1. Through the beneficial use of a taxable franchise like
Social Security. A lot of folks don't realize it, but the
presentation of a Social Security Number to your Employer is a
contract with the King to pay taxes, and an acknowledgement of
personal Status as a Taxpayer.
QUESTION: How do you get out of this?
ANSWER: This is not an easy thing to do; clever administrative
rule making forced on Employers has tightened Employers up --
and they have the money we want. In an Employee/Employer
relationship factual setting as a first step, it is first
necessary to terminate all written attachments of King's Equity
Jurisdiction you previously initiated with the King. Some of the
steps taken now in this section will not be appreciated until
all of the invisible juristic contracts that the King is
operating on have been correctively severed -- so one has to
read the entire Letter first, and then come back to this
section. But as for written attachments of King's Equity
Jurisdiction relevant in an Employment factual setting, for most
folks, this act transpired when they were a teenager and they
signed a form and mailed it to Washington, and requested a
Social Security Number. Pursuant to your administrative request,
the King issued out a Number, and so now the contemporary
beneficial use of that Social Security Number by you in an
Employment setting creates a taxing liability; as the Federal
judiciary considers participation in Social Security to be a
taxable franchise, among other things. But that is only a small
part of the story, and this rescission is only a point of
beginning. Second, terminate the acceptance and receipt of all
benefits that otherwise inure to Social Security beneficiaries,
because under Nature remember that no written contract is now
necessary, or has ever been necessary, to extract money out of
Social Security participants (unless the King in his statutes
has explicitly limited himself to collect money only under
written contracts for some reason). And in terms of attaching
one's liability to contributing premium reciprocity to the
King's Social Security handout LARGESSE, the mere rescission of
the written Social Security contract, as is now prevalent among
Patriots trying to get to the bottom of things is, of and by
itself, irrelevant, and does not terminate any taxing liability
(as I will explain later).
The fundamental reason why EMPLOYEES are viewed universally by
State and Federal judges as being taxable objects is because the
EMPLOYEE is clothed with multiple layers of juristic contracts
separate and apart from Social Security, by reason of the large
array of juristic benefits the EMPLOYEE has accepted by his
silence. Therefore, EMPLOYEES are in a commercial enrichment
setting, EMPLOYEES are in business, and the gain experienced by
EMPLOYEES is very much taxable, since the King participated in
creating the financial gain the EMPLOYEE is experiencing. But
now that you have been placed on Notice that a rightful moral
liability does attach on your acceptance of the King's
Employment scenario intervention by throwing invisible juristic
benefits at Employees, when you first get hired on again with
someone else, as another point of beginning, now let's change
the factual setting a bit, and refuse to provide a Social
Security Number.1
After they threaten you with termination, as they eventually
will do, then provide a number under your objection and over
your protest, and notice of waiving and rejecting all benefits
otherwise available to you as an Employee; not just retirement
benefits, but the immediate environmental protection benefits
all Employees experience (by the end of this section, you will
see what the immediate benefits are that I am referring to). The
objective behind this OBJECTION is to make a STATEMENT. That
Objection should cite the King's forced third party relationship
to the arrangements, and your Objection to his intervention
against your will; his forcing you to accept his benefits that
you now hereby waive, refuse, forfeit and forego; and then also
claim that such an unwanted and forced relationship with the
King violates relational PRINCIPLES OF NATURE not permissible
absent the existence of some other invisible contract you may
not be aware of; and interferes with your RIGHT TO WORK under
the Fifth Amendment.2
These OBJECTION presentations are necessarily status oriented,
as they define your non-involvement with trade, commerce,
business, and industry -- an involvement which if left
uncountermanded, automatically infers a Contract Law factual
setting in effect between your EMPLOYER, yourself and the King.
But if your new Status falls outside the boundary lines of
King's Commerce [where all those who enter therein experience
enrichment, created in part by the King's benefit], then there
is an inherent RIGHT TO WORK interest in the 14th Amendment as
well [TRAUX VS. RAICH, 229 U.S. 33 (1915)].3
Some ideas to consider and think about while creating your
OBJECTION, might be to state perhaps that the Social Security
Number you are giving him is being done solely for the purpose
of deflecting the otherwise imminent termination of your
livelihood, and that the Social Security Number you are giving
him was previously rescinded4 and is presently null and void
(and that re-presentation of the number under PROTEST, OBJECTION
and REJECTION OF BENEFITS after its prior nullification does not
reactivate it); and that you hereby waive, forfeit, forego, and
will return where possible, any and all benefits that would
otherwise inure to you as an Employee and as a participant in
the Social Security retirement program, and that this Objection
you are filing is a continuous one, and that any qualified
acceptance of bank drafts taken in contemplation of exchange
into hard currency is accepted for the administrative
convenience of your Employer, and will be endorsed under
protest, at law and not in equity, in the future; etc., does not
change, alter, or diminish anything relative to your Status or
the life of that Objection. Also noticed out should be
statements concerning your non-involvement with Commerce; Status
as Non-Taxpayer;5 rescission of the attachment of a special
King's Equity Jurisdiction that uncontested Birth Certificates
create under some limited circumstances; and Notice of prior
Objections having been filed, objecting to the attachment of
Equity Jurisdiction that otherwise lie to Holders in Due Course
of circulating Federal Reserve equitable instruments that the
King's Legal Tender Statutes6 have enhanced the value of, etc.
This Objection, along with your Employer's threats, must all be
in writing as a confrontation with the King is coming. (Your
Employer will forward the Social Security Number to the IRS, who
then in turn will simply assume that you are a Taxpayer, and
reasonably so, based upon what little information they have).
Since the IRS has some evidence that you are a Taxpayer, the
burden then shifts to you to prove that yes, although the IRS
does have my number, these are the reasons as to why I am not a
Taxpayer. In such a confrontational setting, it ranges from
possible to likely that your Employer will lie, have a
convenient loss of memory, and otherwise not stick up for you
when push accelerates to shove. Since the burden of proof to
prove non-Taxpayer and non-Commercial Status now falls on you,
depositions which would ordinarily be necessary from your
Employer to prove that your Objections were made timely (with
the questioning contained therein discussing the circumstances
surrounding the surrendering of that Social Security Number to
him), now becomes unnecessary. If the Employer's threats to
terminate you, and your Objections and Rescissions are all down
tight in writing, the factual setting is now undisputed, and
depositions are unnecessary; so a little prevention here is
important.7
As for the IRS, the only information they have is a name and
your Social Security Number, so as a point of beginning, it is
reasonable for them to simply proceed against you as if you are
a Taxpayer; and agents trying to collect money for the King
should not be viewed as some type of an enemy to kill (they are
transient AD HOC adversaries, not enemies). Under normal
circumstances, your Case can be won at the administrative level
by requesting an Administrative Hearing and using Title 5 and
the Code of Federal Regulations with SAVOIR FAIRE, and then
taking your Case up the grievance ladder, one step at a time.8
But just in case, get ready to speak your mind in front of the
Supreme Court, if necessary. If physically flying yourself to
Washington does not intrigue you, then you might consider paying
the requested tax, as you have already lost.9
Now that this discussion has shifted over to the administrative
adjudication of grievances with the King, I need to digress just
a bit and discuss Principles relating to Demands for an
Administrative Hearing.10 In an administrative adjudication,
numerous people I know of have requested administrative hearings
to discuss the want of jurisdiction that the King or a Prince
was asserting generally in many different settings. As part of
the strategy involved, failure by the state administrators to
grant a hearing would later bar civil tax liability and even a
criminal prosecution for the same ACTUS REUS later under the
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, which is an unwritten Common Law
Principle.11
The PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL has many closely related sister
Principles of Estoppel; there are PRINCIPLES OF PRECLUSION,12
and Estoppels themselves can be either DIRECT or COLLATERAL.
There is also a parallel Doctrine called JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL.13
But for our purposes, only the COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE will
be briefly discussed.
Correctly understood, these Administrative Law Demands are
marvelous devices, which, if handled properly, can and will tie
the King's and the Prince's giblets down tight: But they need
to be viewed, understood, and plead, properly. These
Administrative Law Demands many seek are the lessor
administrative equivalent of a judicially sought Declaratory
Judgment; and so all of the Natural Law requirements and indicia
that apply to judicial Declaratory Judgments, also apply to
Administrative Judgments. The most important indicia of which is
that there must be a JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY at hand, i.e., some
type of case or controversy, which if left unresolved will
damage a person.14
JUSTICIABILITY is closely related to STANDING,15 and both are
indicia related to make sure that you are in fact, entitled to
the relief that you are seeking, and that there is, in fact an
actual grievance for the Law to operate on and for the Judiciary
to rule upon.16 In JUSTICIABILITY averments, you must establish
that you have a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy,17 and that the dispute sought to be
administratively adjudicated will be presented in an adversary
context,18 and that the logical nexus between the Status we
assert and the claim sought to be adjudicated are both
present,19 along with the necessary degree of contentiousness.20
To your advantage, the JUSTICIABILITY DOCTRINE has uncertain and
shifting contours, and properly so, as it organically follows
the Branches of the Majestic Oak.21
To really understand the reasoning behind the judicial
requirement for the presence of JUSTICIABILITY in DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS, think of JUSTICIABILITY as being like "tension" in
effect between two adversaries. If the tension is not there,
then the Judge (either a Judicial Judge, or an Administrative
Law Judge) is not dealing with a grievance, he is actually
dealing with a hypothetical factual setting that may or may not
ever come to pass. If the Judge issued down an Order based upon
such a hypothetical factual setting without the element of
JUSTICIABILITY in effect, the effect of that Order would be to
work a Tort on the adverse Party the Order operates against;
this Party did nothing, and in fact may have very well intended
to do nothing; but now an Order exists declaring some reversed
relational rights (meaning: One of the Parties no longer holds
the upper hand). As viewed from a Judge's perspective, the
absence of that "distinct and palpable injury" of JUSTICIABILITY
renders the Case moot, because there is nothing for the Judge to
do; and if anything was done by the Judge, a judicial Tort would
be thrown at one of the parties for no more than an exchange of
hypothetical factual settings between fictional adversaries. For
example, if in fact the Law requires some simple positive act to
be performed unilaterally by some Government official regardless
of anything you do or don't do, then a proper remedy to compel
performance would lie in MANDAMUS, where questions of the
existence of the tension of JUSTICIABILITY between adversaries
is not relevant.22 And specifically referring to rebuffed
Demands for Administrative Hearings, the correct medicine may
actually lay in ALTERNATIVE MANDAMUS (meaning: Grant the
Hearing, or in the alternative, forfeit your jurisdiction, just
the right medicine to deal with bureaucratic recalcitrance).
So merely sending a DEMAND FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING to a
state official to discuss their assertion of a regulatory
jurisdictional environment on the public highways, without any
specific Case or controversy being presented for adjudication,
will later Collaterally Estop no one, as no averments of a
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY were made (who is making an assertion of
jurisdiction over you? What traffic cop or law enforcement
person, and when? What did the traffic cop say? Where is the
assignment of policing jurisdiction of that cop down through
state statutes from the Legislature? What penal statute did he
threaten you with? What does that statute say? (Go ahead and
quote the statute, verbatim). Who is your adversary in the
demanded Hearing? Where is your personal stake in the outcome
of the demanded Hearing? If the Hearing is not granted, how
will you be damaged? Those types of JUSTICIABILITY averments
have to be included in the body of your Demand for an
Administrative Hearing; local Collateral Estoppel victories
applied against such otherwise content deficient Administrative
briefings will collapse under the scrutiny of sophisticated
appellate judges who will examine your Administrative Law
Demands from the perspective of trying to find fault with them,
if your local District Attorney adversary should ever decide to
give you a run for your money.
If you are seeking an Administrative Hearing to discuss the
assertion of a regulatory zoning jurisdiction being made against
some real property you own, then the specific assertion of such
a purported jurisdiction by, perhaps, a Building Inspector must
be made; with the specific assertion being applied against you
individually. What Inspector made the assertion, and when and
how did he make the assertion? How will you be damaged if the
Hearing is not granted? What local ordinance code did the
Inspector threaten you with, and what does it say? Are you up
against incarceration? If so, then come out and say so.
Correctly understood, your averments on JUSTICIABILITY are a
reduced presentation of the larger factual setting the grievance
itself lies in, edited to emphasize the impending damages you
will be experiencing if the Hearing is not granted immediately.
(Incidentally, the easiest way to get some Inspector to make an
assertion of Civil Law regulatory jurisdiction over your
property is to walk up to one, show him your plans, tell him you
have no intention to solicit a Building Permit, and then ask him
what he intends to do about it. His quoting some local code or
penal statute to tell you that Building Permits are mandatory is
your JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.23 Make sure the Building Inspector
quotes penal statutes in his response to your inquiry, because
that is exactly what he will later be throwing at you in
exchange for your defiance of his Special Interest Group
sponsored Civil Law LEX jurisdiction).24
Those are the types of factual averments of JUSTICIABILITY that
have to be plead in the body of a Demand for an Administrative
Hearing, in order to present the administrators with a Case or
Controversy that is ripe for a low level administrative
settlement.25 If that Administrative Hearing Demand of your was
submitted to state administrators after a prosecution has begun,
then Justiciability is obvious for all parties to see. However,
Justiciability still has to be positively plead within the body
of the Demand through sequentially presented factual averments,
otherwise the Supreme Court won't know that a Justiciable
Controversy was offered for a low level settlement.
Now, theoretically, the failure by your regional bureaucrats to
grant the Hearing will later estop a magistrate presiding over
criminal charges that were brought out of those circumstances
that were offered to have been settled, and should have been
previously settled, in a lessor administrative forum.26
In a criminal prosecution defense setting, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
has to be Plead properly, and the factual setting has to be very
carefully structured in advance to show clearly how the
Government is just plain wrong up and down the line, and that
this Collateral Estoppel is just the right medicine to hem in
Government.27 So Collateral Estoppel is generally much easier to
use in civil grievances, such as civil tax collections. In any
event, a Case on appeal should have arguments sounding in
Estoppel as background secondary redundant points, when seeking
criminal conviction reversion, as Collateral Estoppel itself is
still a developing jurisprudential branch,28 and, at the present
time, is insufficient conviction reversal material to rely on as
a "stand alone" defense line. Although appellate judges have
been reluctant to make Collateral Estoppel mandatory and binding
in favor of the criminally accused, they are less reluctant to
make Collateral Estoppel operate against the criminally
accused.29
Having grievances settled at the lowest possible level is a
correct Principle of Natural Law.30 And as usual, it is those
lawyers who -- in pursuit of their own financial self-enrichment
-- are twisting our Father's Common Law into what appears
facially to be unrecognizable garbage.31 What Warren Burger is
saying is true, even though his instant expressions of support
for Collateral Estoppel happened to operate against a criminally
accused person in Ohio. This piecemeal approach by the Judiciary
is disorganized, and results in criminal prosecutions being
sustained against Individuals when they really should not be,
merely because the proper underlying authority for conviction
annulment is non-existent.32
The correct solution for this is for the Supreme Court to grab
the bull by the horns and require that Principles of Collateral
Estoppel are now binding and mandatory on everyone: Government,
the criminally accused, and all parties in civil actions, and no
outs. This would be an activist position for the Supreme Court
to take, a position that is cutting across their contemporary
grain of "narrow opinion" thinking.33
The Doctrine of settling grievances at the lowest possible
level, of which Collateral Estoppel is a correlative Doctrine,
is found replicating itself over and over again throughout
Supreme Court rulings.34 This SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST LEVEL
DOCTRINE surfaces in many places. For example, it is found:
1. In the Judicially created DOCTRINES OF EXHAUSTION, PRIMARY
JURISDICTION, PRIOR RESORT, and EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, all of
which operate to send a grievance down to an administrative
agency for different types of rulings for technical reasons,
prior to initiating higher judicial intervention;
2. By having the parties first exhaust their lower state
remedies in criminal appeals and civil actions prior to seeking
higher Federal judicial intervention; this surfaces most
frequently in petitions for federal restraining orders to block
state criminal prosecutions, and petitions for HABEAS CORPUS;
3. By having parties seek the lowest possible level of a
judicial forum first (i.e., the lowest state court possessing
the requisite settlement jurisdiction, and the use of federal
magistrates instead of District Court Judges to settle small
single-Hearing oriented grievances);
4. By a statutory requirement that a lower final demand for
money believed due and owing must first be made and precede the
higher initiation of the judicial civil lawsuit;
5. By the delegated conferment by the Supreme Court of a Grant
of automatic Concurrent Jurisdiction to every single state court
in the United States, to hear and rule on Federal Constitutional
questions, regardless of any state statutes that may appear to
operate to the contrary; state courts also hold concurrent
jurisdiction to hear a large volume of federal statutory based
grievances;
6. By the mandates of the Supreme Court to all Federal
Appellate Circuits not to interfere with or reverse any findings
of facts made by Federal District Court Judges, absent very
special circumstances (so that the disputed factual setting the
grievance was cast in is settled at the lowest possible level);
7. And in the case of the Supreme Court having Original
Jurisdiction, they will first send the Case to a lower regional
District Court having Concurrent Jurisdiction by statute. (If
this Concurrent Jurisdiction is wanting, then after accepting
Original Jurisdiction on the Case, the Supreme Court will
appoint a regional District Court Judge to be a Special Master
to make findings of facts at that low level, which the Supreme
Court will then audit and review as the sole appellate forum);
8. And this Doctrine is also expressed in the self-imposed
mandates of the Supreme Court to settle grievances by use of a
lower statutory construction if possible, rather than magnifying
the settlement remedy by use of the higher Constitutional
construction;
9. This Doctrine surfaces in the Supreme Court's refusal to
consider ruling on arguments and reasoning that were not
presented to a lower judicial forum first; and
10. The Supreme Court also wants lower Federal Tribunals to use
lower state law to settle grievances, prior to using federal
common [Case] law or federal statutes.
And on and on.35
This SETTLE IT DOWN THERE DOCTRINE even surfaces in The
Administrative Procedures Act of Title 5 and the Code of Federal
Regulations. Several such rules contained in numerous
Administrative Procedures Acts initially seem to obstruct the
pursuit of justice by creating artificial impediments on both
parties that inhibit the settlement of grievances; but in
reality those impediments take on new vibrancy, life, and
meaning when viewed from the perspective of the Congress trying
to create incentives for both parties to quickly effectuate a
settlement of grievances between adversaries, even while the
grievance is still swirling in a tempest of administrative
gestation. Incidentally, this Doctrine, which is an operation of
Nature, is also found producing results in relations between
married folks, and between neighbors, and between parent and
child, and child and school teacher, and between an Employer and
an Employee. Just because we turn around and walk out the
Courtroom doors doesn't mean that Nature changes at all, or that
a different set of Principles somehow governs life.
All of those are examples of that SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST
POSSIBLE LEVEL FIRST DOCTRINE; and the Collateral Estoppel
Doctrine, which operates to penalize the recalcitrant party that
did not settle something at a lower level that was offered to
them (as an incentive to avoid doing so again in the future), as
applied to Administrative Law Demands, is a correct PRINCIPLE OF
NATURE.36 It is simply all over Nature and scientific method.37
Let us assume that you are a Gameplayer in King's Commerce, so
you are a Taxpayer; so if you have a grievance with your
Employer regarding the premature withholding of money from your
wages under disputed tax liability circumstances, try to settle
it with him right then and there, before going up the ladder a
step and invoking an Administrative Hearing with the IRS. If you
do not try to settle it with your Employer, the letters going
back and forth (proving the factual setting surrounding their
threats and your objections) will be non-existent; which means
that you either made no attempt to settle the grievance right
then and there, or in the alternative, you accepted your
Employer's last offer. That is the way sophisticated Federal
Magistrates view the matter, and if you will but give that model
but a few moments thought and imagination, then you too will
arrive at the same conclusion: That the reason why you were
later rebuffed by a Federal Magistrate is due to your own
improper handling of the factual setting you presented to that
Judge when prematurely asking for a Restraining Order of some
type of tax refund suit. Then after exhausting your potential
remedies with your Employer, always first ask for a Contested
Case Administrative Hearing with the IRS before going up the
ladder one more step and initiating a Judicial Complaint. As you
go up the ladder one step at a time, one of the benefits you
will be experiencing is finding your adversary making numerous
technical mistakes, which when called by you will cause you to
win for technical reasons; if you jump the gun like a lot of Tax
Protestors do and head straight for the Federal District
Courthouse to have it out with your Employer and the King, your
grievance will likely have to be addressed solely on the
presentment of poorly drafted pleadings and flaky merits (being
up to your neck in invisible contracts), since by jumping the
gun, no interlocutory steps were offered to your adversary to
slip up on.38
Any experienced person knows that people, in any field, from
business to law to engineering to medicine, in any field, always
messes up; and IRS agents and the King's Attorneys in the
Department of Justice in Washington mess up each and every
single day, over and over again, just like everyone else.39
Therefore, by jumping the gun, skipping three steps on the
ladder, although you may believe that the end result is closer,
you are actually only damaging yourself. The sky never falls in
because Principles are violated; only very subtle and difficult
to detect secondary consequences surface later on in ways that
make their seminal point of causation difficult to discern.
In contrast, if you are not a Gameplayer in Commerce and have
rejected all federal benefits, then as a non-Taxpayer you fall
outside the procedural administrative mandates of the King's
LEX, and it is provident for you to go directly into the
Judiciary.40
Should you conclude that it would be provident to initially
pursue Judicial Relief, then your requisite array of Status
Averments form an integral and important part of the Pleadings,
in order to document why you are not a Taxpayer and why you are
somehow exempt from the Administrative ladder that applies to
every one else. Even though you may not be a Taxpayer, there may
be some technical advantages inuring to players who use the
Administrative ladder, one step at a time, but the decisional
turning point on whether to initially pursue administrative or
judicial relief revolves around a purely status oriented
question: Are you a Taxpayer or not? By the end of this
Letter, you should be able to get a good feel as to the extent
to which you have successfully removed yourself out from
underneath the King's taxation thumb.
As for the JUSTICIABILITY Question in Demanding Administrative
Hearings, unless there is a Case or Controversy at hand, it is
foolishness for Government officials to discuss something at an
Administrative Hearing that which, if discussed, would neither
settle nor adjudicate anything; so if your views are that their
granting you the Hearing they don't want to give you would
settle something, then that is part of your entitlement
pleadings under STANDING and JUSTICIABILITY. In our specific
instant case of an Employer, acting in an agency relationship to
the King, withholding money from non-Taxpayers who are not
involved with Commerce and experience no Federal benefits and is
an "excepted subject,"41 our JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY is the fact
that if the Administrative Hearing is not granted immediately,
you personally will be damaged by a continuing loss of money
that is being withheld from your earnings. That is the kind of
hard JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY averment that Judges want to hear,
and that is the kind of JUSTICIABILITY that even case-hardened
Federal Judges will reluctantly respect. Correlative ENTITLEMENT
TO RELIEF averments of STANDING (your personal interest in the
Case) are also required. Since you are personally being damaged
by the operation of statutes, your STANDING is automatic.
And speaking of the Supreme Court (and stay out of any
confrontation with the King unless an extensive journey to
Washington intrigues you) the only question you should want
answered is essentially a STATUS question: Does the King have
the right to intervene into simple common law occupations to
such an extent that an INDIVIDUAL not in an Equity
Jurisdictional relationship with the King and not in Commerce,
and rejecting Federal political benefits, can force the
acceptance of unwanted benefits, and can force a Federal
Taxpayer Status on someone (with the attendant criminal
liability associated therewith), and can force the signing of
contracts with the King, and all of that prior to being able to
experience any livelihood at all? If the Supreme Court responds
by saying yes,42 the King does have these extreme intervention
Rights to force you to accept his political and Commercial
benefits against your will and over your objection, because of
some important overriding Governmental interests, then let's get
this monolithic slab of top down Roman Civil Law out into the
open so we can deal with it for what it really is.43
My hunch is that if the Supreme Court ever grants CERTIORARI,
and if they have the naked nerve to stand up to the King and
actually publicly report out the decision in their United States
Reports (which is not very likely in today's judicial climate of
intellectual MINIMALISM and judicial restraint [which really
means to hide in a closet]), I conjecture that their ruling will
be consistent with Nature and Natural Law, based on the factual
setting then presented to them, and the King will lose, if the
factual setting was set up properly to sever all voluntary
attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction up and down the line.44
Of all of the Federal and state judicial Complaints that I have
seen, going back now 10 years (requesting either injunctive or
restraining relief, or Complaints seeking refunds from the IRS,
(although I do know of some uncontested victories)), I have
never seen one of them correctly plead where all of the required
contract annulment indicia and elements of pure Equity severance
were presented in one neat little package, with all of the
Objections having been made, made substantively, and made
timely. Not one. So, Federal Magistrates who have tossed aside
such curt and incomplete Complaints, are not Commie pinkos and
are not necessarily in bed with the King (there are some Judges
who are, but their dismissals of the sophomoric Complaints I
have seen are not by reason of any coziness going on with the
King); since it is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL LAW to extract
money out of people under some reciprocal circumstances where
there is no written contract to be found any place, and even
where one of the parties is convinced no money is due and owing
(because benefits have been unknowingly accepted under the terms
of invisible contracts).
Whenever a person attempts to effectuate a rescission of their
Social Security Number, and severes the facial attachment of
Equity Jurisdiction such a number creates, the Social Security
Administration will normally respond in their rebuttal retort by
citing and quoting from a Supreme Court Case called UNITED
STATES VS. LEE,45 to try and convey the image that the
RESCISSION you just filed with them is meaningless and that
participation in Social Security is mandatory, just like in
Poland. In reviewing UNITED STATES VS. LEE, which was a
unanimous Supreme Court Opinion written by Chief Justice Warren
Burger, it is an interesting Case due to a combination of
reasons. The factual setting is an intriguing Case in as much as
it shows the difficult situations the Supreme Court is often
placed into as correct law is pronounced on improvident factual
settings that skew off to favor the King; unknown to the poor
Citizen, invisible contracts are in effect he has no knowledge
of, and so the Judiciary is being asked to toss aside the
contract because some of the terms it contains are
philosophically uncomfortable to the aggrieved Citizen.46
Here in UNITED STATES VS. LEE, the uncomfortable grievance is of
a religious point of origin. Here in LEE, our factual setting
story begins when our marvelous Amish Brothers in Pennsylvania,
who tried to use their religious doctrinal philosophy as their
excuse to try and weasel, twist, and squirm their way out of a
numerous array of Commercial and political contracts they had
previously entered into with the King. The Amish are very
sincere folks known world wide for their majestic status of
correctly placing importance on environmental tranquility; and
who otherwise want no more out of Government than simply to be
left alone and ignored.47
Against that well known background orientation, the Amish
Petitioner sought an Employer/Employee tax exemption from Social
Security payments, with the exemption sought being based on
judicially enlarging a parallel off-point statutory religious
exemption that their lawyers had uncovered.
(The Congress had granted by statute48 to SELF-EMPLOYED Amish
and other religious groups, elective exemptions from Social
Security taxes. EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES were not granted this
exemption courtesy).
Here in UNITED STATES VS. LEE, an Old Order Amish farmer and
Employer (who was not SELF-EMPLOYED) failed to file quarterly
Social Security tax returns and failed to pay Social Security
Taxes for his Employees. Now a contract went into default, and
the Judiciary acquired the grievance. The Amish farmer quoted
from 26 USC 1402(g), and invited the Supreme Court to judicially
enlarge the meaning of that statute to also now include
Employers and Employees. The reason cited by the Amish farmer
for the desired enlargement was the First Amendment's free
exercise of religious rights, as they considered Social Security
to be an unconstitutional infringement on their religious rights
-- this is a very well known sincere and deep rooted Amish
Doctrinal position, and the Supreme Court accepted the Amish
religious position at full faith and merit.
[Although our Amish Brothers made the tactical mistake of
hiring IGNORANTIA JURIS lawyers and other such assorted clowns
after the grievance arose; rather than taking the blunt
preventative advice I gave Armen Condo to get rid of the
contract altogether and deflect a prosecution from even
occurring -- instead, the Amish folks kept their Social Security
contracts, kept their Status as voluntary participants in that
closed private domain of King's Commerce, kept their Taxpayer
Status, kept their Status as covered Employees and covered
Employers, and kept their general contractual Equity Status with
the King, and then also kept their political benefits and their
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT benefits contract (which I will discuss
later on). Rather than arguing that the Social Security contract
the King wants payment on does not exist, the Amish admitted
that the Commercial contracts existed, and then argued that
sweet line sounding in the Tort of religious unfairness (an
amateurish argument line lawyers excel in) to try and weasel out
of the reciprocating QUID PRO QUO the Commercial contract calls
for, and that Nature requires. By the end of this Letter, you
will see very plainly the existence of this invisible contract
that I am referring to.49
The Amish are religiously barred from accepting Social Security
benefits, but whether or not these particular Amish folks
actually filed a written NOTICE OF WAIVER, FORFEITURE AND
REJECTION OF BENEFITS with the King to attack the very existence
of one of the contracts the King was collecting money under
("FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION"), the Court Opinion offers no clear
details.50
Since the King had quite a large number of invisible contracts
in effect with these Amish folks, the actual rejection of some
future cash benefits from one of the contracts individually is
an unimportant question, and represents only a very small slice
of the King's total contract pie].
So here we have an Old Order Amish fellow asking the Supreme
Court of the United States to violate every PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL
LAW surrounding the execution and enforcement of Commercial
contracts.51 Under the MERGER DOCTRINE, contracts we entered
into yesterday lose their identity and significance as they are
merged into contracts that we enter into today -- thus
overruling those contracts we previously entered into -- and
properly so, since the inability to go back and modify, enhance,
or terminate existing contracts is irrational. So here we have
our marvelous Amish Brothers, entering into Employer contracts
with the King as Gameplayers in King's Commerce, and then trying
to nullify a few selected self-serving terms in that contract by
using wording found in an older Contract, a Constitutional
Contract of 1787.52 So the Amish had numerous contemporary
Commercial contracts with the King, and then, in what I view to
be almost the ultimate act of self-defilement,53 the Amish asked
the Judiciary to selectively annul a portion of their
contemporary contracts with the King retroactively, just because
they do not now feel like honoring some of the terms the
contract calls for. I think that the Amish strategy was immoral;
reaping the benefits of a Commercial contract without any
reciprocity being exchanged in return as payment on it [however
I am very sympathetic with the difficult position the Amish are
in, as they try and operate with multiple layers of invisible
contracts dragging them down]. But the Amish didn't see any
contracts in effect with the King, so they had no knowledge of
their invisible contract defilement; just like many folks will
go into the Last Day Judgment with Father without any knowledge
of their invisible First Estate Contracts, either. And just like
in the judgment setting of LEE, when incorrect arguments
sounding in Tort are thrown at Father at the Last Day, those
very appealing arguments will also be tossed aside and ignored,
at that time. In LEE, Warren Burger ruled (and I concur in every
line he wrote) that their Social Security contract makes no
provision for such a weasel out, and that no new judicially
enlarged religious exemption will now be created to exempt Amish
Commercial Gameplayers -- EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. I am
different from Warren Burger in that I would have explained to
the Amish their error in contract, and I would have presented
the Amish with contrasting views on the priority of Commercial
contracts in settling grievances -- of which Warren Burger
mentioned, but did not elucidate on. I see real value in
presenting folks with contrasting opposite views.54 Other than
for that deficiency element, which I would have remedied through
contrasting explanations of error, the summary and brief
conclusions of Law and of the Game Rules for participants in
King's Commerce that Warren Burger wrote about, are quite
accurate; and the elevated priority status of contracts in
overruling Tort claims of First Amendment infringement were also
correct -- but discernment is often difficult without having
been first given contrasting background explanations of error.55
The Amish request to weasel out of their Commercial contracts
with the King is therefore denied, and properly so. If I was in
Warren Burger's shoes, I would have come down on the Amish folk
a lot harder than Warren Burger did (and in so doing, I would
have made the Amish petitioners see the fundamental error of
their ways; but Warren Burger just does not now, and never did,
elucidate himself very well at all.) So if we were in Warren
Burger's shoes, we wouldn't want to change one single
substantive thing in the Law that all voluntary Gameplayers in
King's Commerce must abide by House Rules.56
Another thing we would not want to change is anything
substantive in American Jurisprudence either; however, Gremlins
do not share our views.57 Remember the general rule: The
Constitution of 1787 cannot be held to interfere with the
execution of contemporary Commercial contracts. For the
Judiciary to hold otherwise is to have the Judiciary work a Tort
on the party the "unfairness" operates against, and places the
very existence of contracts in a questionable state of
uncertainty. Important benefits were accepted and experienced by
both parties; to have the Judiciary hold that some accepted
Commercial benefits can be retained by reason of overruling
Constitutional Tort intervention once previously waived when the
Commercial contract was initially entered into, is to take
Nature out from underneath the Oak.58
The Constitution was never designed or intended by our Framers
to negotiate terms of contracts -- never. If you are coerced by
the King into being an involuntary party to a contract in order
to enjoy a substantive natural right by clever administrative
rule making (e.g., the rights of association, speech, work, and
travel), then that is another question; as contracts claimed to
be in effect where Tort elements of duress and coercion were
present at the time of initiation loose their paramount
standing, and so otherwise off-point Tort Law Government
restrainments found in the Constitution would then take upon
themselves vibrant new practical meanings and now appropriately
intervene into grievances where the very existence of the
contract itself is disputed. But the Amish made no such duress
averments, no complete benefit waivers [or any benefit waivers
at all, in whole or part], nor where there any objections made
to the very existence of their Commercial contracts they had
entered into with the King. So their contracts with the King
stand unquestioned. With this air-tight Commercial contract
scenario in mind, consider the following words of Warren Burger
that are now partially quoted by the Social Security
Administration lawyers in their retortional rebuttals to facial
Social Security Number equity rescissions coming into their
offices from Protestors:
"The design of the system requires support by mandatory
contributions from covered employers and employees. This
mandatory participation is indispensable to the fiscal vitality
of the social security system."59
I happen to agree with that statement totally. And if you
understand Nature, you should too, otherwise go back and read it
carefully again, as it only applies to covered PERSONS. Covered
PERSONS have contracts with the King, and contracts should be
honored, so stop asking to have the Judiciary help you weasel
out of your contracts, based on philosophical political
discontentment with some of the terms your contract calls for. I
don't have any problem with Warren Burger's pronouncements, and
furthermore, I don't have any problems with the merit and
substance of the Social Security Administration's position that
your contract rescission is utterly meaningless: Because the
King has an invisible contract on you even without a Social
Security Number, if you accept the King's intervention and
benefits in your Employer/Employee contract. Remember the Pan Am
jet leasing example, or of our friend the SEEMINGLY stupid
roofing contractor who went right ahead with his work without
any written contract in effect: You don't need a written
contract on someone else in order to work him into an immoral
position on non-payment of money; and neither do you need a
written contract on someone else in order to forcibly extract
money out of him in a Judicial setting (written statements of
contracts do offer the benefit of settling grievances in
accelerated pre-Trial judicial proceedings, but written
contracts are not necessary, here in the United States of 1985,
to attach liability and extract money out of other people). But
you do need to get that other person to accept and then
experience some benefits you previously offered conditionally.
That is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE; to understand why, then
consider the moral consequences of allowing someone to want and
then experience some benefits without any reciprocity being
required back in return. So whether you never had a Social
Security Number, or if you had one and then later revoked it,
that non-existence of a Social Security Number is, of and by
itself, irrelevant and meaningless. So the Social Security
Administration is exactly right in this sense: Your Equity
Jurisdiction rescission is, by itself, meaningless, and
contributions covered by Employees are and remain mandatory.
(But unlike the Social Security Administration, I just told you
why -- as the practical acceptance of federal benefits in an
Employment setting overrules the non-existence of an
administrative number.) Social Security is very much a wealth
transfer instrument.60
And now that we are all cognizant of that, in order to get out
of this Social Security wealth transfer instrument, in addition
to effectuating a rescission of your facial attachment of Equity
Jurisdiction via a Social Security Number, you must also
effectuate an applied Equity severance by objecting to the
King's intervention into your relationship with your Employer,
and waive, refuse, and reject the King's benefits -- and not
just the future benefits of retirement income everyone knows
about, but also the immediate environmental protection benefits
that all Employees experience (as I will later discuss). If one
of these lily white (absolutely free from Equity contamination)
non-Commercial factual settings is ruled upon adversely by the
Supreme Court some years from now (that is, they rule, in some
well-oiled pronouncement, that the overriding Public Policy
interests involved must preclude the ability of a prospective
non-Commercial Employee who involuntarily entered into the shoes
of an EMPLOYEE, to waive and reject unwanted benefits, and that
our Founding Fathers in 1787 just did not understand the complex
world we now live in, and that the Supreme Court just does not
have the time it takes to talk about PRINCIPLES OF NATURE or of
the quiescent ambiance that permeated the relationship between
the King and the Countryside up to the 1900s, and that the
Federal Taxpayer Status with its attendant criminal liability
provisions is now mandatory by all Americans just in order to
eat and have a simple LIVELIHOOD), then that's fine with us, as
it is important to simply get it out into the open: Since the
King is then dealing with us out in the open under Roman Civil
Law styled force and coercion, then our reciprocation will then
be on similar terms.61
But as for important present considerations, this Objection and
Benefit Rejection must be served synchronous with the timing of
your entrance into your next non-Commercial Employee/Employer
contract. Now that we understand that the entire
EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE relational setting is Commercially oriented
from top to bottom, may I also suggest in providence that a
change in addressable names from EMPLOYMENT to, perhaps,
LIVELIHOOD, and from EMPLOYEE to WORKER might be recommended;
together with explicit disavowal of the characterization
EMPLOYMENT, due to the inherent COMMERCIAL BENEFITS ACCEPTED and
important BUSINESS stigma it automatically creates with Judges
-- a stigma that automatically overrules and annuls any and all
Tax Protesting courtroom arguments sounding in the Tort of
Constitutional unfairness.62
Interestingly enough, UNITED STATES VS. LEE closed on an
Commercial note; almost as if Warren Burger was announcing a
Talisman to those who would also foolishly follow the Amish lead
and dishonor their own Commercial contracts with the King. His
warning and CAVEAT to those who would enter into Commercial
contracts are words wise to consider:
"When followers of a particular sect enter into Commercial
activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their
own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be
superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on
others in that activity."63
But what if you are different?
What happens if you did not enter into that closed private
domain of King's Commerce as A MATTER OF CHOICE?64
What if you are forced into Commerce by clever administrative
rule making on your Employer, through the operation of a
contract that your Employer already has with the King for other
reasons? Now what?
In my personal facial Equity rescission, I claimed that the
Social Security Administration is jurisdictionally similar to a
Federal District Court, i.e., on a limited jurisdictional
mission by the Congress, and that they have no grant of
jurisdiction in Title 42 to prevent, interfere, or obstruct with
terminal contract rescission and benefit forfeiture, nor does
Title 42 in any way restrain the cancellation of Social Security
contracts and the attachment of Equity Jurisdiction with the
King such a contract initiates. And these rights are
self-existent under Common Law unless specifically overruled.
And I emphasized the waiver and forfeiture of benefits, and
toned down the significance of the rescission of the assigned
Social Security Number itself. So in the retortional rebuttal
response I received back from the Social Security
Administration, no such off-point foolish rebuttal was made to
UNITED STATES VS. LEE, and the entire rebuttal Letter, which was
rather long, simply went from one paragraph to the next telling
me of all the dire practical consequences I would be
experiencing without having a precious little Social Security
Number in effect.
To those PERSONS who have Social Security contracts, both the
United States Social Security Administration and the Contract
itself is governed by Title 42, SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, and so
Title 42 now becomes the terms of your Social Security Contract.
Question: Have you ever read your contract?
Why are so many folks so willing to enter into contracts they
have never read? Typically, the response would be something to
the effect that:
"Well, it's just a checking account..."
No, it is not just a bank account. No, it's not just a Social
Security Number. Those contracts have multiple secondary and
ripple tertiary effects that expose people to criminal liability
for nothing more than mere forgetful negligence on their part.
They are CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of your having accepted a Federal
Commercial Benefit. I don't know why most folks are indifferent
to the terms and consequences of contracts they enter into; and
one of the consequences that holders of Social Security
contracts experience is that the presentation of your Social
Security Number to your Employer synchronous with the initiation
of your relationship with him seals your Status (and your fate,
in a sense) as a Taxpayer, and gives rise to a just liability
for a reciprocal QUID PRO QUO payment of the Excise Tax on your
wages by adherence (as a hybrid juristic Adhesion Contract) to
Federal tax statutes (Title 26), and furthermore, gets you into
an immoral position if the tax is not paid (since under Social
Security, the King is now a participant in contractual equity
with you). If you want to challenge the King on this, then
equally important with your personal relational Status is the
importance that both your Employer's termination threats and
your Objections have to be in writing, as a confrontation with
the King is coming, and you cannot afford to have a disputed
factual setting surrounding that Objection and its timing --
because you are attacking the very existence of invisible
juristic contracts that take effect whenever qualified Royal
benefits are accepted. If no initial refusal was made by you to
provide a Social Security Number to your Employer, and no
objection to the presentation of your Social Security Number was
made at the time actual presentation was made, then failure to
object timely is fatal, and Magistrates have no choice but to
ignore your defenses later on when a confrontation with the King
arises, and to characterize your Protestor caliber "wages are
not taxable," and "no liability exists to Title 26..."
arguments, at that time, as being specious and frivolous, and
properly so.65
If I was a Federal Judge, I would express discontentment with
your flaky arguments in far more aggressive characterizations
than the mild playful ensnortment by Federal Judges I have seen
in action.66
If this model scenario of initial refusal followed by continuing
objection was not correctly replicated in your present
employment initiation setting, then pay your Bolshevik Income
Tax this time and eat it; no war was ever fought in a single
campaign, and setbacks and reversals are always expected by
sophisticated strategists in all disciplines (subject to the
qualification that intellectual wisdom and factual knowledge
were acquired in place of some other tangible form of conquest).
In summary, consider the following Case Study: If I were to
lease you my car, and we signed an Agreement to that effect
stating everything, we now have a contract... Right? No, not
yet. There is no contract in effect until benefits have been
accepted and you take possession of my car. That acceptance of
benefits is the Grand Key to lock yourself into, and unlock
yourself away from, contract liability altogether, IN TOTO. The
only reason why SIGNING THE CONTRACT sometimes creates the
contract is because the written statement of the contract
contains the admission by you that you have accepted a benefit.
Now let's give this continuing auto leasing scenario a factual
twist: You now have taken possession of the car, and while you
are out driving around in my car, you file a NOTICE OF
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT, IN REM on me, telling me that you are
cancelling the Automobile Rental Agreement we signed. Does that
Rescission cancel the contract? No, it does not, and the
contract very much remains in full force and effect. And I, as
the owner of the car, can go right ahead and keep extracting all
the money out of you that the contract calls for. In fact, I
actually don't even need any written statement of the terms of
the contract at all -- I can sue you and very much win. I would
not need to prove that you did in fact accept my benefits, which
isn't that difficult, and then I would need to prove the amount
of money damages due (by showing a judge a long list of those
other people I have rented that car to, and the amounts they
paid). So why do merchants want written statements of contracts?
Because without written admissions from you as to what the
terms of the contract were, I would have to deal with you in a
protracted trial setting which is financially expensive, and go
through the trouble and nuisance of adducing supporting evidence
(which costs money), whereas with written admissions your little
lies and denials get tossed aside and ignored and I can deal
with you very effectively and inexpensively in accelerated
Summary Judgment Proceedings -- hearings only. So a written
statement of the contract in writing does not create the
contract -- it is just a STATEMENT OF THE CONTRACT; and it is
actually the exchange of valuable Consideration (benefits) out
in the practical setting that creates the contract and initiates
the attachment of your contractual liability. I know that this
line appears to be different or even contrary from what you have
been taught by others since its angle of presentation is unique
-- but read on, and you will see that I am only enlarging on the
information your intellectual repository of factual knowledge
already possesses. The only time when signing your name to a
statement of the contract actually initiates the contract is
that when synchronous with signing the statement, you also make
the written admission therein that you have accepted a benefit
-- usually stated as:
"In exchange for good and valuable Consideration in the amount
of $1.00, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Party
X...")
Now with that admission by you, of having accepted his benefits,
the merchant has you tied down tight: But it is not your
signature that ties you down into a contract -- it is your
admission within the statement of the contract that you have
accepted a benefit that ties you down. I have had considerable
experience with Retail Installment Financing going back into my
days at High School when I sold mobile homes part time -- and I
am unaware of any Retail Installment Contract, Mortgage, credit
loan, or Security Interest Contract I have ever read or placed
with a lender that does not extract the specific admission from
you that a specifically defined Consideration (a benefit) has
now been accepted. This acceptance of a benefit is so important
that lawyers will go right ahead and put the benefit
(Consideration) acceptance recital right into the statement of
the contract anyway as a redundancy factor, even though the
lawyer knows very well what primary benefit it was that you
really accepted (the car, the boat, the house, the plane, etc.,
whatever it was). Therefore, if circumstances come to pass and
the boat, car, house, etc. gets repossessed back into the hands
of the seller for some reason, then the contract still survives
the CONSIDERATION FAILURE of the primary benefit, since some
secondary benefit ($1.00) was retained by you. So yes, your
signature on these Commercial contracts is very important, but
only because the contract extracts the admission out of you that
benefits have now been accepted, and not because the existence
of the facial written statement of the contract means anything
else.
Well then, while out gallivanting about in my car that you had
leased from me, just what does that NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF
CONTRACT, IN REM that you served on me mean, as you attempted to
unilaterally terminate the automobile lease? That RESCISSION,
of and by itself, means absolutely nothing, and you are wasting
your time even writing it. Only when you redeliver the car back
to me, only when you cease accepting my benefits, does the
contract then actually terminate -- that is when the NOTICE OF
RESCISSION might mean something. If I am your Landlord, and you
are renting an apartment from me, the anything we sign or agree
to orally gets AUTOMATICALLY extended if you keep the apartment
keys (keys are evidence of continued possession of the apartment
benefit). That's right, once knowledge of a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE
is learned in one setting, its application is automatically
known throughout all settings.
This is the Grand Key concept to understand in unlocking
yourself away from undesired contracts; it is fundamental and is
of maximum importance to understand, in order to understand why
Federal Magistrates correctly rule, with such rare gifted genius
the way they do; as they first snort at, and then toss out, a
Tax Protestor's NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF CONTRACT, IN REM filed
on some Birth Certificates. If you kept possession of the car
(retention of benefits) after the written statement of the
contract was unilaterally rescinded, somehow, then that
RESCISSION means absolutely nothing, and I can go right ahead
extracting all the money out of you that the contract called
for, without any facial written contract in effect at all. This
is also why the lawyers in the Social Security Administration
are also absolutely correct as they snort at Social Security
Number rescissions where there has been no irrevocable benefit
rejection filed. Therefore, Federal Magistrates who snort at,
and then toss out, arguments that discuss IN REM CONTRACT
RESCISSIONS are not in bed with the King, as it is a correct
PRINCIPLE OF NATURE and American Jurisprudence that it is the
practical acceptance and use of benefits that is the key
determining factor on the liability question of holding someone
to a contract or not (initially attaching liability). And so
merely stating the terms down in writing, or not, is actually
unimportant in initially attaching liability; also unimportant
is whether or not the terms of the contract were recited in
front of witnesses, or even in front of a judge, or in front of
a Notary Public, or recanted verbatim on the floor of the United
States Supreme Court in Washington. All of those contract
procedures have their time and place to preventively deflect the
potential unenforceability of a particular covenant within the
contract -- which if the disputed evidentiary picture occurred
would then make contract enforcement expensive and tactically
difficult by requiring a Trial. But getting you to admit the
terms and conditions of the contract makes your future lies and
denials a waste of time on your part. But none of these contract
enforcement procedures of written admissions or of collecting
neutral witnesses (designed to allow for inexpensive contract
enforcement by way of summary pre-Trial hearings) ever defines
the essential and fundamental underlying structural question of
liability attachment itself. And so merely noticing out to the
other party the IN REM CONTRACT RESCISSION is utterly
meaningless. Generally speaking, Federal Magistrates are your
friends, and they even remain your friends while that Courtroom
kingdom of their is swirling in a whirlwind of unbridled
retortional ensnortment following your RESCISSION submission for
an annulment of taxing liability without a correlative waiver
and timely rejection of all political and Commercial benefits
that was filed with the King preceding the taxable years the IRS
now wants addressed as the grievance. And as for the King's
Agents in the United States Social Security Administration, when
they rebuff your facial IN REM equity contract rescissions, they
too are absolutely correct: Mere rescission of the written
instrument itself is unimportant and meaningless, and what is
important is your acceptance and use of Federal Benefits. And
accepting the King's benefits by going to work in an
environmentally protected occupational Status as an EMPLOYEE,
without any waiver and rejection of the King's large volume of
labor-oriented benefits, does correctly give rise to a taxing
liability on you (under PRINCIPLES OF NATURE relating to the
immorality of allowing someone to get away with unjust benefit
enrichment), with the amount of the tax being measured by net
taxable income (or anything else the King's statutes, as stating
the terms of the contract, so define). To waive and reject
tangible benefits, you need to return possession of the property
to the owner (such as surrendering the keys to an apartment you
may have rented, or surrendering the car if a car rental
agreement was in effect. Intangible benefits are waived and
rejected by formal Notice stating so in writing (or orally with
witnesses).
The reason why benefit rejection is best done in writing is for
the same identical reason that complex contracts are best stated
in writing: So that all of the details can be presented on the
record, without protracted evidentiary presentations just to
establish what the record is. Try and find me three people who
can memorize a 25-page BENEFIT REJECTION STATEMENT word for
word; like contracts, you do not need the REJECTION to be in
writing in order for it to be Judicially recognized as sound and
valid, but failure to make a record of it causes you the
additional expense at a later time of first proving just what
was REJECTED, before addressing the merits of the REJECTION
arguments themselves. So placing statements in writing is a
benefit for yourself relating to the economy of producing
evidence later on, and the mere absence of a written record does
not derogate your standing before a judge -- although you are
unnecessarily inconveniencing yourself.
Being rebuffed by the King's Agents in the Social Security
Administration (by their telling you that you rescission is
meaningless and contributions remain mandatory) should not be
the End of the World for anyone; properly handled with an
inquisitive spirit about you, such a bureaucratic rebuffment is
only the beginning of a quest to find out why such a rebuffment
took place, and then to find out just what is the larger meaning
of all of that; and so failure to keep yourself in a teachable
STATE OF MIND is what is really self-damaging. And correlative
to that, always remember just one thing: The King wants your
money, and he's got plenty of ways of getting it, by getting you
to accept his wide-ranging array of invisible and intangible
benefits without you even knowing it.
The most important element of any playful little battle with the
King is the factual setting that you will present to the
Judiciary for grievance settlement; and the next most important
element is the correct Pleading of the relevant points of law
and the technical facts that you want that law to operate on,
inuring to your favor.
There is a judicial reference to a particular subdivision
classification of contracts where the factual setting
surrounding the initiation of the contract is characterized such
that one of the parties is in such an unevenly strong bargaining
leverage position, that the terms of the contract are always
presented on a "take it or leave it basis";67 these contracts,
entered into this way, are in a special status, and fall under
what is called the ADHESION CONTRACT DOCTRINE. These Adhesion
Contracts are typically the case when dealing with store clerks
and other low-level public interfacing instruments when buying
automobiles, homes, or anything on time payment plans, since the
clerk simply hands you a pre-printed form, and simply expects
you to approve of it. As a result of the dominate leverage
position obtained when pre-printed forms are used by some
low-level clerk or contract agent who has no Grant of Corporate
Jurisdiction to change, modify, or rearrange any terms contained
in that statement of the contract; and so the contract is full
of terms, conditions, and waivers of procedural defense lines
("the buyer hereby waives his right to a Notice of Protest")
that would never be there if the contract was negotiated from
scratch each time.68
In Commercial Law, the requisite "Meeting of the Minds", so
called, is known as MUTUAL ASSENT. Judges conveniently ignore
this DE MINIMIS Common Law indicia for contracts when a Juristic
institution is a party to the contract, with statutes then
containing the terms and content of the contract. With Juristic
institutions involved as parties to an Adhesion Contract, Judges
want to see the QUID PRO QUO of reciprocity -- the acceptance of
benefits -- being there by you as an Individual, but generally
they have no interest in making sure that there was this MUTUAL
ASSENT in effect between the parties. As I will explain later,
many things are routinely inferred by silence as PRESUMPTIONS;
however, telling some neighboring Prince that you do not approve
of some precious little statute that operates without the
adducement requirement for either a MENS REA or contract, and
then going down into his Kingdom and committing the heinous act,
and then later arguing lack of MUTUAL ASSENT as a defense line
in a criminal prosecution, will not likely trigger a dismissal
on the merits.69
The terms and conditions of contracts in effect by statutory
pronouncements are deemed to be in a quasi "like it or lump it"
status, aloof from the Common Law requirement that knowledge and
desire to be in effect.
As it would pertain to you and me, Adhesion Contracts are in
effect whenever we sign a lease with a landlord, buy a
television or automobile -- i.e., in any Commercial setting
where standardized, pre-printed contract forms are used, and the
low level salesperson you are dealing with has no agency
jurisdiction to modify the contract's terms at all. As the
purchase price gets bigger, the general rule is, the less
"Adhesive" the terms of the contract becomes; so purchases like
jets, chemical plants, oil refineries, pipelines, and large real
estate properties, etc. are very rarely on standardized forms.
As the word "Adhesion" is used throughout this Letter, it means
to say that once benefits are accepted by you, and the terms of
the contract are written in statutes, then you are deemed to be
bound by the terms of the statutory contract, "adhesively"
(meaning forcefully, like glue). Incidentally, the only defense
out of "Adhesion Contract" that numerous legal commentators have
issued advisory memorandums on, involves your being able to
document (prove) that you did not accept the benefits of that
statutory contract. Once your adversary adduces to a judge that
benefits have been accepted, the formation of the contract is
deemed to be complete, and there are few outs remaining.
EMPLOYEES, so called, are bound to Federal Statutes by a
combination of devices, such as the acceptance of Federally
created income generating benefits under the protection and
advantages of the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (which gives
Employees the upper hand over their Employers) by those persons
accepting benefits such as corporation situs EMPLOYMENT and
Government contract enforcement of that EMPLOYMENT. Not that the
King is really responsible for the primary benefit of that
corporations' offering you an employment position,70 but that
once the corporation does offer you the position on your own
merits, the King then intervenes into the Employer/Employee
relationship to give Employees rights and the upper hand over
their Employer through an array of direct benefits, as well as
restraining the Employer in some areas. That Employer, no doubt,
is involved with Interstate Commerce, and that Employer is up to
his neck in air-tight redundant contracts with the King; and so
now the King is using that contractual relationship with your
Employer to force a transfer of his benefits over to you.
Remember all along that I have been saying that the key words to
get out from underneath the King and his Equity Jurisdiction
lies in refusing to accept his benefits, and in doing that, you
negate the expected reciprocal QUID PRO QUO Federal Judges see
very clearly as they snort at Tax Protesting suits seeking
withholding relief of some type.71
All courts, state and federal, who have commented on Adhesion
Contracts, in explaining why DEFENDANT SO AND SO is in fact
attached to a Contract of Adhesion, all pronounce similar
Adhesion Contract governance: That the best way to defend
yourself against Contracts of Adhesion is to go back to the very
seminal point of contract formation and attack the very
existence of the contract at its origin, by proving that you did
not accept any benefits, since the adhesion contract, like all
other contracts, came into effect whenever benefits, offered
conditionally, were accepted by you. And where the records show
that benefits have been accepted, the liability will always
follow. Viewing this from a Judge's perspective, this means two
things: When did you decline the benefits, and how did you
decline the benefits? So if you improperly Objected (meaning,
not in writing and therefore the explicit disavowal was
disputed), or Objected belatedly, then you automatically lose; I
don't know how to explain it any simpler.72
But under this FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,73 the Congress has
intervened into the relationship between Employees (and not
consultants/contractors) and Employers: To give Employees the
upper hand over their Employers under certain limited
circumstances and under certain limited conditions74 (such as
Employees cannot be terminated for pregnancy, no racial
discrimination permitted, minimum wage required, minimum
sanitation environment required, maximum numbers of hours per
week that can be worked is mandated, minimum vacation time off
is required, hearing required on demand, and in Title 11
["Bankruptcy"], Employees are given absolute priority over all
other secured and unsecured creditors in an Employer bankruptcy
proceeding). Railroad Employees too have an entire sequence of
proprietary statutes just custom-tailored for them;75 and in
addition, there is a long list of other benefits that inure to
those persons accepting the benefits in a livelihood from the
federally protected occupational business Status of an
EMPLOYEE.76
So Employees are in a special environmentally protective
enrichment setting by the King's assistance;77 however, things
were not always this way. Our King is somewhat unique in that
his jurisdiction is limited in nature; in order for the King to
have the jurisdiction to throw benefits at something, there
first has to be a requisite Grant of Jurisdiction for him to
create the regulatory jurisdiction. There once was a day and age
in the United States when there existed a presumption against
the existence of INTERSTATE COMMERCE in the EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE
relationship; there was once a Time and Age in the United States
back in the 1800s when the words EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYER meant no
more on the floor of a Courtroom than they meant on the street
corner. Back in those days, there was somewhat of a quiescent
relationship in effect between the King and the Countryside; and
in such a passive setting, there was no such EMPLOYMENT taxation
contracts in effect back then, and so the King was not expecting
that much in return from us. But today in 1985, things are
different -- today multiple invisible juristic contracts are in
effect, and if we do not get rid of incorrect reasoning sounding
in the sugar sweet tones of Tort, we will be damaging
ourselves.78
In a grievance where the reasoning turned on the question as to
whether or not it was permissible for the King to pre-emptively
assert a regulatory jurisdiction in effect between Employers and
Employees, the Supreme Court had the typical Federal Government
type of arguments thrown at them that the relationship between
Employees and their Employers just CRUCIALLY affected Interstate
Commerce:
"Much stress is put upon the evils which come from the struggle
between employers and employees over the matter of wages,
working conditions, the right of collective bargaining, etc.,
and the resulting strikes, curtailment and irregularity of
production and effect on prices; and it is insisted that
interstate commerce is greatly affected thereby..."79
But the relationship of Employer and Employee was declared to be
distinctively local in nature, and not an appropriate setting
for pre-emptive Federal intervention:
"The relation of employer and employee is a local relation. At
common law, it is one of the domestic relations. The wages are
paid for doing local work. Working conditions are obviously
local conditions. The employees are not engaged in or about
commerce, but exclusively in producing a commodity. And the
controversies and evils which it is the object of the act to
regulate and minimize, are local controversies and evils
affecting local work undertaken to accomplish those local
results. Such effect as they may have upon commerce, however
extensive it may be, is secondary and indirect. An increase in
the greatness of the effect adds to its importance. It does not
alter its character."80
And if you accept the benefits of the King's intervention and
protection, through such devices as the FAIR LABORS STANDARDS
ACT, accepting Social Security Benefits, and Government
enforcement of that Employment contract, it is very reasonable
and very ethical and very proper under PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW
for the King and your regional Prince to get paid for having
done so. Contrary to the howling of Protestors, our Father's Law
is not being contaminated by the taxation of Employees in the
United States, since today, unlike yesterday, invisible
contracts are in effect, and our Father's Law already knows how
to deal with contracts.81
Since our King has intervened to give Employees the upper in
some key selected areas, such as creating a slice of LEX to
throw at us, like his high-powered FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, our
King now wants a percentage piece of the action from the
Employee -- and that does not bother me at all.82
(I may personally view the percentage slice the King wants to be
a bit aggressive and excessively generous towards the King when
analyzed from a COST/BENEFIT perspective, but the underlying
moral and ethical reciprocal considerations regarding the
mandatory exchange of benefits remains intact). Now that an
Employee knows his Status as a beneficiary of Federal
intervention and benefits, rather than badmouthing Federal
Judges, one such person might very well ask the question,
"...Gee, most of those benefits never apply to me. Throwing
half my income out the window every year to Washington for those
benefits is just not worth it."
That analysis is quite accurate for most folks: It isn't worth
it; but monetary worth is a business question each of us needs
to ask and decide for ourselves, and this is not a question of
Law for a Judge to come to grips with in some type of a contract
enforcement proceeding, after we have previously accepted those
benefits without ever filing a timely objection and rejecting
benefits. In every single Tax Protesting Case that I have
examined, based on the arguments submitted, I would have ruled
the same way the Judge did. I know that most folks --
particularly TAX PROTESTERS EXTRAORDINAIRE do not want to hear
this line and don't want to be told that it was themselves all
along who were in error and not the Judges, but it's about time
someone revealed your error to you.
So any half-way clever King, who wants maximum revenue
enhancement, is always searching for new ways to get more folks
to accept his benefits; and once benefits have been accepted,
then the Constitution fades away in significance, as it's design
to restrain Government under a few Tort Law factual settings is
no longer applicable.83 And to those types who experience
benefits from the King, but don't want to pay for them by a
philosophical reason of political discontentment with something
grand that the King is pulling off again with looters and
Gremlins, then these Kings always have a redundant pile of Aces
tucked neatly up their royal sleeves, just tailor-made to deal
effectively with these recalcitrant types; the type that
experience benefits provided by a third party, but who refuse to
reciprocate and part with any QUID PRO QUO money in exchange for
benefits accepted. Federal Judges have a characterization I once
heard for this type of a Protestor: A CHEAP PERSON. For these
folks, the King has Nature on his side (a state of affairs
warranting the Tax Protester's failure in a Courtroom, a state
of affairs Tax Protesters never seem to bother addressing when
disseminating legal advice fixated on talking about technical
reasons why the United States should not prevail based on
impediments in the King's LEX and Charter); for these
recalcitrant Protesting types who believe that they are correct,
the King has actually worked them into an immoral position: The
Protester is up to his neck in multiple layers of invisible
juristic contracts with the King, and the Tax Protester doesn't
even know it. Nature is operating AGAINST the Protester, and the
Protester does not even see it. Yes, there is a very good reason
why so few Protesters are winning in the Courts: Because the
Protester was not entitled to prevail for any reason.84
Unlike Protesters, I am not concerned about what some little
snortations are that fly around inside a Judge's mind; however,
what Father is going to do about this or that -- now THAT
concerns me. If the Protester would now only Open his Eyes to
see the invisible Contracts Father has on us all down here from
the First Estate, and learn experientially from dealing with the
King in distasteful contracts whose origin is literally Hell
itself, not to use structurally similar Tort Law reasoning and
rationalizations when dealing with Heavenly Father in a known
impending Judgment, the ex-Protester can magnify his stature
before Father and avoid altogether being on the wrong side of
what will be the biggest Contract Star Chamber this world will
ever see: The Grand Judgment of the Last Day.85
1 The reason why you can't provide a Social Security Number, of
course, is because you do not have one. So although your written
rescission filed earlier with the Social Security Administration
is, of and by itself, meaningless for taxing liability reasons,
it remains a necessary accessory evidentiary element of the
total factual setting your new LIBERATED Status lies in, as will
be seen later. The presentation of a Social Security Number to
others is, under some circumstances, a Federal crime, and
properly so -- as a MENS REA is present in the mind of the
actor, and CORPUS DELECTI damages are experienced by others. If
some playful circumstances ever make their appearance in your
life where the dissemination of someone else's Social Security
Number would be innocuous, consider giving them Richard M.
Nixon's Social Security Number:
567-68-0515.
2 If you are involved with an invisible contract, i.e., no
Social Security Number in effect, but accepting the King's
intervention and benefits, then the Constitution does not apply,
as the Constitution does not operate to restrain or interfere
with the operation of Commercial contracts. Several other
important benefits need to be rejected timely and appropriately
before triggering sympathy from Judges; and those benefits will
be discussed later. Acting like a Tax Protestor by claiming
fairness rights found in the BILL OF RIGHTS applicable to
factual settings sounding in Tort, while accepting the King's
important Commercial benefits inuring to EMPLOYEES, will get you
absolutely nowhere in front of a Federal Judge. So this
Objection must waive, reject, forfeit, and forego through
explicit disavowal, all such Commercial benefits normally deemed
to be in effect through silence [and I will explain SILENCE
later on, as SILENCE is often high-powered].
3 Claiming the 14th Amendment as a source of rights (by claiming
yourself to be a beneficiary party to the 14th Amendment) will
carry the secondary effect of diminishing your Status if not
handled properly, since the 14th Amendment is also a source of
invisible Admiralty like benefits that create taxation
contracts. Arguing 14th Amendment rights [RIGHTS meaning really:
14th Amendment restrainment of Government Tortfeasance] should
generally be avoided absent a good knowledge on what adhesive
tentacles of King's Equity the 14th Amendment creates for
American Citizens. Here, in an EMPLOYMENT setting, first we
argue that there are contracts in effect [by reason of no
juristic benefits accepted], and then after we correctly get rid
of invisible juristic benefits that in turn create invisible
expectations of taxation reciprocity -- then, and only then, can
we now argue the Tort of fairness in obstructing RIGHT TO WORK
restrainments on Government. Tax Protestors experiencing
setbacks and hard rebuffments in Courtrooms all across the
United States as they argued for rights and quoted the Founding
Fathers and all that, never attempted to first get rid of the
King's contracts, so automatically from the scratch, Tax
Protestors are not entitled to prevail under any circumstances.
Once the invisible contract of EMPLOYMENT [and the taxation
expectation stigma it creates in the minds of Judges], has been
gotten rid of, then unfairness defenses sounding in Tort are
entertainable. For example, other Government restrainments lie
in areas like INTERNATIONAL LAW, which is in effect by Treaties
executed defining minimum Human Rights, etc. The United States
State Department has defined the RIGHT TO TRAVEL and the RIGHT
TO WORK as being among the multiple ENTENTE meanings of "Human
Rights" in those treaties. The very idea that INTERNATIONAL LAW
can operate to obstruct domestic tax collection, however correct
a force of Law under some limited factual settings, is an idea
that Federal Judges will view as being particularly irritating.
The United States has many Tax Treaties in effect with foreign
jurisdictions, and some of those Treaties contain covenants that
very much intervene into domestic tax collection by reason of
prohibiting multiple taxation events like DOUBLE TAXATION on
various combinations of specialty assets or income streams. If
you do not look forward to playfully tussling with Judges, then
the exclusion of this argument might be appropriate. In any
event, be mindful that INTERNATIONAL LAW is binding only on
Juristic Institutions and not on any other PERSON, yet the
interposition of INTERNATIONAL LAW is still relevant here since
your Objection is centered in part around clever administrative
rule making originating from a juristic source.
"...Treaties have the effect of overruling state and Federal
laws. ... This is not generally well known."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, in the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE,
September 22, 1985.
What Warren Burger is referring to is known as the interposition
of INTERNATIONAL LAW. This INTERNATIONAL LAW is generally
binding only on Juristic Institutions themselves -- but for
purposes of Gremlin conquest, that's enough. Article VI of the
Constitution declares that both the [statutory] laws of Congress
and foreign Treaties shall be "...the supreme law of the land,"
which is a catalytic source of snickering by Patriots to throw
invectives at Federal Judges. However, Federal statutes are
actually on Status parity with Treaties so that:
"...a treaty may supersede a prior Act of Congress and an Act
of Congress may supersede a prior treaty."
- REID VS. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1, at 18 (1956)
This superseding priority of Treaties over Statutes over
Treaties over Statutes based on recency of Time is another
restated operation of the PRINCIPLE OF NATURE I mentioned in the
Armen Condo Letter that contracts we enter into today overrule
contracts we entered into yesterday; a Principle which also
surfaces as an important structural element in the MERGER
DOCTRINE, as lawyers call it, and which surfaces again anywhere
and anytime when on replacement contract is entered into
overruling a previous contract, just as our Covenants with
Father now in this Second Estate overrule and supersede our
First Estate Covenants, which in turn fade away into
insignificance.
4 In a Federal criminal prosecution of an acquaintance of mine,
where the defense was Status oriented (however improvident a
Defense Line since contracts were in effect), the local United
States Attorney objected to the validity of the BIRTH
CERTIFICATE RESCISSION because under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the designated agent to accept legal service for the
United States is the Attorney General, and the Defendant had
only noticed out the rescission to the Secretary of Commerce.
Now, whether or not those Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which regulate the exchange of procedure between adversaries in
the heat of a judicial battle, are applicable to an
administrative IN REM RESCISSION OF CONTRACT, is disputed. But
that is not important. What is important is the knowledge that
when the King's Attorneys see their criminal prosecution start
to fall apart and collapse in front of them, they will then pick
apart and cite any off-point anything -- just trying to get your
facial RESCISSION declared void. In that particular prosecution,
the RESCISSION was FEDERAL EXPRESSED to the Attorney General in
Washington as soon as the United States Attorney's Motion to
Strike brief was received by the Defendant. So by the time the
Trial Magistrate heard the oral arguments, the improper service
question was moot, and the Judge offered no validity opinion on
that procedural question. So even though the statutory necessity
of service on the Attorney General for these administrative
rescissions is disputed, for the minimum incremental cost
serving such an additional rescission party burdens you,
omitting to serve the Attorney General in all Federal
administrative RESCISSIONS, NOTICES OF BENEFIT REJECTION, and
OBJECTIONS, might be discouraged.
5 The mere unilateral Status declaration by you, that you are
not a Taxpayer is, of and by itself, meaningless; however,
adducing collateral evidence showing that terminating contract
rescissions were effectuated timely is very significant. By the
end of this Letter, you will know what contracts are deemed very
important by both State and Federal Judges, and just what
RESCISSION means something.
6 Title 31, Section 5103 ["Legal Tender"]:
"United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and
national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges,
taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal
tender for debts."
- 96 US STATUTES AT LARGE 980 (September 13, 1982).
7 When your Employer terminates you, what is being displayed to
you is the exterior manifestation of a deeper tremor originating
with a contract they have with the King, that a regulatory
jurisdiction created. Trying to earn a livelihood in such an
Employment setting is not the only place where there is tension
in effect between the beneficiaries of regulatory programs (such
as participants in King's Commerce), and your private and
personal rights as an INDIVIDUAL. For commentary on parallel
friction in effect and damages that are created whenever a
Juristic Institution erects the barriers of a regulatory
jurisdiction -- either for their own enrichment or some other
Special Interest, see Richard Stewart and Cass Sunstein in
PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND PRIVATE RIGHTS, 95 Harvard Law Review 1193
(1982) [not on point to the Patriot perspective, but accurate in
itself].
8 "Most important, if administrative remedies are pursued, the
citizen may win complete relief without needlessly invoking
judicial process... We ought not to encourage litigants to
bypass simple, inexpensive, and expeditious remedies available
at their doorstep in order to invoke expensive judicial
machinery on matters capable of being resolved at local levels."
- Warren Burger in MOORE VS. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494, at
525 (1976).
9 The idea that many folks have in their minds, that their Case
is just too petty for the Supreme Court to concern themselves
with, is the contemporary resurrection of the ancient Roman
maxim of law called DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX, which means the
Law does not concern itself with, or take notice of, very small
or trifling matters. The United States Supreme Court does not
adapt such a snooty posture.
"It is said that counsel once attempted to argue before Chief
Justice Marshall that in the particular instance before the
court the invasion of constitutional rights was slight, but he
was sternly reminded that the case involved the Constitution of
the United States, and that the degree or extent of the invasion
had no bearing upon the point."
- William Gutherie in THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES, at 39 [University Press, Cambridge (1898)].
Some of these cases are:
1. In 1867, the Supreme Court once gave careful consideration
to a Case where the amount of money was only $1. In overruling
the State of Nevada and the assertion of what essentially
amounted to a State egress tax collected at the borders, the
Supreme Court cited as annulment justification the overriding
interests inherent in a national RIGHT TO TRAVEL, which
consisted of a composite blend of factors, such as the potential
interference with the smooth administration with the WAR POWERS,
possible friction with the CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT, and obstruction
with restrainments inherent in the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE
[See CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 73 U.S. 35 (1967)].
2. In SENTRELL VS. NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD, the question addressed
turned upon the Constitutionality of a state law enacted by
Louisiana that required dogs to be placed on the assessment
rolls. A claim arose out of the killing of a dog, and the
Supreme Court adjudged the validity of an Act under the 14th
Amendment that provided that no owner could recover for the
killing of a dog unless the dog had been placed on the tax
assessment rolls, and then the amount of recovery would be
limited to the amount so assessed. [166 U.S. 698 (1896)].
3. Here today in the 1970's and 1980's, the Supreme Court
continues on issuing out WRITS OF CERTIORARI with petty Cases.
The El Paso Police Department once arrested a fellow who was
walking down their streets; claiming that the suspect "looked
suspicious" in a seedy neighborhood characterized by drug
trafficking. Zackary Brown refused to identify himself and then
angrily asserted that the officers had no right to stop him.
Hearing such retortional defiance, the police dragged him down
to their station and then threw a criminal prosecution at Brown,
citing some slice of LEX that purportedly made it a heinous
criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address
to any statute enforcement officer "... who has lawfully stopped
him and requested the information." On the floor of the
municipal Courtroom, Brown's Defense centered around claims of
Constitutional disabilities, but the inconsiderate little Star
Chamber political hack Judge tossed his arguments aside; Brown
was found guilty and fined $45. The Texas appellate courts
refused to hear the appeal since another little slice of LEX
barred appeals on cases with fines under $100. Having first
exhausted all potential state remedies, the Supreme Court
granted CERTIORARI and annulled his conviction. [See BROWN VS.
TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1978)].
4. Criminal Defendant William Lawson began building up his rap
sheet with the heinous act of walking down San Diego sidewalks,
carrying such criminally suspicious items as television sets.
Between March 1975 and January of 1977, William Lawson was
either detained or arrested 15 times; he had two prosecutions
thrown at him and was convicted once; he obtained his favorable
hearing in the Supreme Court. [See LAWSON VS. KOLANDER, 461 U.S.
352 (1982)].
In these Cases, the factual setting presented to the Supreme
Court favored the Individuals involved, a situation that is not
replicated today with Patriots throwing Highway and Tax
Protesting actions of all types at Judges -- reason: Invisible
contracts are in effect on the factual settings selected for
defiance by the Protestor, and so now the Protestors are not
entitled to prevail under any circumstances. My contention with
the Supreme Court lies with their reluctance to see the geometry
of this growing PRO SE movement, and grant CERTIORARI to
correctively explain error, a philosophically difficult position
for them because while explaining error to the sharp and hot
issues Patriots argue on Tax Cases, the inferential effect would
be to show the Protestor how to correctly get out from
underneath the reciprocity expectations of taxation liability --
and that would be letting the cat out of the bag. In so refusing
to rule and explain, the Supreme Court is actually taking an
inconsistent POLITICAL POSITION on the Case -- which if you or I
argued some illegitimate Ratification attribute of a
Constitutional Amendment, we would be told that THAT'S A
POLITICAL QUESTION for the Congress to deal with. But as for
pettiness, the decision on granting CERTIORARI is not related to
the size of the money involved, or the extent of the seriousness
of the Constitutional violation involved. The old Roman maxim of
law called DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX does not intervene in
American Jurisprudence:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form;
but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first
footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight
deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be
obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions
for the security of person and property should be liberally
construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of
half their efficacy, and leads to gradual deprecation of the
right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is
the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional
rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments
thereon. Their motto should be OBSTA PRINCIPIIS."
- Justice Bradley in BOYD VS. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, at
635 (1885).
[The Latin phrase, OBSTA PRINCIPIIS, means to resist the first
approaches or encroachments; and the first encroachments are
always small and seemingly insignificant]. And in a similar way,
looking for a technically close and literal construction of your
Celestial Contracts as a way to minimize your involvement with
them, deprives them of half of their efficacy, as well, and
leads to a gradual depreciation of your Standing before Father.
[The reason is because your Contracts with Father are not static
(fixed); several of the addendums to your Celestial Contracts
contain organic Covenants that self enlarge over time, and so
slight deviations by indifference creates an invisible
encroachment on those Celestial Contracts; and as the potential
attachment of additional Covenants is then deflected away from
the corpus of your Contracts, with that follows the deflections
of commensurate benefits].
10 Correct procedure is necessary to achieve the desired end
result; when the objective is freedom, the instrumentality
necessary to achieve freedom is procedure itself:
"The history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the
history of procedure."
- Justice Frankfurter in MORRIS MALINSKI VS. NEW YORK, 324
U.S. 401, at 414 [dissenting] (1945).
11 UNWRITTEN meaning not explicitly written in statutes.
12 PRINCIPLES OF PRECLUSION can prevent a question once argued,
litigated, and adjudged in state courts from being re-argued,
re-litigated, and re-adjudged all over again in a Federal Forum,
under some conditions. See Footnote #1 to MIGRA VS. WARREN
SCHOOL DISTRICT, 465 U.S. 75 (1984). This PRINCIPLE OF
PRECLUSION is nothing more than Estoppel Doctrine applied to
accelerate judicial economy; like all correct Principles, they
can and will intervene and operate across all factual settings.
13 The DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL prevents a party from
asserting any type of a sworn testimonial position in one
proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken by
that party in some earlier proceeding. Originally written down
[that I could find] by the Tennessee Supreme Court in HAMILTON
VS. ZIMMERMAN [37 Tennessee 39 (1857)], this doctrine carries on
in all jurisdictions down to the present day. A contemporary
prototypical example of JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL is found in FINLEY VS.
KESLING [105 Illinois App. 3d 1 (1982)] where lovers once
contemplating nuptials are now found passionately enraptured in
the heat of vindictive divorce. In his 1974 divorce settlement
action, Charles O. Finley once testified under Oath that he
owned 31% of the corporate stock of the OAKLAND ATHLETICS
BASEBALL TEAM, and that his wife owned 29%, and that his
children owned 40%. The Indiana Court involved at that time in
1974 accepted his presentation of the facts, and properly so
under those circumstances, with the result being that the 40%
claimed by Finely to belong to the children was not involved in
his wife's grab for settlement property. But Charles Finely
violated a latent PRINCIPLE OF NATURE by lying, with the adverse
result being that secondary circumstances surfaced in the future
that were not discernible or visible to Charles Finely at the
time his lying to conceal assets took place in 1974. His divorce
out of the way, the unexpected happened when in 1980 his
corporation became financially insolvent, and so now he adapted
a plan for liquidation and distribution of the corporation's
assets. Now Finley wanted to hog all of the residual corporation
assets for himself, including grabbing all of the kid's share
for himself (since his previous statements that the kid's owned
40% were insincere and did not reflect his true asset
distribution intentions); he sought a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in
1982 that he was the beneficial owner of the 40% block of stock
he previously testified was owned by his children. In properly
dismissing his 1982 action seeking to grab the children's assets
for himself, the Appellate Court of Illinois ruled that:
"Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel... Finley having
testified under oath that he owned only 31% of the stock and his
children owned 40%, and having succeeded in convincing the
Indiana courts that his 40% belonged to the children and was not
marital property, cannot now contend that the stock is, in
effect, his property."
- FINLEY VS. KESLING, id., at 10.
All Federal forums that I have looked into also invoke this
invisible PRINCIPLE OF NATURE to bar the secondary assertion of
inconsistent statements by parties attempting to defile
themselves. See:
- EDWARDS VS. AETNA LIFE, 690 F.2nd 595, at 598 to 599 (6th
Circuit, 1982);
- SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE VS. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
587 F.2nd 428 (9th Circuit, 1978);
- EADS HIDE AND WOOL VS. MERRILL, 252 F.2nd 80, at 84 (10th
Circuit, 1980).
See generally, Note, THE TENNESSEE LAW OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, 1
Tennessee Law Review 1 (1922).
14 See generally, STANDING, JUSTICIABILITY, AND ALL THAT in 25
Vanderbilt Law Review 599 (1972), by Sedler.
15 STANDING means your personal interest in the Case. The
DOCTRINE OF STANDING is composed of both Constitutional
limitations of the jurisdiction of Federal Courts and from
prudential rules of self restraint designed to bar from Federal
Court those parties who are not very well suited to litigate the
claims that they are now asserting. In its Constitutional
dimension, the STANDING inquiry asks whether the party before
the Court has:
"... such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as
to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to
justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf."
- WARTH VS. SEDLIN, 422 U.S. 490, at 498 (1975).
The necessary twin elements of STANDING are INJURY IN FACT and
CAUSATION. To demonstrate the "personal interest" in the
litigation necessary to satisfy the Constitution's requirements
in the DUE PROCESS area, the party must suffer a "... distinct
and palpable injury" [WARTH VS. SEDLIN, at 501], that bears a
"... fairly traceable causal connection" to the challenged
action. [DUKE POWER VS. CAROLINA, 438 U.S. 59, at 79 (1978)].
16 "The jurisdiction [of the Judiciary] is, or may be, bounded
to a few objects or persons; or however general and unlimited,
its operations are necessarily confined to the mere
administration of private and public justice. ... It cannot
create controversies to act upon. It can decide only upon rights
and cases, as they are brought by others before it. On the other
hand, the legislative power [is almost] unlimited."
- Joseph Story in II COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 16
(Cambridge, 1833).
17 BAKER VS. CARR, 369 U.S. 186, at 204 (1962)
18 FLAST VS. COHEN, 392 U.S. 83, at 101 (1968)
19 FLAST VS. COHEN, id., at 102
20 GOLDEN VS. SWICKLER, 394 U.S. 103 (1969)
21 UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION VS. GERAGHTY,
445 U.S. 388 (1979).
22 All government employees operate their kingdoms under
contract, and the Tort requirement of damages is not relevant
whenever contract enforcement is up for consideration.
23 By way of analogy to understand just how serious a
prosecution threat is from a Government Employee involved with
law enforcement, the Federal Judiciary deems the mere threat of
a criminal prosecution, from a Government Employee involved with
law enforcement, is a sufficient JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY as to
attach potential Federal intervention into the Controversy, by
way of a petition for a Federal District Court Restraining
Order. Such a Federal Injunction was granted in the background
circumstances surrounding LEIS VS. FLYNT/HUSTLER MAGAZINE [439
U.S. 438 (1978)], which was a Counsel Case. Another Federal
Injunction was granted in WOOLEY VS. MANYARD [430 U.S. 705
(1976), where the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment
attaches to expressions of political dissent on automotive
license plates], which held that persons are entitled to
Declaratory and Injunctive relief in Federal Courts from
threatened state criminal prosecutions. For a discussion about
how defendants in state criminal proceedings are often stuck
between a "Scylla and Charybdis" (meaning between two dangers,
either of which is difficult to avoid without encountering the
other), see an extended discussion of the use of Federal Suits
to enjoin state criminal prosecutions, starting at page 710.
Although this discussion here is about JUSTICIABILITY in
general, if you are directly seeking such Federal intervention,
there are PRINCIPLES OF ABSTENTION stemming from equitable
restraint that Federal Magistrates are also required to honor.
See:
- HUFFMAN VS. PURSUE, 420 U.S. 592, at 609 to 610, and Footnote
#21 (1975);
- YOUNGER VS. HARRIS, 401 U.S. 37 (1971);
- STEFANELLI VS. MINARD, 342 U.S. 117 (1951);
- DOUGLAS VS. CITY OF JEANETTE, 319 U.S. 157 (1943).
So change the factual setting to accommodate the Law. Federal
Magistrates do not rebuff your petitions for Injunctions because
they are some SUB ROSA Fifth Column Commie operatives, but
because they are operating on a narrow slice of limited
jurisdiction, having been given just that limited amount of
jurisdiction by the Congress, which in turn is on a limited
jurisdictional mission itself by the states.
24 If the Inspector is a clever one, he may perceive that you
are trying to pull off something grand with him by your unusual
line of questioning, and so extracting the necessary admissions
and confessions may be difficult in some cases. One way to
handle these sharpie types is to irritate them. For example,
among other things, I am a Marijuana Grower [I am quite
interested in Horticulture]. When Affidavits which talk about my
Marijuana Growing (in glowing terms and which address the
Government law enforcement reader downward in playfully snooty
and condescending terms to stir up irritation) are read by a
police lieutenant bulldog, then his subsequently telling you to
your face when he barks and snaps at you, that your specific
activity is a crime under state Public Health statutes, and that
he would arrest you immediately if he only knew exactly where
such cultivation is taking place, is your JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSY. The police lieutenant did not understand the
significance of his statements, but he:
1. Made the specific assertion of the jurisdictional attachment
of those penal statutes to me, without any inquiry being made as
to my Status; (What if I work for the KGB and have a Russian
Diplomatic Passport? He never made a Status inquiry, and yet he
doesn't have any right to arrest me. Reason: Through the
overruling intervention of INTERNATIONAL LAW, my Diplomatic
Immunity Status would preclude everything.)
2. Identified himself as an administrative adversary;
That police lieutenant very much has the required administrative
jurisdiction to throw a criminal prosecution at me, and through
those threats, he created the necessary JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY
that would not have otherwise existed had he not blown his lid
over the very idea of being mouthed off to, even if I did have
to help him out a little by irritating him.
..By the way, a written Admission to a criminal offense is like
an IN REM RESCISSION OF CONTRACT on your Birth Certificate:
Because of and by itself, that Admission, like the Rescission,
means absolutely nothing. Here in New York State, Criminal
Procedure statutes require collaborating evidence to support
Admissions, or else the Admission is non-admissible [see PEOPLE
VS. VOTANO, 231 NYS2nd 337 (1962)].
"A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon
evidence of a confession or admission made by him without
additional proof that the offense charged has been committed."
- NYS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, Section 60.50.
Yes, the Law operates out in the practical setting, and not on
paper; and what is presented on paper is frequently not that
important. There is a reason why sometimes what is written on
paper becomes important, as I will explain later.
25 In the Case called ROE VS. WADE [410 U.S. 113 (1972)] the
Supreme Court talks about a special type of JUSTICIABILITY that
may fit your circumstances. The general rule in Federal Cases is
that an actual controversy must exist at each stage of appellate
or Certiorari review, and not just at the original time the
action was initiated (SEC VS. MEDICAL COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS, 404 U.S. 403 (1972), and Cases cited therein). The
special type of JUSTICIABILITY CONTROVERSY is one where the
factual circumstances:
"... could be capable of repetition, yet evading review."
- UNITED STATES VS. W.T. GRANT, 345 U.S. 629, at 632 to 633
(1953), as cited with others in ROE VS. WADE, id., at 125.
I see many confrontation settings out on the highway that repeat
themselves over and over, yet action is not taken on every
infraction.
26 You need to know that all Judges, State and Federal, are
quite reluctant to simply toss aside a criminal prosecution
(where the defendant is up against very specific and blunt
wording in statutes, and where the Government has an eyewitness
who saw you commit that heinous act), merely because of the
operation of an unwritten Common Law Doctrine that is not
provided for anywhere in statutes, due to "Public Policy"
considerations, so called.
27 In criminal conspiracy prosecutions, by the nature of the
crime, the acts of one person affects the acts of others. So if
two persons are charged with conspiracy, and one is acquitted,
the charges against the remaining conspirator must be dismissed
on appeal [UNITED STATES VS. STARKS, 515 F.2nd 112 (1975)]. The
Principle used to require dismissal is Collateral Estoppel; and
similarly, if the conviction of one conspirator is reversed on
appeal due to insufficiency of evidence, then the remaining
conspirator is excused as well [LUBIN VS. UNITED STATES, 313
F.2nd 419 (1963)]. Since the acts of one conspirator depend upon
the other to complete the crime, Collateral Estoppel enters the
scene to restrain the second act when the first act fails; and
this same Principle operates on Administrative Law Demands, at
least theoretically -- when a collapse of administrative
jurisdiction later restrains an assertion of judicial
jurisdiction. [For a discussion on Collateral Estoppel in
conspiracy prosecutions, see Barry Tarlow in DEFENSE OF A
FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, 4 National Journal of Criminal
Defense 183, at 252 (1978)].
28 Up until as recently as 1950, there were still only a handful
of Federal administrative agencies in existence, so there was
little administrative law going on to be ruled upon.
29 PENA-CABANILLAS VS. UNITED STATES, 394 F.2nd 785 (1968)
[Collateral Estoppel acts to restrain the presentation of
evidence favorable to the accused when that evidence was
litigated earlier in another criminal setting.] See generally,
THE USE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE ACCUSED, 69 Columbia
Law Review 515 (1969).
30 Correct Principles manifest many benefits that surface at
different times and in different settings:
"To preclude parties from contesting matters that they have had
a full and fair opportunity to litigate, protects their
adversaries from the expense and vexation attending multiple
lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on
judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent
decisions."
- MONTANA VS. UNITED STATES, 440 U.S. 147, at 153 (1979).
31 For example, consider the words of Warren Burger as he talks
about lawyers circumventing the administrative process:
"Consistent failure by courts to mandate utilization of
administrative remedies -- under the growing insistence by
lawyers demanding broad judicial remedies -- inevitably
undermines administrative effectiveness and defeats fundamental
public policy by encouraging "end runs" around the
administrative process."
- MOORE VS. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494, at 525 (1976).
32 "...judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and of
their ultimate public responsibility by a vigorous stream of
criticism expressed with candor however blunt."
- Justice Felix Frankfurter, as quoted by the editors of THE
SUPREME COURT REVIEW, inside front cover [University of Chicago
(January, 1984)].
33 Narrow opinion or not, there is a doctrine running through
the Supreme Court that states that it is uncertainty itself that
attracts disputes and interferes with that judicial economy of
minimizing the number of cases that they talk about so much
["... uncertainty attracts disputes..." GEISLER VS. THOMAS
COLLIERY COMPANY, 260 U.S. 245, at 260 (1922)]; so it might be
provident to write opinions that elucidates well the doctrine
being expounded.
34 Remember that the Law is a line, and it is just as easy for
anyone to be on one side of the line as it is to be on the other
side. For example, if issues that are raised in an
administrative setting are ruled adversely against you in some
type of an administrative NISI PRIUS hearing, and you fail to
appeal that adverse administrative decision, RES JUDICATA bars
you from later on relitigating those issues that you lost on, in
a higher level Judicial setting. See, for example, UNITED STATES
VS. RYLANDER, 460 U.S. 752 (1983);
[Mr. Rylander was dragged into Court before a Federal Judge in
an attempt to extract some contract compliance out of him. He
asserted some defenses in that Enforcement Hearing, and the
Federal Judge ruled against him. Mr. Rylander did nothing to
reverse that adverse judgment against him, and so when his
Contempt Hearing came around at a later time, Mr. Rylander then
re-presented the same issues to the same Judge a second time,
and the U.S. Attorney objected. On appeal, the Supreme Court
ruled that issues that were raised, or could have been raised,
at the initial judicial Enforcement Hearing were RES ADJUDICATA
against Mr. Rylander at his later Contempt Hearing. Reason:
Failure to appeal. The PRINCIPLE OF NATURE the Supreme Court was
ruling on involves the acceptance of judgments by silence that
your failure to appeal seals against you; to hold otherwise
would be a Tort against your adversary.]
And in UNITED STATES VS. SECOR [476 F.2nd 766 (1973)], the
Defendant there was barred from relitigating his claimed Fifth
Amendment privilege at his later Contempt Hearing, since he had
raised that same issue in an initial enforcement hearing, lost,
and then failed to appeal [id., 476 F.2nd, at 769]. So whenever
the monkey gets put on your back, get rid of it -- but quick. By
the way, those Enforcement Hearing judgments are not final
decisions, and are very much appealable [REISMAN VS. CAPLIN, 375
U.S. 440, at 449 (1964)].
35 Many times this ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE is really invisible by
first surfacing in a Courtroom, making its appearance, doing its
work, and then disappearing without any trace of identification
that it was once there. In 1980, the California Supreme Court
ordered the discharge of charges against a criminal misdemeanant
without any reference to ESTOPPEL PRINCIPLES, because he had
been previously released from civil liability in connection with
his heinous crime [see HOINES VS. BARNEY'S CLUB INN, 28 Cal.3rd
603 (1980)].
36 And I have seen the operation of that interesting SETTLE IT
AT THE LOWEST LEVEL PRINCIPLE at work in many seemingly
unrelated professional disciplines, from handling grievances in
business relationships and diplomatic settings, to handling
exception processing in computer hardware engineering, and in
the accident recovery procedures in the design of nuclear power
plants.
37 People who publicly express any one of several principles,
closely correlated to this SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST LEVEL
PRINCIPLE may cause irritation in the inner sanctums of ruling
power. Consider William of Occam, who was a Fourteenth Century
philosopher at Oxford University, and whose teachings were
condemned by the Pope; his Principle is known as OCCAM'S RAZOR,
and it is this identical same Principle expressed in different
words: That entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity
(i.e., that there is to be no enlargement of the grievance
beyond necessity).
38 One of the biggest slip up steps is the fact that the IRS
does not give out CONTESTED CASE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS to
anyone. Yes, the IRS will schedule an audience with an agent,
and in some larger grievances, they will even schedule a
Conference in Washington -- when they feel like it; but never is
there any Administrative Hearing scheduled that possesses all of
the juristic accoutrements that characterize legitimate
Administrative Hearings: An Administrative Law Judge possessing
the administrative jurisdiction to settle the grievance; true
adversary proceedings; presentation of evidence; transcripts;
witnesses and cross-examination; administrative subpoenas; and
the like.
39 "... it is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice,
whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the
people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to
subvert them by extreme and dubious legal arguments."
- Justice Brennan, in UNITED STATES VS. CHADWICK, 433 U.S. 1,
at 16 (1976).
40 "... a nontaxpayer is outside the administrative system set
up for the collection of a refund of overpaid taxes, and is not
required to file a claim for refund to recover money taken from
him... The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of
tax assessments and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and
not to nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of
their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them
Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the
subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
- ECONOMY HEATING VS. THE UNITED STATES, 470 F.2nd 585, at 589
(1972)] [sentences quoted out of order].
41 EVANS VS. GORE, 253 U.S. 245, at 261 (1919).
42 The fundamentalists will submit the proposition that since
Prophecies have already declared that no one will soon be able
to buy or eat without some Taxpayer type of identification, it's
best just to throw in the towel now and bag everything; ignoring
the fact that Prophecies are conditional, and often are proposed
statements of what either could have been or what might be
designed to show contrasting consequences for some expected
behavior.
43 Since that decision would be out of harmony with the
underlying structural basis of the Declaration of Independence
and every Principle of Republican freedom of choice in
separating or not separating ourselves from the King (which is
one of the meanings of the Doctrine of Separation of Church (the
People) and State), and violate PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY (that vitiate the need for any Social Security
whatsoever) that our Founding Fathers stood for and initiated,
then such an adverse decision would give rise to an opportunity,
as a CASUS BELLI, to reflect and re-evaluate our national Status
at Law under the RESERVATION CLAUSE of the Declaration of
Independence;
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce [us]
under absolute despotism, it is [our] right, it is [our] duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for
[our] future security."
So then the question would be whether or not the time has come
to deal with the King the same way the King's Agents have dealt
with John Singer and Gordon Kahl: Out of the barrel of a gun;
and in the case of Gordon Kahl, literally on the cutting edge of
a fireman's axe. But at the present time, with the Judiciary
operating on Natural ethics and Natural Law, and with reversals
and setbacks being experienced from our own defective factual
settings, our IGNORANTIA JURIS, our manifold invisible
contracts, and our being clumsy, then encouraging structural
modifications to this jurisprudential structure is self
damaging, and is to be discouraged.
44 Yes, that is my hunch, and the Law is actually administered
partially on hunches. Judges are supposed to be:
"... the depositories of the laws like oracles, who must decide
in all cases of doubt and are bound by an oath to decide
according to the law of the land."
- I BLACKSTONE COMMENTARIES, at 169.
but the practical facts are that hunches frequently play heavily
in the reasoning of a Judge. See THE JUDGMENT INITIATIVE: THE
FUNCTION OF THE `HUNCH' IN JUDICIAL DECISION by Joseph
Hutcheson, Jr. in 14 Cornell Law Quarterly 274 (1929).
45 455 U.S. 252 (1981).
46 By the end of this Letter, the special suggestive nature of
the word CITIZEN should be understood, as CITIZENS are objects
carrying around reciprocal liabilities of Federal Income
Taxation in exchange for federal benefits accepted, and
invisible contracts are in effect -- making any default by
CITIZENS in the King's financial reciprocity expectations as an
act of defilement.
47 "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure
conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They
recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his
feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the
pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in
material things. They sought to protect Americans in their
beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.
They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let
alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most
valued by civilized men."
- Justice Louis Brandeis in OLMSTEAD VS. UNITED STATES, 277
U.S. 436, at 478 (1927).
48 26 USC Section 1402(g).
49 This LEE Case centers itself around the EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE
relationship setting. The general "right" of Employers to hire
Employees was long ago settled to be an appropriate subject of
taxation, and this is true both before and after the adoption of
the United States Constitution.
"The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress
cannot be understood without reference to the common law."
- SCHICK VS. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 65, at 69 (1903)].
In STEWARD MACHINE COMPANY VS. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1936), the
Supreme Court explains why the right of Employers to hire
Employees is in fact a State sponsored privilege [due to its
Commercial nature], and serves as an appropriate subject of
taxation, as I will explain later. Additionally, a tax imposed
upon the Employer for unemployment benefits inuring to the
Employees, is also proper, and the Constitution offers no
restrainment here either. [See CARMICHAEL VS. SOUTHERN COAL
COMPANY, 301 U.S. 495, at 508 et seq. (1936)].
50 What are called WAIVERS are really high-powered instruments,
since, when properly handled, they can nullify and amend
contracts, and yet, not that much has been spoken about these
fellows. For a discussion on the distinction and lines of
demarcation drawn by judges as they distinguish between WAIVERS
functioning as contract addendums, or functioning as instruments
of EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, see Colin Campbell in THE DOCTRINE OF
WAIVERS, 3 Michigan Law Review 9 (1904).
51 Remember that when they are in effect, Commercial contracts
come first in American Jurisprudence when settling grievances,
just like they come first in that Nature that American
Jurisprudence is modeled after, and just like they come first in
the mind of Heavenly Father who created Nature, and just like
Contracts will come first in Father's impending Last Day
Judgment, where structurally similar nice sounding Tort Law
arguments of rights and unfairness will also be taking a back
seat.
52 That Constitutional contract of 1787 was designed to restrain
unreasonable Government Tortfeasance under a limited number of
Tort Law factual settings. Since Commercial benefits were being
accepted and experienced by the Amish Employers who had
voluntarily entered into King's Commerce, and the King had
published the terms of the Commerce Game Rules in his statutes
before the Amish went into default on their Social Security
contracts, then would someone please explain to me just where
the unreasonable Tortfeasance lies?
53 The reason why I discourage the nonchalant tossing aside of
Commercial Contracts is because that indifference will translate
over into other areas and interfere with the successful
fulfillment of your important Celestial Covenants, when
Lucifer's imps present to you their large array of day-to-day
clever Contract avoidance excuses sounding in Tort.
54 "The inquiring mind will ask, `Why is this so?' The answer
is simply that we may know good from evil; all the facts which
you and I understand are by contrast, and all glory, all
enjoyment, every happiness, every bliss are known by its
opposite. This is the decree, this is the way the Heavens are,
the way they were, and the way they will continue to be, forever
and forever."
- Brigham Young, in a discourse in Salt Lake City, October 8,
1876; 18 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 257, at 258 [London (1877)].
55 The Principle I invoke to throw sharply contrasting
presentations of divergent views at folks is merely the specific
application of a much larger Principle that Father invoked when
directing the Creation of this planet: That there must needs be
contrasting opposites in ALL things, as Brigham Young just
mentioned in the previous footnote. Writing in about 580 BC, a
marvelous man once recognized this Principle:
"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all
things."
- Lehi, as now appearing in NEPHI 2:11.
Today, applications of this Principle are found at all levels of
scientific research -- in a strata of intellectual knowledge
that did not exist when Lehi was writing those words. Gremlins,
too, have taken special notice of this Principle, as they put in
their honest days' work trying to run some civilization into the
ground. Chairman Mao has deemed the recognition of this
OPPOSITION PRINCIPLE by his associates to be the most important
one of them all in advancing the interests of Gremlins, and so
he wrote a piece called ON CONTRADICTIONS:
"The law of contradictions in things, that is, the law of the
unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialistic
dialectics. Lenin said, `Dialectics in the proper sense is the
study of contradiction IN THE VERY ESSENCE OF OBJECTS.' Lenin
often called this law the essence of dialectics; he also called
it the kernel of dialectics. ...
The universality of absoluteness of contradiction has a
two-fold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the
process of development of all things, and the other is that in
the process of development of each thing is a movement of
opposites exists from beginning to end."
- ON CONTRADICTION by Mao Tse-tung; "Selected Works of Mao"
page 311 [Foreign Language Press, Peking (1961); Volume I].
Written in August of 1937, ON CONTRADICTIONS was delivered in
lectures to his thugs and hoodlums at the Anti-Japanese Military
and Political College in Yeneh, and later underwent revision to
delete profane language.
After observing that even simple mechanical motion itself was a
contradiction [id., at 316[, Mao went on to write a correlative
piece called ON THE CORRECT HANDLING OF CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE
PEOPLE in 1957, stating that there are two types of "social
contradictions" in effect: One is between ourselves and the
enemy, and another is between ourselves and each other [see THE
REVENGE OF HEAVEN, at page 398, by Ken Ling (G.P. Putnam's Sons,
New York (1972))]. As applied to Tax Protesting literature,
substituting the King as the enemy for the first type, and folks
disseminating Tax Protesting literature as the second type, then
under Maoist Doctrine as a model, either the King is your enemy
or your philosophical comrades [Tax Protestors] are. As is
usually the case, Gremlins are close enough to reality to
satisfy most inquiring minds, as they do frequently start out
with a correct proposition -- but there the accuracy ends,
because the true enemy in this world isn't something external
like an invading army nor the King, but rather the real enemy
always lies within ourselves: The King with his lies and
extravagant financial demands, as well as Tax Protestors who
mean well but disseminate erroneous and defective information,
can succeed in their objectives to saturate your intellect with
their views only to the extent that you find their error to be
attractive. And OPPOSITION is an essential ingredient in our
Salvation:
"It is one of the grandest attributes of Deity that He saves
and exalts the human family upon just and Eternal Principles;
that He gives to no man, or no woman that which they have not
been willing to work for, which they have not expanded
themselves to receive, by putting in practice the Principles He
reveals, AGAINST ALL OPPOSITION, facing the wrath and scorn of
the world -- the world which cannot give a just cause, a
reasonable pretext for the OPPOSITION it has ever manifested to
the truths of Heaven. It is a characteristic of our Father, a
Principle of His divine economy to exact from every soul a
fitting proof of its worthiness to attain the exaltation to
which it aspires. There are no heights that may not be
surmounted [WITHOUT OPPOSITION], but they must be reached in the
way that God has ordained. Man may think to accomplish Salvation
by carrying out the selfish desires of his own heart; but when
he fails to take God into consideration, his Creator, and the
Framer of the Laws whereby we mount into Exaltation and Eternal
Life, he knocks the ladder from under himself whereby he might
[have] climbed to that glorious state."
- Orson F. Whitney in a discourse delivered at the Tabernacle
on Sunday, April 9, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at 196;
[London (1886)].
56 And one of the things we would be up against as Judges, in
trying to rule in favor of individuals and against Government,
is the fact that there has been a general declension in
American's status, away from property law rights, and into a
tight contract relational setting with Government affixed as a
party thereto where Tort Law Constitutional restrainments are
increasingly less and less applicable:
"But the days when Common Law property relationships dominated
litigation and legal practice are past. To a growing extent
economic existence now depends on less certain relationships
with government -- licenses, employment, contracts, subsidies,
unemployment benefits, tax exemptions, welfare and the like.
Government participation in the economic existence of
individuals is pervasive and deep. Administrative matters and
other dealings with government are at the epicenter of the
exploding [volume of] law. We turn to government and to the law
for controls which would never have been expected or tolerated
before this century, when a man's answer to economic oppression
or difficulty was to move two hundred miles west."
- Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, at a TEXT AND
TEACHING SYMPOSIUM at Georgetown University, October 12, 1985.
57 In the Spring of 1976, the Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) Oil
Company published a series of advertisements in major newspapers
across the United States, soliciting public opinion on just what
changes Americans would like to see. ARCO seemed very concerned
about making changes in the United States:
"We'd like your help. We need your vision. We want you to tell
us about the changes you would like to see take place in America
-- and in our American way of life. ...We have always been a
nation more interested in the promise of the future than in the
events of the past."
In his FAREWELL ADDRESS, President Washington had a few words to
say about the importance of remembering our past, as there are
lessons to be learned there -- but Gremlins want nothing to do
with George Washington or anything else Celestial his Status
represented. Gremlins have big plans for the future which
require us to discard the past, and so we should not be too
surprised to see a Rockefeller Cartel, corporate nominee like
ARCO never bothering to ask us just what we might like to see
remain the same, while urging us to forget the past and toss
aside the counseling of our Fathers. [See generally a two-page
ARCO advertisement called THE TRICENTENNIAL in the NEW YORK
TIMES MAGAZINE, ages 44 and 45 (Sunday, April 18, 1976)].
58 Benefits accepted are the key to lock folks into reciprocal
demands of Excise Taxation that Juristic Institutions lay on
objects within their jurisdiction. Once the King has created
certain benefits, it is very much provident for the King to
create reasonable expectations of a reciprocal QUID PRO QUO
(that "something for something") on benefit acceptants [unless
his Charter explicitly disables him from asking for certain
types of reciprocity]. For example, in 1933, Congressional
Hearings were held to create a sequence of LEX statutes custom
tailored to provide benefits for workers:
"A BILL giving the protection of the law to the worker's right
to work and guaranteeing him an equal share of the employment
available; forming trade associations to effectuate such rights
and to enable such industries to stabilize business and to
provide certain benefits for their employees; and imposing
certain excise taxes."
- Senate Bill 5480, 72nd Congress, Second Session; as printed
in [WORKER'S RIGHT TO WORK, "Hearings Before a Subcommittee of
the Committee on the Judiciary," at page 1; 72nd Congress,
Second Session (February, 1933)].
Notice how, in reading that quotation from Senate Bill 5480,
once benefits were created, they were thrown at a class of
people (workers), then a demand for a reciprocal excise tax was
then laid in return. That is the same pattern we find in all
Taxation schemes that we uncover: Benefits created and then
accepted, and then reciprocity expected back in return. And when
benefits offered conditionally are accepted, then invisible
contracts are in effect, and failure to reciprocate is now an
act of defilement. Rather than snickering at Judges after the
defilement has taken place, it would be provident to consider
rejecting the benefit before hand.
59 UNITED STATES VS. LEE, 455 U.S. 252, at 280 (1981).
60 There are many books and research papers all pointing to the
same conclusion, but for different reasons. Exemplary perhaps
would be Peter Ferrara's SOCIAL SECURITY, published by the Cato
Institute, San Francisco, California (1980) [The Cato Institute
has since moved to Washington, D.C.]. Also in this line is the
Austrian School of Economics, which includes Ludwig von Mises,
Murray Rothbard, and F.A. Hayek, INTER ALIOS. Consider the
following story of a Wealth Transfer grab by Ludwig Von Mises:
"Paul in the year 1940 saves by paying one hundred dollars to
the national social security administration. He receives in
exchange a claim which is virtually an unconditional IOU...
drawn upon future taxpayers. In 1970, a certain Peter may have
to fulfill the government's promise although he himself does not
derive any benefit from the fact that Paul in 1940 saved one
hundred dollars.
"Thus it becomes obvious that... [t]he Pauls of 1940 do not owe
it to themselves. It is the Peters of 1970 who owe it to the
Pauls of 1940. The whole system is the acme of the short-run
principle. The statesmen of 1940 solve their problems by
shifting them to the statesmen of 1970. On that date the
statesmen of 1940 will be either dead or elder statesmen
glorying in their wonderful achievement, social security."
- Von Mises, in HUMAN ACTION: A TREATISE ON ECONOMICS, pages
847 et seq. (Third Revised Edition 1963).
61 In 1936, the Supreme Court went into a protracted discussion
where the arguments were Patriot oriented, i.e., that arguments
were made that the relational status of EMPLOYMENT is one so
essential to the pursuit of happiness, that it may not be
burdened with a tax. Like Tax Protestors today, the petitioner
back then argued that EMPLOYMENT is a "natural" or "inherent" or
"inalienable" right, and not a Government "privilege" subject to
taxation. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating:
"But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation
as rights of less importance."
- STEWARD MACHINE VS. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, at 580 (1936).
The reason why this is so, is rather simple and blunt: BECAUSE
YOU ARE IN BUSINESS:
"Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business.
It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried
on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations
that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to
tax any of them. The whole includes the parts."
- STEWARD MACHINE, id., at 581.
Whenever Commercial contracts are in effect [meaning that you
are experiencing hard financial enrichment coming out of that
contract], and particularly more so when a Juristic Institution
is a party to that contract [meaning that Government is
supplying the Commercial benefit you are experiencing], then
claiming the Tort of unfairness when uncomfortable impediments
surface in the relationship later on [like heavy taxation],
THOSE UNFAIRNESS CLAIMS ARE NOT AN ADDRESSABLE ARGUMENT IN
COURT. In Nature, contracts (if they are in effect) ascend to an
elevated overruling dominate priority when settling grievances
-- a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, which if not learned now, will be
learned in no uncertain terms at the Last Day before Father. So
rather than acting like some goofy lawyer clown [who was taught
legal procedure, not Principles, in Law School] and throw
arguments at judges that are sounding in the Tort of unfairness,
you might want to be slick and smooth in your MODUS OPERANDI
from now on, operating your Life like a well-oiled machine:
Before preparing to argue a grievance, first scan the factual
setting for the possible presence of an invisible contract [you
will know how to identify invisible contracts by the end of this
Letter]. If a contract is present, then back off from arguing
unfairness Tort claims. If the grievance cannot be won ON-POINT
because an invisible contract is controlling, then avoid the
Courtroom grievance scene as a pre-planned confrontation
altogether. The Illuminatti Gremlins and Witches make no effort
to identify the possible presence of a Contract controlling from
the First Estate; so like Tax and Highway Protestors who lose
now with their manifold Tort arguments of Constitutional
unfairness, Illuminatti and Witches will also be loosing at the
Last Day for the same identical reason: An invisible contract
surfacing to wash out Tort arguments.
See generally, Professor John MacArthur Maguire in TAXING THE
EXERCISE OF NATURAL RIGHTS, Harvard Legal Essays, at pages 273
and 322 (1934).
62 Whenever contracts are in effect, only the content of the
contract is relevant. This is a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE found in all
settings, and is a concept for settling grievances, which if not
learned now, will be learned at the Last Day -- when Illuminatti
defense arguments sounding in the Tort of justifying damages are
tossed aside and ignored by Father, who [just like Federal
Judges today], will pull an invisible contract out of His sleeve
[by returning to us our memory of the First Estate], and then
only talk about that contract.
63 UNITED STATES VS. LEE, id., 455 U.S., at 261.
64 "No one is compelled by law to engage in the business of
buying and selling merchandise, stocks, operating railways, or
in any particular business whatsoever. If he chooses to do so,
he submits himself of his own choice to any excise tax that may
be uniformly laid upon that particular kind of business."
- Remarks of former Vermont Senator George F. Edmunds, in
Senate Document #367, page 2, entitled INCOME TAX, 61st
Congress, Second Session [GPO, Washington (February 17, 1910)].
65 As for the timeliness of objections, failure to object is
automatically fatal, and failure to object timely is equally as
fatal. The most important statement in this entire discussion on
contracts is this: The bottom line on contract annulment is the
STATE OF MIND of the parties at the time of, and immediately
prior to, the execution of the contract, since your fundamental
argument is that you did not voluntarily enter into any contract
with the King; and so now the very existence of the contract
itself is disputed. If you want out of these contracts the King
coerced you into by way of his clever administrative rule making
on Employers by contracts, then your State of Mind at the time
when benefits were first accepted, when the contract was
initially entered into, has to be proven by you, through
written, timely objections; otherwise, you lose.
66 I was once in a Federal District Courtroom when the Judge
wanted to make a Statement, by snorting at a poor PRO SE
litigant arguing Tort when an invisible contract was
controlling. I could just feel it coming in the air as there was
an eerie mystique in gestation up on the Bench; I detected that
a tongue-lashing was imminent. Yes, just like the strange
momentary calm quiescent lull that always precedes a hurricane;
this was going to be one jungle snort that would be long
remembered. The Judge wanted this impending snort to cover every
single square inch of his courtroom kingdom like a blanket; so
having sensed the requisite tranquil atmosphere of attentive
silence that he wanted from the public seats in the back of the
courtroom, the Judge stood up, threw his derogatory PRO SE slur
at the poor fellow, and then sat back down again. Having made
his Statement, having thrown his playful little snort at the PRO
SE litigant, after folks in attendance regained their composure,
the machinery started back up in motion, and the courtroom
business went forward.
67 "The term `adhesion contract' refers to standardized contract
forms offered to consumers of goods and services on essentially
a `take it or leave it' basis without affording the consumer a
realistic opportunity to bargain and under such conditions that
the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or services
except by acquiescing in the form contract."
- VICTORIA VS. SUPERIOR COURT, 710 P.2nd 833, at 837 (1985).
68 "Contracts of Adhesion are standardized contracts
characteristically used by large firms in every transaction for
products or services of a certain kind. The use of such
contracts can have profound implications for ordinary notions of
freedom of contract:
"The weaker party, in need of the goods or services, is
frequently not in a position to shop around for better terms,
either because the author of the contract has a monopoly
(natural or artificial) or because all competitors use the same
clauses. His contractual intention is but a subjection more or
less voluntary to terms dictated by the stronger party, terms
whose consequences are often understood only in a vague way, if
at all."
"Kesler, CONTRACTS OF ADHESION -- SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT FREEDOM OF
CONTRACTS, 43 Columbia Law Review 629, at 632 (1943). For a more
recent discussion of adhesion contracts, see Leff in
UNCONSCIONABILITY AND THE CODE -- THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLAUSE, 115
University of Pennsylvania Law Review 435, at 504 (1967)."
- Anthony Krouman in CONTRACT LAW AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE,
footnote #23, 89 Yale Law Journal 472 (1980).
69 In contrast to that, Commercial contracts will face judicial
supervisory rearrangement when pure MUTUAL ASSENT has been
quietly withdrawn from the contract factual setting, by reason
of the contract's ADHESIVE origin. If a convenient clause within
a contract is ADHESIVE, then any ambiguities surrounding the
interpretation of that covenant will be subject to stricter
construction, and held against the party possessing the stronger
bargaining weight (meaning the party who provided the
standardized, pre-printed contract forms) [see GRAHAM VS.
SCISSOR-TAIL, INC., footnote #16, 623 P.2nd 165 (1981)].
70 In CARTER VS. DUCHESS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 735 F.2nd 8, at 13
(1984), the Second Circuit mentioned that the FLSA also offers
the benefit of eliminating unfair competition among workers
looking for jobs, even before they are hired.
71 Such benefits are both Commercial and political in nature.
72 To Object to something is to make a STATEMENT, which is in
itself an art. To make a STATEMENT is to place someone else on
Notice that you are not what they thought you were. Here, our
Objection is to place all Judges, both State and Federal, on
NOTICE, that we are not the gameplayers in King's Commerce
pursuing that type of Governmentally assisted enrichment that
they otherwise assume that we are through our silence; we are
not one of those types that the King has a reasonable
expectation of taxation reciprocity on. We are not ones to have
accepted juristic benefits that carried along with them latent
reciprocal hooks of taxation expectations retained by the
benefit donor. So this Objection is to make a STATEMENT, and
STATEMENTS are intended to change the opinions held by others.
And as we probe around a bit and change settings over into
different areas, we find that the fine art of making a
STATEMENT, to change the otherwise frozen opinions of others,
actually goes on world wide:
..It was a nice sunny morning on this Friday, December 2, 1977.
About 50 miles off the coast of South Carolina there occurred a
tremendous boom in the atmosphere at about 10am, which when it
arrived inland at Charleston caused dishes to rattle, furniture
to shake, and giblets to roll over. Was it a ship that exploded,
or maybe an aircraft? No one knew. Later the same day, at
3:45pm, 650 miles to the north-northeast off the New Jersey
Coast there occurred a second boom in the atmosphere; this one
was felt throughout the New York metropolitan area from Maine,
New Jersey, all the way up the East Coast to Connecticut.
Sensors at the LAMONT-DOUGHTERY GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY north of
New York City jumped off the scale. Was it an earthquake? If it
was an earthquake, then where was the secondary wave? In
Manhattan, more dishes rattled and more furniture shook. A
Manhattan housewife once related the following story:
"My older kids were in school, and I was at home with my
smallest children when I heard this tremendous boom. It sounded
like a deep lull, a thundering roar from the bowels of Earth. It
was all-encompassing; it could have been next door or it could
have been a million miles away. It sounded like a bomb. I
grabbed my kids and ran to the wall. I turned on my radio, but
heard nothing there about it. When the kids came home from
school, I found out they had been scared, too; the teachers
claimed that it was Con Edison. But the boom sounded as if
something had hit the bottom of the Earth."
Then she turned to that newspaper the world esteems as great --
the NEW YORK TIMES, for Saturday and Sunday, December 3rd and
4th, but found no story or talk whatsoever on the boom anywhere.
Like the radio stations, the great newspapers were silent on the
booms, and so she turned to her friends, who also very much felt
the boom, but they too just drew a blank. Something about this
was eerie, it was strange, there was dimension to these booms
that was different -- and why the silent treatment?
Over the coming days, more booms were heard up and down the East
Coast, particularly on December 20th. When the news media did
finally get to talk about it, the booms were generally
characterized as a joke. A few months later, the NEW YORK TIMES
would try to deflect attention over to the CONCORDE supersonic
jet as being the explanation to feed to the public [see the
opinion of an INTELLIGENTSIA clown, Dr. Jeremy J. Stone, trying
to wash it all away, in the NEW YORK TIMES ["Scientist Says Data
Upholds Thesis Tying Concorde to Coastal Booms"], page B16
(March 16, 1978)]. Three days later, the NEW YORK TIMES
reluctantly ran a story discrediting what their precious Dr.
Stone had just said, as the United States Navy said the Concorde
was probably not the origin of those booms [see the NEW YORK
TIMES ["Concordes May Be Booming"], page E9 (March 19, 1978)],
but the Navy did not identify the origin of those atmospheric
booms.
The reason why those booms first triggered the media's silent
treatment, then the joke treatment, then outright fraudulent
distortions trying to wash it all away, is because the Gremlins
knew all along what the origin of those booms were, and those
booms are directly related to the impending invasion of the
United States by Russia -- and the Gremlins controlling both the
Federal Government and the major news media in New York City do
not want anyone to be cognizant of the surprises they have in
store for you and me. Deception is very important to Gremlins,
and correlative to that, sequestering away key factual
information on impending damages is a necessary accessory
instrument of Gremlin aggression in these Last Days preceding
the Second Coming of the Savior. That Manhattan housewife, who
along with others that experienced those booms, were unknowingly
snared in a web of Gremlin intrigue originating back in the
early 1970s when the well-orchestrated Gremlin diplomatic
deception of DETENTE was in vogue. Back then a hard-driving
engineer with good technical common sense named Leonid Brezhnev
directed and personally supervised an intense Russian military
drive in a little known branch of physics called HIGH ENERGY
PHYSICS. Technological developments produced out of that intense
campaign were such items as the PARTICLE BEAM WEAPON, where
massive amounts of electricity are projected out of a
cannon-like device that Nikola Tesla developed conceptually, and
literally tears to shreds the atoms of whatever the beam comes
into contact with. Other military hardware produced were
electrogravitic SPACE PLATFORMS; these airships use the
electrostatic belt around the Earth to elevate and lower
themselves, with small side mounted rockets for horizontal
propulsion. These Russian space platforms are similar to UFOs in
the sense that advanced magnetic technology and gravitic
levitation are used to provide propulsion to a vehicle, but the
Russian design of the mid-1970s was crude compared to the sleek
UFO technology from our Adamic brothers inside the Earth, as the
Russians were then able to only use the Earth's gravity to
elevate and descend vertically, and so side rockets then had to
provide horizontal movement. Using advanced cryogenics and other
technology stolen from the West, Leonid Brezhnev tied all these
devices together, by mounting a PARTICLE BEAM WEAPON inside a
floating SPACE PLATFORM. [See AVIATION WEEK ["Beam Weapon
Threat"], editorial on page 11, and ["Soviets Push for Beam
Weapons"] on page 16 (May 2, 1977). In contrast, see also the
Gremlin's NEW YORK TIMES trying to keep the lid clamped down
tight on what is happening, in ["Weapon That Fights Missiles
Could Alter World Defense Focus"], page 1 (December 4, 1978).
The NEW YORK TIMES quotes Dr. Ruth Davis, a Gremlin nestled in
the Pentagon's bureaucratic structure, as saying that:
"... there is no scientific evidence to suggest Moscow is
actually testing beam weapons."
- NEW YORK TIMES, id., at D11.
That deceptive Gremlin skew STATEMENT is technically correct in
a limited sense, as yes, there was no SCIENTIFIC evidence that
beam testing was underway, however, there was an avalanche of
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE evidence coming into American sources back
then that Russian beam weapons were being tested. Coming close
to hitting the nail right on the head is always particularly
irritating to Gremlins, and so there will always be a deceptive
skew pushing things off to the side when the preferred MODUS
OPERANDI of silence is uncontrollable.]
..The use of a PARTICLE BEAM CANNON consumes fabulous amounts
of electricity (as well it should for the fabulous amount of
damages it creates), which is an easy enough deployment when the
cannon is on the ground plugged into a nuclear power plant.
QUESTION: How do you generate 10 megawatts of electricity in an
aircraft the size of a 747 jetliner? The answer lies in another
interesting piece of hardware developed by Brezhnev -- a rocket
propelled generator using rare earth magnetics; a device totally
without parallel in the West. The generator only produces peak
juice for a few moments -- but for a PARTICLE BEAM ray, that's
enough.
On that Friday morning off the Coast of South Carolina, a
Russian CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM CANNON was getting exercised.
Operating in a fuzzy de-focused mode, the beam was fired into
the atmosphere from a floating SPACE PLATFORM. These aircraft
are also called the ANTI-WAR MACHINE inside the Kremlin due to
the incredible magnitude of military leverage they create for
their holders. In the early 1980s, the Russians produced a
second generation SPACE PLATFORM called a SUPER-HEAVY -- they
are huge, and have a tremendous cargo capacity.
Of all the places on Earth the Russians could have used to test
their PARTICLE BEAM machinery, they selected the East Coast of
the United States politically: To make a STATEMENT to the
Gremlins who are running the show in Washington: That your days
are numbered, and you little NUCLEAR WAR Gremlins had better
start trembling at the knees.
All Americans will one day become very well acquainted with
these SPACE PLATFORMS, as they will drop in from the heavens and
hover out in the open over key American cities and military
bases synchronous with the Russian invasion. Those SPACE
PLATFORMS will be there visibly to make a STATEMENT at that time
as well: That an accelerated American surrender would be
worthwhile considering.
73 Title 29, Section 201, et seq. (1982).
74 See generally MITCHELL VS. ROBERT DEMARIO JEWELRY, 361 U.S.
288 (1960).
75 The RAILWAY LABOR ACT lies in Title 45, Section 151, et seq.
Correlative supporting statutes are found in Title 15, Section
21, and Title 18, Section 373, and Title 28, Section 1291. See
also related statutes that confer benefits on Railroad
Employees: The RAILROAD RETIREMENT TAX ACT, the RAILROAD
RETIREMENT ACT, and the RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT in
Title 26, Section 3231; Title 42, Section 301; and commingled in
with the RAILWAY LABOR ACT in Title 45, Section 151 (et seq.).
76 Just addressing Employee discrimination alone, the King has
enacted numerous statutes that prohibit discrimination on the
basis of:
- Race, gender, and other demographic characteristics in the
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (Title 42, Section 200e-16);
- Age, in the AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967
(Title 29, Section 631, 633a);
- A Handicapping condition, by the REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
(Title 29, Section 791).
77 And remember that the very word itself, EMPLOYEE, is
automatically suggestive of the legal standing of that PERSON
being another taxable gameplayer in Commerce; on the floor of a
Courtroom it is a business term and carries great significance
to it, and so now Protesting arguments sounding in the Tort of
NATURAL LAW RIGHTS and correlative arguments of unfairness,
freedom, claims of Constitutional infractions, and the like, are
all not relevant. And having accepted multiple layers of State
and Federal juristic benefits, EMPLOYEES now walk around clothed
with multiple layers of JURISTIC PERSONALITIES, having insulated
themselves from using Tort defense arguments by virtue of the
multiple layers of invisible contracts in effect that juristic
benefit acceptance created latently. Yes, contracts do elevate
themselves to an overruling level, washing out all other
arguments sounding in the Tort of unfairness and off-point
rights, whenever judgments are being handed down -- a PRINCIPLE
OF NATURE that if not learned now, will be learned in no
uncertain terms at the Last Day before Father, as Heavenly
Father, just like the King, has a large number of contracts to
hold us to -- contracts that remain invisible only to those who
have not yet OPENED THEIR EYES.
78 Back in the 1800s, back when our Father's philosophy held the
upper hand, EMPLOYMENT was not an article of King's Commerce;
being no juristic benefits permeating the EMPLOYMENT setting,
there were no reciprocal expectations of taxation liability to
be concerned with:
"The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of
commerce."
- Title 15 ["Commerce and Trade"], Section 17 [Antitrust LEX]
(October, 1914).
But today, in the 1980s, there are multiple juristic contracts
in effect permeating the EMPLOYMENT scene that were not in
effect back in the 1800s. Today, there is SOCIAL SECURITY
(August, 1935), which operates with and without an assigned
number in effect; there is the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (June,
1938); and the OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (December,
1970). Those generic contracts are in effect with numerous other
specific setting EMPLOYMENT contracts, such as the:
- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, Title 29, Section 141 et seq.
(June, 1947) [creating arbitration benefits for members of labor
unions];
- COAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, Title 30, Section 801 et
seq. (December, 1969) [dust, ventilation, and environmental
requirements for miners];
- LONGSHOREMAN'S AND HARBOR WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION ACT, Title
33, Section 901 et seq. (March, 1927) [safe places of
Employment];
- RAILROAD ACTS, Title 45, Section 1 et seq. (May, 1926)
[creating a large array of benefits inuring specifically to
Employees of railroads].
And as we change over to ecclesiastical settings, nothing
changes there, either; as we also once lived in an era with
Father when there were no Covenants to be concerned with -- but
now there is. Therefore, arguments once entertained back then
are no longer relevant today, because Contract Law overrules
reasoning sounding in Tort -- if in fact contracts are in
effect. Without Covenants, there was once a Time and an Age in
the First Estate when Heavenly Father listened very carefully to
our concerns about what was fair and what was not fair; as
Spirits, we were without the behavioral specificity that
Covenants call for back then, and so what was relevant to be
discussed and considered in that embryonic stage of our
development back then was anything we felt like making an issue
out of. Back then, Father was issuing out ADVISORIES, today, he
is issuing out COMMANDMENTS (the word COMMANDMENT implies the
right to use force. Notice how the intensity of the words
selected has escalated from one Estate to the next. Why is
Father now suggesting inferentially the use of force to obtain
our obedience? Because Father has our consent to do so,
originating from Covenants we all entered into in the First
Estate - Covenants that are now invisible. Although the Covenant
itself is invisible, the accessory circumstances generated by
its existence are visible -- such as the careful use of some
forceful words to characterize the necessity of obedience to
some behavioral standards).
In such a passive setting without Covenants our relationship
with Father back then was quite quiescent. Without Covenants in
effect, arguments considered are very broad and wide-ranging;
with specific Covenants in effect governing judgments, the range
of permissible arguments is narrowed greatly, and only the
content of the Covenant itself is relevant discussion matter.
Since there were no Covenants in effect back then, Father had
reduced levels of behavioral expectations to hold on us. But
today in this Second Estate, things are different -- today
multiple invisible ecclesiastical Contracts are in effect, and
if we do not get rid of incorrect reasoning sounding in the
sugar sweet tones of Tort, then we will be damaging ourselves at
the Last Day where Contracts are controlling. Just like Tax
Protestors throwing NATURAL RIGHTS arguments from the 1800s at
judges today, extracted from Cases when there were no contracts
in effect back in that era, Heathens and Gremlins also using
arguments sounding in Tort at the Last Day will go through at
that time what Tax Protestors in the United States are going
through now in Federal District Courts: Rebuffment and
rejection -- but Tax Protestors, like Heathens and Gremlins,
have not figured that out yet. But there the similarity ends:
Tax Protestors are quite different in the sense that they head
straight for the law books, the court opinions, and the
courtrooms in an effort to get to the very bottom of this Tax
Question. That MODUS OPERANDI is very beneficial. Heathens and
Gremlins stay on an aloof theoretical level, and always stumble
from one fundamental error to the next for one reason or another
-- they don't have the backbone to be criminally prosecuted
simply to get answers to questions.
79 CARTER VS. CARTER COAL, 298 U.S. 238, at 308 (1936).
80 CARTER VS. CARTER COAL, id., at 309.
81 In one of the First Sessions in Council in the First Estate,
Father started collecting and rearranging Spirits into groups
[meaning a soft Judgment was taking place]. We, as Spirits, then
got away with some fairness related reasoning sounding in Tort.
However, the next impending Judgment will be a hard Judgment [if
HARD is the word], because Covenants are in effect and Father
has much higher standards of behavioral expectations on us.
These Judgment standards specifically exclude Tort defense
arguments -- and not because Heavenly Father is a Fifth Column
Commie Pinko who is trying to run us into the ground, but
because the Judgment Law to be governing at the next Judgment
[that this Life is now collecting its factual setting
evidentiary presentation on] has been changed: Because now
invisible Celestial Covenants are in effect from the First
Estate. To those Spirits who do not have replacement Covenants
that were entered into down here, those First Estate Covenants
will be controlling at the Last Day. There were no Covenants in
effect when a preliminary stratification of Spirits [by
Judgment] took place back in the First Estate, and certain
groups of Spirits went off and attended certain Sessions of
Council by themselves [for example, the NOBLE AND THE GREAT had
a very interesting Session all to themselves back then]; and the
impending tightening up in Judgment criteria that will be used
by Father at the Last Day does not mean that Father's Law is
going to the dogs [as Protestors would like you to believe since
Constitutional unfairness arguments are now being tossed aside
by the Judiciary], but rather the factual setting presented for
Judgment -- Celestial Contracts are now in effect that were not
in effect the first time around.
..Today in the United States in areas of Government taxation,
it is happening all over again right down the line: Protestors
are blowing their lids when experiencing Judicial rebuffment
after having quoted plain language from Cases dated before
juristic EMPLOYMENT contracts went into effect roughly from the
turn of the century to about 1920 or so. Since commercial
contracts were not in effect back in the 1800s, then what was
ruled upon in that era doesn't mean anything today, because
today contracts are in effect, and contracts change everything.
This does not frustrate Patriot objectives, it only changes the
nature of the attack strategy: Patriots first need to get rid
of the contract as an item on the factual record, then you can
start arguing fairness and unfairness.
82 Is this FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT really the high-powered
conveyance device for EMPLOYEES to bask in, as Federal Judges
treat it? Yes, it is, and supporting evidence of this fact
surfaced in the Nixon Presidential era when the Congress decided
to tone down the level of benefits this Act created for
EMPLOYEES, and shift more of its benefits over to EMPLOYERS:
"The Congress hereby finds that the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
1938, as amended, has been interpreted judicially in disregard
of long-established customs, practices, and contracts between
employers and employees, thereby creating wholly unexpected
liabilities, immense in amount and retroactive in operation,
upon EMPLOYERS [to the benefit of EMPLOYEES] with the result
that, if said Act as so interpreted, or claims arising under
such interpretations, were permitted to stand,
1) the payment of such liabilities would bring about financial
ruin of many Employers and seriously impair the capital
resources of many others, thereby resulting in the reduction of
industrial operations, halting the expansion and development,
curtailing of Employment, and the earning power of Employees;
2) the credit of many Employers would be curtailed;
3) there would be created both an extended and continuous
uncertainty on the part of industry, both Employer and Employee,
as to the financial condition of productive establishments and a
gross inequality of competitive conditions between Employers and
between industries;
4) Employees would receive windfall payments, including
liquidated damages, of sums for activities performed by them
without any expectation of reward beyond that included in their
agreed rates of pay;
5) there would occur the promotion of increasing demands for
payment to Employees for engaging in activities no compensation
for which had been contemplated by either the Employer or
Employee at the time they were engaged in;
6) voluntary collective bargaining would be interfered with
and industrial disputes between Employees and Employers and
between Employees and Employees would be created;
7) the courts of the country would be burdened with an
excessive and needless litigation and champertous practices
would be encouraged;
8) the Public Treasury would be deprived of large sums of
revenues and public finances would be seriously deranged by
claims against the Public Treasury for refunds of taxes already
paid;
9) the cost to the Government of goods and services heretofore
and hereafter purchased by its various departments and agencies
would be unreasonably increased and the Public Treasury would be
seriously affected by consequent increased cost of war contracts;
10) serious and adverse effects upon the revenues of Federal,
State and local Governments would occur."
- Title 29, Section 251 ["Portal To Portal Act"] (May, 1974).
So here is the Congress in 1974 now reversing itself from the
1938 era, and starts to hem in Employee benefits by enacting the
PORTAL TO PORTAL ACT, which was designed to relieve Employers
from some of the burdens cast upon them [in favor of Employees]
as a result of the generous application of the FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT by the Federal Judiciary to EMPLOYEES. So, yes,
the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT was, and so remains down to the
present day, from the Judicial perspective, as a high-powered
juristic device for conveying benefits into the pockets of
EMPLOYEES -- and having created benefits, now the King wants an
excessively generous piece of the action.
Incidentally, when the Congress enacted this PORTAL TO PORTAL
ACT, they braced themselves for any possible Constitutional
challenge someone might later be throwing at them, by claiming
that the necessity for this Act originates with multiple sources
of Constitutional fuel:
1. "Burden on Commerce;
2. General welfare;
3. National Defense;
4. Right to define and limit the jurisdiction of Federal
Courts."
- Title 29, Section 251 (a & b) ["Findings of Congress --
Declarations of Policy -- Purposes of Act"].
Therefore, whenever someone now comes along and wants to
challenge the Constitutionality of this PORTAL TO PORTAL ACT for
some reason, each of the four separate and distinct sources of
Constitutional jurisdiction must individually be attacked and
voided; succeeding in nullifying just one of the four will not
nullify this statute, just like the most eloquent and impressive
Tax Protester arguments on the monetary disabilities of Article
I, Sections 8 and 10 will not nullify the existence of the
Federal Reserve or those paper Notes it circulates pursuant to
Gremlin enscrewment objectives; and just like voiding one fuel
tank on a Boeing 747 jet carrying multiple fuel tanks offers no
velocity reduction. All independent sources of jurisdictional
fuel must be voided individually to successfully challenge an
Act of Congress -- a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE Tax Protesters might
want to take notice of, as it applies across all settings, both
worldly and Heavenly.
83 "The Constitution is not a formulary. For constitutional
purposes, the decisive issue turns on the operating incidence of
a challenged tax. A state is free to pursue its own fiscal
policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution, if by the practical
operation of a tax the state has exerted its power in relation
to opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has
afforded, to benefits which it has conferred..."
- STATE OF WISCONSIN VS. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, 311 U.S. 435, at
444 (1940).
84 "To overcome this statute, the Taxpayer must show that in
attributing to him the ownership of the income of the trusts, or
something fairly to be dealt with as equivalent to ownership,
the lawmakers have done a wholly arbitrary thing, have found
equivalence where there was none nor anything approaching it,
and laid a burden unrelated to privilege or benefit."
- BURNET VS. WELLS, 289 U.S. 670, at 679 (1932).
QUESTION: Just how are Protesters, throwing Court actions at
Federal Judges as Employees, going to prove that there were no
juristic benefits conferred in the income-producing setting that
the King is trying to tax in reciprocity? You're not going to
be able to prove any such thing until you start to hit the nail
right on the head, and get rid of those contracts that formed
invisibly when juristic benefits were accepted in your state of
silence. However technically wrong some Government attorney can
find and then chew up some of the points in that brief sketch of
the model OBJECTION that I talked about at the beginning of this
section, at least I OBJECTED, and at least I rejected the
benefits and got rid of that particular contract; and getting
rid of this EMPLOYMENT contract is in itself just a point of
beginning.
85 An enlargement of our comprehension, which includes the
ability to appreciate important impending events, is of a
Heavenly origin:
"Our religion teaches us truth, virtue, holiness, faith in God
and in his Son Jesus Christ. It reveals mysteries, it brings to
mind things past and present -- unfolding clearly things to
come. It is the foundation or mechanism; it is the spirit that
gives intelligence to every living being upon the Earth. All
true philosophy originates from that Foundation from which we
draw wisdom, knowledge, truth, and power. What does it teach us?
To love God and our fellow creatures -- to be compassionate,
full of mercy, long suffering, and patient to the forward and to
those who are ignorant. There is a glory in our religion that no
other religion that has ever been established upon the Earth, in
the absence of the true Priesthood, ever possessed. It is the
fountain of all intelligence; it is to bring Heaven to Earth and
to exalt Earth to Heaven; to prepare all intelligence that God
has placed in the hearts of the children of men; to mingle with
the intelligence that dwells in Eternity; and to elevate the
mind above the trifling and frivolous objects of time which
tends [to pull things] downward towards destruction. It frees
the mind of man from darkness and ignorance, gives him that
intelligence that flows from Heaven, and qualifies him to
comprehend all things. This is the character of [our]
religion..."
- Brigham Young, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle in
Great Salt Lake City on May 22, 1859; 7 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES
139, at 140 (London, 1860).
