to make allocations was hazy. They were handicapped
also by the prevailing belief in LAISSEZ-FAIRE..."

       -       Rexford Tugwell in THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION, at 17, 27 and
145 [Harper & Row, New York (1974); Sponsored by the
Rockefeller's FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC in Santa Monica, California].

Notice what difficulty Gremlins like little Tug have in
restraining themselves not to throw invectives at those heinous
institutions of INDIVIDUALISM, LAISSEZ-FAIRE, and the
INDEPENDENCE of national Sovereignty. Gremlins do not want
INDIVIDUALS to amount to something great on their own volition
[they want men to remain boys, and for everyone to keep their
diapers on by looking to Government for security, for
protection, and as a source of remedies for society's problems];
they do not want LAISSEZ-FAIR [they want total top down
Government control of everything, so that when Government
controls it, then they can control it]; and Gremlins do not want
the world divided up into multiple independent Sovereignties
[they want a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, under their control]. Those
are the great Gremlin objectives, and getting rid of that United
States Constitution -- and everything else Majestic, Celestial,
and developmental of INDIVIDUALS that it represents -- is a
glorious dream for imps to bask in. [For other attacks on the
Founding Fathers by sponsored self-proclaimed "historians," see
imp Charles Beard in AN ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION [The Free Press, New York (1913)]; who
uncovered detailed financial profile information on the
Founders, and then came to the conclusion, as he was paid to do,
that the Constitution was just a legal instrument to self-enrich
its creators. Like his brother Rexford Tugwell, CHARLES BEARD
SHOULD BE THE VERY LAST ONE TO TALK.]

97 If you CONSERVATIVES were smart, you would not consider
donating money or voting for any candidate expressing sympathy
with either the milktoast Democratic or Republican Party
Platforms; such a candidate is no adversary of Gremlins. As far
as I am concerned, if in fact the Gremlins can pull off this
Constitutional switch at the impending Constitutional
Convention, then they fully deserve the avalanche of benefits
such a juristic instrument will generate for them. I admire
victors of battles for their tactical SAVIOR FAIRE, even though
I may not be sympathetic with their doctrines or objectives.

98 "In connection with the attack on the United States, the Lord
told the Prophet Joseph Smith [that] there would be an attempt
to overthrow the country by destroying the Constitution. Joseph
Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution
would hang as it were by a thread, and at that time... the
Elders of Israel, widely spread over the nation, will, at the
crucial time... [participate by providing] the necessary balance
of strength to save the institutions of Constitutional
Government. Now is the time to get ready."

       -       Ezra Taft Benson in CONFERENCE REPORTS, page 70 (October,
1961).

99 If you are unaware of the interest certain Gremlins have
towards using that impending Convention for their own
proprietary purposes, then consider these words from our Gremlin
friend EXTRAORDINAIRE, Zbigniew Brzezinski:

       "The approaching two hundredth anniversary of the Declaration
of Independence could justify the call for a national
constitutional convention to reexamine the nation's formal
institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1987 -- the two
hundredth anniversary of the Constitution -- could serve as a
target date for culminating a national dialogue on the relevance
of existing arrangements, the workings of the representative
process, and the desirability of imitating the various European
regionalization reforms and of streamlining the administrative
structure. More important still, either date would provide a
suitable occasion for redefining the meaning of modern democracy
-- a task admittedly challenging but not necessarily more so
than when it was undertaken by the founding fathers -- and for
setting ambitious and concrete social goals."

       -       Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES: AMERICA'S
ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, at 258 [Viking Press, New York
City (1970)].

Those "social goals" that Brzezinski wants involve a NEW
ECONOMIC ORDER which Brzezinski openly admits would seriously
threaten "the traditional American values of individualism, free
enterprise, the work ethic, and efficiency." -- but pesky little
anachronisms like those are nuisances today, and his employer
David Rockefeller has no room for nuisances. What David decrees
is what's important, and David has decreed that Corporate
Socialism is important.

[FILE CORRUPTION]



You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.