2. Next, we turn now and address the legal procedures used to
crack Protesting giblets when an invisible Federal taxation
reciprocity contract has been layered on us from that heavy and
overweight King we have in Washington, with the administration
and enforcement of those invisible contracts falling under a
very curt, short, accelerated, and abbreviated legal procedure
called ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. I will be discussing two separate
items under this section --
1. First, the legal procedure of ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, which
is not necessarily related to taxation; and
2. A specific ADMIRALTY TAXATION CONTRACT itself. Federal
Judges do not call this contract an ADMIRALTY CONTRACT, but my
use of this nomenclature occurs by reason of relational
identification, because there are invisible financial benefits
originating from the King that involve LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY,
which is characteristic of ADMIRALTY.
The legal procedure known as ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION applies in
Federal areas concerning tax collection, because once a PERSON
takes upon any one of the many invisible taxation contracts that
the King is enriching his looters through, then ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION as a relational procedure can be invoked by the
Judiciary and the King's termites in the IRS to get what they
want out of you: Your money.
Admiralty is a subdivision of King's Commerce such that all of
King's Commerce that takes place over waterways and the High
Seas (at least, such a geographical restriction of Admiralty to
navigable waterways of all types is now only theoretical), is
assigned to be government by a special set of grievance
settlement and evidentiary rules, just custom tailored to
Commerce of that nature... at least that was the case in the old
days when Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate
business transactions with the King out on the High Seas.
Back in the old days, back way early in England's history, our
Fathers saw that the rules governing the settlement of
grievances that occurred on land just didn't seem to fit right
into grievances that merchants had with each other on some
Commerce that transpired out on the High Seas. A large portion
of business involved the transportation of merchandise from one
place to the next. For example, on land, goods that were damaged
in transit for some reason were generally always recovered from
the accident for valuation and insurance adjustment purposes,
and eye witnesses were often present to describe how the damage
happened, i.e., whether a gust of high winds came along, or some
other carriage violated rights-of-way and caused the accident,
or that thievery took place. In that way, fault and damages
could be properly assigned to the responsible party. But
transportation that crosses over water is very different,
indeed. Whenever high gusts of squall wind came about on the
High Seas as merchandise was being shipped from, say, England to
India, then many ships were lost at sea. No one saw the ship
sink, the merchandise is gone for good, the crew is gone as
well, and months and years transpire in silence as a ship that
was expected to arrive in a foreign port never appears. It could
have been piracy, a Rogue Wave, or the weather, or that the
captain and crew made off with the boat to the South Pacific,
but in any event, there is no other party to be sued, and no one
knows what happened (there were no radios then). In some cases,
searching expeditions were sent out to look for the lost ship,
and so years would pass between the initial sinking or stealing,
and a declaration to the fact that was accepted by all
interested parties.
Question: How do you assign negligence for damages out on the
High Seas? No one saw anything happen; no one has any evidence
that anything happened. Who was at fault, and why?
On land, assigning fault and making partial recovery by the
responsible party is quite common, but not so out on the High
Seas. So this special marine jurisdiction (and "jurisdiction"
meaning here is simply a special set of rules) was developed
organically, piece by piece and sometimes Case by Case, which
grew and developed to limit liability exposure to the carrier
and others, and also minimized the losses that could be claimed
by forcing certain parties to assume risks they don't have to
assume when merchandise is being shipped over land. Also, some
of the other special rules applicable to grievances brought into
a Court of Admiralty are that there is no jury in Admiralty --
never -- everything is handled summarily before a Judge in
chronologically compressed proceedings. Also, there are no fixed
rules of law or evidence (meaning that it is somewhat like an
Administrative Proceeding in the sense that it is a
free-wheeling evidentiary jurisdiction -- anything goes).1
And so when limitations of liability were codified this way into
the King's Statutes, this was actually Special Interest Group
legislation to benefit insurance carriers.2 Insurance company
risk analysts are brilliant people, and they now know, like they
have always known, exactly what they are doing at all times when
sponsoring statutes that limit the amount of money they have to
pay out in claims.3
And due to the extended time factors that were involved in the
shipping of Commerce out on the High Seas in old England, rules
regarding the timeliness of bringing actions into court, just
never fit just right with a ship lost for months or years before
the involved parties even knew about it. So something originated
out on the High Seas known as DOUBLE INSURANCE; which is a
general business custom, continuing to be in effect down to the
present time, for carriers to purchase double the value on
merchandise transiting in a marine environment (insuring
Commercial merchandise in transit for twice their cash value),
and this insurance doubling was later enforced by English
statutes to be mandatory, due to the "inherent risks involved."4
Do you see the distinction in risk and procedure between
Commerce transacted over the land and Commerce transacted over
the High Seas? As we change the situs from land to water,
everything changes in the ability to effectuate a judicial
recovery for goods damaged in transit. And everything in
Commerce comes into the Courtroom eventually, so setting down a
variety of courtroom rules just custom tailored to marine
business also developed in time, and properly so.
So in the right geographical place (meaning in the right risk
environment), the application of special marine rules to settle
Commercial grievances is quite appropriate. And insurance, i.e.,
the absorption of Commercial risk by an insurance underwriter in
exchange for some cash premiums paid, has always been considered
by the Judiciary to be an Admiralty transaction. In other words,
even though the merchandise is not being shipped over water, and
even though the business insurance policy has absolutely nothing
to do with a marine environment or a physical High Seas setting,
the issuance of the policy of insurance now attaches Admiralty
Jurisdiction right then and there.5
And all persons whose activities in King's Commerce are such
that they fall under this marine-like environment, are into an
invisible Admiralty Jurisdiction Contract. Admiralty
Jurisdiction is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas, and if the
King is a party to the sea-based Commerce (such as by the King
having financed your ship, or the ship is carrying the King's
guns), then that Commerce is properly governed by the special
rules applicable to Admiralty Jurisdiction. But as for that
slice of Commerce going on out on the High Seas without the King
as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and
so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine
environment. At least, that distinction between Admiralty and
Maritime is the way things once were, but no more.
Anyone who is involved with Admiralty or Maritime activities are
always Persons involved with Commercial activities that fall
under the King's Commerce, but since Admiralty and Maritime are
subdivisions of King's Commerce, the reverse is not always true,
i.e., not everyone in King's Commerce is in Admiralty or
Maritime. Admiralty Law Jurisdiction is a body of legal
concepts, international in character, which has its own history
of organic growth concurrent both within the parallel
Anglo-American development of King's Equity and Common Law
Jurisdictions, and in addition to organic growth from outside
Anglo-American Law. Admiralty Law has been around for quite some
time, and it very much does have its proper time and place.
Admiralty Jurisdiction goes back quite farther than just recent
English history involving the Magna Carta in 1215; it has its
roots in the ancient codes that the Phoenicians used, and it
appears in the Rhodesian Codes as well.
Generally speaking, Maritime Jurisdiction is the IT HAPPENED OUT
ON THE SEA version of Common Law Jurisdiction and Jury Trials
are quite prevalent; Admiralty Jurisdiction is the IT HAPPENED
OUT ON THE SEA version of summary King's Equity Jurisdiction,
and generally features non-Jury Trials to settle grievances (as
Kings have a long history of showing little interest in
Juries).6 Just what grievance should lie under ordinary Civil
Law, or should lie under Admiralty Jurisdiction is often
disputed even at the present time, and has always been
disputed.7 Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING'S COMMERCE of the
High Seas, while Maritime Jurisdiction could be said to be the
COMMON LAW of the High Seas. If you and I (as private parties)
entered into Commercial contracts with each other that has
something to do with a marine setting, that would be a contract
in Maritime. If you or I contract in Commerce with the King
(such as shipping his guns across oceans), then such an
arrangement would fall under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This
distinction does not always hold true any more, as lawyers have
greatly blurred the distinction by lumping everything into
Admiralty.8
This is why Admiralty is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas
and navigable rivers and lakes (or at least, should be). A
least, that is the way it used to be. Up until the mid-1800s
here in the United States, very frequently merchants paid off
each other in gold coins and company notes, i.e., there was no
monopoly on currency circulation by the King then like there is
today. So in the old days, it was infrequent that the King had
an involvement with private Maritime Commerce. And there was an
easy-to-see distinction in effect back then between Maritime
Jurisdiction contracts that involved private parties (or
Maritime Torts where neither parties in the grievance are
agencies or instrumentalities of Government) and Admiralty
Jurisdiction, which applied to Commercial contracts where the
King was a party. (Remember that Tort Law governs grievances
between people where there is no contract in effect. So if a
longshoreman fell on a dock and broke his leg, his suing the
owner of the dock for negligence in maintaining the dock should
be a Maritime Tort Action). However, today in the United States,
all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with
each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also
under Admiralty: Reason: The beneficial use and recirculation
of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King an automatic silent
Equity third party to the arrangements.
In England, which has long been a jurisprudential structure
encompassing Maritime and Admiralty Law, open hostility and
tension has flared on occasion regarding the question of
applying a marine based jurisdiction on land. During the reign
of King Richard II, there was a confrontation between inland
Equity Jurisdiction Courts and the assertion of normally sea
based Admiralty Jurisdiction Courts. The confrontation resulted
in a King's Decree being issued to settle the grievance. That
Decree provided that:
"The admirals and their deputies shall not meddle from
henceforth of anything done within the realm, but only of a
thing done upon the sea..."9
This Decree abated the encroachment grievance for the time
being, but other encroachment questions arose later on, because
the use of fee based summary Admiralty Jurisdiction raises
revenue for the Judges, and is administratively quite efficient,
and therefore all factors considered, the inherently expansive
nature of Admiralty is quite strong, and as such, Decrees issued
by Kings trying to limit the contours of Admiralty were simply
tossed aside and soon forgotten. So now one meaningless Royal
Decree was soon followed by another:
"...of all manner of contracts, pleas, and quarrels, and other
things arising within the bodies of the counties as well by land
as by [the edge of] water, and also by wreck of the sea, the
admiral's court shall have no manner of cognizance, power, nor
jurisdiction; but all such manner of contracts, pleas, and
quarrels, and all other things rising within the bodies of
counties, as well by land as by water, as afore, and remedied by
the laws of the land, and not before nor by the admiral, nor his
lieutenant in any wise."10
In the reign of King James the First, the disputed boundary
controversies between the Courts of Common Law and the Admiralty
Jurisdiction Courts continued on, and "even reached an acute
stage."11 We find in the second volume of Marsden's SELECT PLEAS
IN THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY, and in Lord Coke's writings12 that
despite an agreement made in 1575 between the justices of the
King's Bench and the judge of Admiralty, the judges of the
Common Law Courts successfully maintained their right to
prohibit suits in Admiralty upon contracts that were made on
shore. (Notice who your friends are: Judges sitting over Common
Law Courts). Other complaints of encroachment by Courts of
Admiralty into land based grievances surfaced during the rule
and reign of King Henry the Fourth.13 So, Admiralty Jurisdiction
is by its historical nature an expansive and adhesive
Jurisdiction for Kings to use to accomplish their Royal revenue
raising and administrative cost cutting objectives.
Our Founding Fathers also had an inappropriate assertion of this
expansive Admiralty Jurisdiction thrown at them from the King of
England, which was a strong contributing reason as to why the
American Colonists felt that the King had lost his rightful
jurisdiction to govern the Colonies.14 Yes, King George was very
much working American Colonial giblets through an Admiralty
Cracker; and so Admiralty has had a long habitual pattern of
making appearances where it does not belong, of creating
confrontations, and of being used as a juristic whore by Kings
functioning as Royal pimps: And all for the same identical
purpose: To enrich the Crown and nothing else.
This concept of using Admiralty as a slick tool for Revenue
Raising is an important concept to understand, as this procedure
to raise revenue through an invisible Admiralty Contract is now
surfacing in the United States in the very last place where
anyone would think a marine based jurisdictional environment
belongs: On your Internal Revenue Service's 1040 form, as I
will explain later on.
What is important to understand here is not merely that there
has been an expansive atmosphere of perpetual enlargement of the
jurisdictional contours that characterize Courts of Admiralty
that has been in effect for a long time in old English history,
but what is important is why this state of expansion
continuously took place:
"The present obscure and irrational state of admiralty
jurisdiction in America is the consequence of the long feud
between the English common law and admiralty judges, clerks and
marshals, who competed for jurisdiction by fees, not salaries,
until 1840. They, therefore, competed for jurisdiction of
profitable litigation between merchants, but were happy to
escape unprofitable cases. In particular, the common law judges
sought exclusive jurisdiction whenever a jury of vicinage could
be empaneled."15
So the reason why King Richard II and the other Kings of England
had to keep issuing out restraining Decrees, to hem in the
Admirals with the ever-expanding jurisdiction that they were
assuming, was because those admirals were financially
compensated based on the number and types of Cases they accepted
to rule on -- so they obviously accepted and asserted Admiralty
Jurisdiction over the maximum number of Cases practically
possible; and why should they care about "mere technical
details" as to whether or not that grievance really belonged
under Admiralty or not? Why should they concern themselves with
the mere question of jurisdiction when the more important event
of looting a Defendant was so imminent? Why should they concern
themselves with the comites of limited inter-tribunal
jurisdiction when an operation of banditry was so close at hand?
What the old Admiralty Judges wanted was to savor,
experientially, the conquest of financial enrichment, and with
such fee compensated Courts, Admiralty Judges got what they
wanted. Can't you just hear the old Admiralty Judge now:
"Why, the Plaintiff brought this Case into my Court, I've got
jurisdiction!"
Here in the 1980s in the United States, have you ever heard this
same identical line when challenging some rubbery little Star
Chamber Town Justice on a speeding ticket? That determined
little Justice of the Peace wants just one thing from you: Your
money. Like the Admiralty Courts of old England, his little Star
Chamber is also fee based. And he represents everything curt,
accelerated, and inconsiderate when ignoring your traffic
infraction citation jurisdictional arguments that was also curt,
accelerated, and inconsiderate when fee based Admiralty Courts
assumed jurisdiction on Cases they had no business taking in
1300 A.D.
Those old Admiralty Courts wanted the self-serving financial
enrichment that filing fees paid by Plaintiffs gave them. And so
in seeking Admiralty Jurisdiction relief, Plaintiffs expected
and got quick, fast, and summary relief. And being financially
compensated the way they were, are you really surprised that
Admiralty Jurisdiction Courts were simply expected by custom to
be the shortest, curtest, most summary, and chronologically most
abbreviated form of adjudication imaginable? Who has time for a
Jury in Admiralty? I can just hear a poor fellow try to argue
rights in an old Admiralty Court back then.
"You want what? You want Due Process in this Court? You want
your Magna Carta rights? Ha! [SNORT] This is Admiralty.
Judgment entered in for the Plaintiff. Next Case."
Today in the United States, just like in those days of King
Richard II, there is now an assertion of Admiralty and Maritime
Law going on in places where it does not belong, and it is now
trying to make an appearance where it has no business. Admiralty
Jurisdiction has in many respects, "come ashore" and now
"meddles" with much of our domestic "realm," as it currently
affects almost every element of our inland Commercial society.
Today's practice of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction is found
not only in its appropriate home in that slice of business of
King's Commerce that is going on out on the seas, but also on
the navigable rivers of the United States, as well as world-wide
off-shore well drilling activity. Admiralty Jurisdiction rules
are used to settle claims and grievances regarding cargo,
international conventions, financing, banking, insurance,
legislation, navigation, hazardous substances from nuclear power
plants, stevedoring (the unloading of a vessel at a port), and
undersea mining and development. An examination of some
Commercial contracts that aerospace defense contractors enter
into with the Pentagon and each other (from general contractor
to subcontractor) reveals slices of Admiralty very much now in
effect. It is probable that Admiralty Jurisdiction will also
surface sometime in the future to settle Tort claims arising out
of the CIA's planting of ICBMs on the ocean floor up and down
the East Coast in the 1960s under instructions from David
Rockefeller, using that ship Howard Hughes built especially for
this purpose, called the GLOMAR EXPLORER. Every few years since
1977, strange stories have appeared in the news regarding whales
beaching themselves on American coasts. On February 6, 1977, a
large number of whales began beaching themselves at
Jacksonville, Florida for no apparent reason; commentators
conjectured that the whales must have lost their sense of
navigation. Soon, 120 whales had mysteriously beached themselves
at Jacksonville.16 NBC Television News reported that evening
that no autopsies were going to be performed on the whales, but
NBC was fed inaccurate information. When privately dissected by
doctors who knew what to look for, those whales had empty
stomachs [meaning that the whales had not eaten in a while and
were sick], and also had heavy plutonium poisoning in their
lungs, originating from one of the undersea missiles leaking
plutonium, located on the seabed 290 miles ESE of Jacksonville,
at 30 9.9' North and 77 8.44' West, which is one of those aging
CIA underwater ICBM's sites. What the whales were up against was
a fungus like infection that had interfered with their
breathing, originating from the water-born plutonium; and when
dragged out back to sea from the Jacksonville beaches, the
whales returned to the beach [negating the "loss of navigation"
theories]. The whales preferred to die on the beach, rather than
carry on life in their underwater agony. Those beached whales
were collected and buried at the Giren Road Landfill in
Jacksonville, Florida, but today, they should not be forgotten.
Whales are mammals like you and me, and soon, rather than
mammalian whales acting strange (like running up a stream, and
refusing to go back into the ocean) and others trying to die by
beaching themselves, people are next;17 and municipal medical
examiners performing autopsies are not oriented to perform
plutonium toxicity density examinations in the cadavers they
ponder over, so the real cause of strange behavior and death
will likely be puzzling for a while.18 But when correctly
identified, the King's Admiralty Jurisdiction will be there to
settle those impending claims, as the source of the Tort is
juristic. There are a lot more numerous sources of plutonium now
available to contaminate American drinking water supplies than
just some aging undersea missiles, and whatever plutonium cannot
slip into your drinking water by itself, will one day have the
liberating assistance of a terrorist. And it is my conjecture
that when the first hotel is built on the Moon or some other
remote astral place, Admiralty Jurisdiction will be right there
to make an appearance when the doors open.19 Here in the
contemporary United States, the very first Federal Court ever
established by Congress, was a Court of Admiralty.20
And so the use and availability of Admiralty Jurisdiction is
deemed very important to our King; and for the identical same
reasons why Admiralty Jurisdiction organically grew into the
most summary, shortest, and swiftest form of "Justice"
imaginable in the old fee based Admiralty Courts: Because the
King is financially enriched by the maximum number of assertions
of Admiralty Jurisdiction that he can get. So likewise our King
today is being financially enriched by his expansively asserting
"Courts of Admiralty" where they rightly do not belong. Today in
the United States, a King's Agent (some hard working private
contracting Termite who works for the IRS) simply sends a letter
to an Employer stating that a particular Employee's wage
deductions are being disallowed, or this fine is being levied,
and the Employer jumps instantly and sends the money into the
IRS without even telling the Employee that the summary
confiscation took place. No opportunity to be heard in
opposition, no expectation of even being heard in opposition to
the Notice, just summary confiscation. And the more the King
confiscates without any Administrative Hearings preceding the
confiscation, the richer the King gets, just like in the old fee
based Admiralty Courts of old England -- so you can just forget
about getting any Contested Case Administrative Hearing on a
grievance with the IRS.
The reason why summary Admiralty Jurisdiction is of concern to
us is because our King is using jurisdiction attachment rules
applicable to an Admiralty Jurisdictional environment to us
interior folks out here in the countryside where Admiralty
Jurisdiction does not correctly lie. (The only ordinary land
based folks who should properly be under King's IN PERSONAM
Admiralty Jurisdiction are Government Employees (Federal and
state), Military Service personnel, and those who specifically
contract into Admiralty Jurisdiction (such as Employees working
for a Defense contractor with a Security Clearance, and private
contractors hired by Government to perform law enforcement
related work)). The King and the Princes are using Admiralty
Jurisprudence reasoning to effectuate an attachment of
Enfranchisement on Natural Persons, by virtue of all Citizens,
so called, being made a Party to the 14th Amendment; well, that
is the process by which Admiralty attaches, however the
confluence of reasons why the King so attaches Admiralty all
focuses on just one Royal objective: The King wants your money,
and he is going to hypothecate you, and use invisible contracts
in Admiralty to get what he wants.21
Most folks think that, well, the 14th Amendment just freed the
slaves, or maybe something noble and righteous like that. Not
so. Every single Amendment attached to the Constitution after
the original Ten in the Bill of Rights, is in contravention to
the original version of 1787 for one reason or another, and each
of the AFTER TEN were sponsored by people -- Gremlins, imps --
operating with SUB SILENTIO sinister damages intentions. Under
the 14th Amendment, there now lies a state of Debt Hypothecation
on the United States that all Enfranchised persons bear some
burden of,22 i.e., all citizens who are a Party to the 14th
Amendment can be made personally liable for the payment of the
King's debt. So now when the King comes along with his statutes
and claims that, despite his own 14th Amendment, his
Enfranchised subjects are now going to be limited in their
liability profile exposure to national debt, important financial
benefits are being conferred upon Citizens, and the King
believes that Admiralty Jurisdiction, with all of its giblet
cracking accoutrements, attaches right then and there.23
The King and the Prince are using twisted logic to justify this
assertion of Admiralty Jurisdiction where it does not belong:
Where it belongs is out on the High Seas where it came from.
Royalty now believes that the legal environment of Limited
Liability conferred on risk takers sufficiently replicates the
original legal risk environment of Limited Liability that
organically grew up out on the High Seas to be Admiralty
Jurisdiction. Remember that Limited Liability itself is a legal
trick of enrichment used by insurance companies as debtors to
reduce the amount of money they have to pay out on claims; yes,
Limited Liability is a marvelous legal tool for the insurance
companies to bask in. From the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT that cuts
nuclear power plant losses to the Warsaw Convention that cuts
airplane crash losses,24 from ADMIRALTY LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY
ACT25 on marine shipping to medical doctors malpractice suits,26
Limited Liability is nothing more than a brilliant wealth
transfer instrument for Special Interest Groups to bask in, and
all very neatly accomplished through the use of statutes.27
So in a limited sense, the legal environment of Admiralty
Jurisdiction could be properly said to apply to any Commercial
setting where a debtor owes money to other people as risk
insurance, with the amount of debt payable by the risk insurance
carrier being artificially lowered by statutory Limitations of
Liability. The true origin of the adhesive attachment of
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (which is just legal procedure) lies in
the existence of invisible contracts that are in effect, with
the contracts being of such a maritime nature that grievances
arising from them are settled pursuant to Admiralty Jurisdiction
rules.
Let us be objective like an umpire or a judge for a moment, and
stop thinking in terms of what we want and don't want for
ourselves, so we can Open our Eyes to see what is really there,
by trying to view things from the perspective of an adversary.28
If we could lay aside, just for a moment, the presumption by
many that judges are Fifth Column pinkos and are otherwise
morons, and now examine the King's reasoning on Admiralty
Jurisdiction attachment (that his Title 46 statutes have Limited
the Liability that Enfranchised Persons have encumbered
themselves into through the 14th Amendment), then unfortunately
for Protesters, we find that there is some merit to the King's
contentions, and the reason is because special financial
benefits are being accepted by Enfranchised Persons, and so now
an invisible contract is in effect, with the result being that
if a grievance comes to pass on the contract, somewhat
unpleasant Admiralty settlement rules will prevail.29
[When I was first told about the story of the 14th Amendment, I
was told a story by numerous people and groups, who should know
better, that parents can bind their offspring into Equity
Jurisdiction relationships with Royalty; and I heard this same
line of reasoning from numerous different sources. When I heard
that line, I tossed it aside as a brazen piece of foolishness;
the idea of having parents assign debt liability to their
offspring by evidence of a Birth Certificate was then, and now
remains, as utter foolishness. I was correct in my ideological
rebuffment of that line of liability reasoning, as one person
cannot bind another absent a grant of agency jurisdiction. But
later through a Federal Judge I realized that there are special
financial benefits that persons documented as being politically
Enfranchised at birth experience later on as adults when they
are being shaken down for a smooth Federal looting; and it is
this acceptance of benefits as adults, in the context of
reciprocity being expected back in return, that attaches
contract tax liability, and not the existence of a Birth
Certificate document itself. This concept some folks propagate
-- that we are locked into juristic contracts by our parents
since it is the parents who have caused the Birth Certificate to
be recorded -- is not correct: As a point of beginning, one
person cannot bind another. But most importantly, all the Birth
Certificate and correlative documents in the world will not
separate a dime in taxation from you until such time as you,
individually, and personally, have started to accept juristic
benefits. The Law does not operate on paper; what is on paper is
a statement of the Law, but that does not trigger the operation
of the Law. All the documents with Royalty in the world will not
separate a dime from you, until juristic benefits have been
accepted by you out in the practical setting. In a sense, Birth
Certificates can be properly construed as documents evidencing
your entitlement to RIGHTS OF FRANCHISE, if you decide to
exercise those rights later on when you come of age, but the
reciprocal taxation liability Enfranchised folks take upon
themselves occurs by operation of contract -- the invisible
contracts that quietly slip into gear whenever juristic benefits
are being accepted: Now, here, today -- and by you, personally
and individually. The relational status of your parents to
Government, past and present, is an irrelevant factor BIRTH
CERTIFICATE PUSHERS are incorrectly assigning significance to.
Those who warned me of the adhesive Equity tentacles of the 14th
Amendment were absolutely correct in their conclusory
observations of the effects of the 14th Amendment, but they were
incorrect in their views that liability singly attaches by
reason of the existence of a Birth Certificate document that
their parents caused to be created. By the time you are finished
with this Letter, you will understand why written Documents, of
and by themselves, mean absolutely nothing -- as it is the
existence of Consideration [benefits] experienced or rejected
out in the practical setting that attaches and severs liability,
and the written Document or statement of the contract itself is
unimportant for liability determination purposes -- and for good
reasons: Because the Law operates out in the practical setting
and not on paper, of and by itself; to say that the Law cannot
operate except if on paper is to say in reverse that if there is
no paper, there is no Law. Not understanding the significance of
that Principle will render yourself prone to error in your
thinking.]30
Having your Debt Liability Limited by statute is a very real and
tangible benefit that inures to all such named Enfranchised
debtors (imagine being an insurance company, and having to pay
out only 80% of your claims -- you then get to pocket the 20%
that the statutes restrained your policy holders from
collecting); the fact that, in examining your own individual
circumstances, you cannot assign any substantive financial
significance to it isn't anything the King is going to concern
himself with. And insurance companies are prime examples of the
institutionalized use of this marvelous legal tool to enrich
themselves, and they are also prime examples of just how really
valuable a Limitation on Liability really is. Remember that when
benefits are being accepted in the context of reciprocity being
expected back in return, then there lies a good tight contract.
If, for example, you are an insurance company, and your average
losses for claims under homeowner's policies is $100,000, and
the King comes along and declares that henceforth, the maximum
claim anyone can make in his Kingdom against an insurance
company for damages experienced by homeowners is $95,000, then
those insurance companies very much did experience a very real,
legitimate cash benefit; and so it is now morally correct for
the King to participate in taxing the profits the insurance
companies made for this reason alone, as the King very much
assisted in enriching those insurance companies by decreasing
their cash expenditures. Neither it is immoral for the King to
enact statutes that enrich some Gameplayers in Commerce while
simultaneously perfecting the Enscrewment of others, as remember
that entrance into the closed private domain of King's Commerce
is purely voluntary.31
So do you see what a well worded statute can do? ...invisible
political benefits accepted get converted into a gusher of cash
for the King, to be used as a wealth transfer instrument by
Special Interest Groups. The more numerous the number of wealth
transfer instruments the King can create, the more he can
correctly justify before the eyes of the Judiciary taxing
certain Persons who financially benefit from the statutory GRAB
AND GIVE scheme.32
In your Case as a benefit acceptant Enfranchised Person under
the 14th Amendment, if your share of the National Debt is
$250,000, and the King comes along and slices off $150,000 from
that Debt, so your exposure is now $100,000, then did the King
just give you a benefit? Certainly he did, and it is now
morally correct for the King to participate in taxing the gain
he participated in creating, just like he did with insurance
companies. If in your business judgment throwing half of your
annual income out the window to the King for these paltry
artificial political debt liability limitations is just not
worth the large percentage tax grab the King demands year in and
year out without letup, then that is a business judgment you
need to make; and that business question is not a question that
a Federal Judge can or should come to grips with in the midst of
some Title 26 enforcement prosecution, after you previously
accepted the King's Commercial benefits, and now for some
philosophically oriented political reason, you don't feel like
reciprocating by paying the invisible benefits that you
previously received under an Admiralty contract.33
Here in New York State, the regional Prince in 1984 became the
first American Prince to enact statutes requiring the use of
seat belts by all motorists driving on HIS highways. This
statute was openly announced as being designed to cut the
hospital costs of accident victims (meaning, to limit the
liability exposure of insurance company claims by reducing the
amount of cash they spend on each hospitalization claim while
collecting the same amount of annual motorist insurance
premiums). Here in Rochester, New York, numerous insurance
companies ran large newspaper advertisements at the time
encouraging the enactment of the Seat Belt statute. I have
examined the lobbyists' material that was distributed to State
Legislators in 1984 on this issue; they were presented with an
impressive array of the history of similar statutes enacted in
over 90 foreign jurisdictions world wide to justify their
proposed statute in New York State -- yes, where high-powered
money is at stake, there will be high-powered research and
documentation.
You may very well resent this GRAB AND GIVE environment that is
designed to enrich the King while perfecting your Enscrewment in
the practical setting, but if you do voluntarily participate in
the Enrichment Game of King's Commerce, then your resentment for
being cornered in on the GRAB side of this wealth transfer game,
and your Tort Law arguments of unfairness centered around that
resentment, means absolutely nothing to any judge at any time
for any reason. But what if you are different? What if you
don't voluntarily participate in Commerce? What if you filed
timely objections, and have refused and rejected all Commercial
benefits? Now what?
The reason why the King entertains this Admiralty "Limitation of
Liability" Jurisdictional attachment reasoning goes back into
the Civil War days of the 1800s, when a Special Interest Group,
perhaps a bit overzealous, exerted strong controlling dominance
in the Congress and announced that they had effectuated the
ratification of the 14th Amendment, in order to "correct the
injustice" from the Supreme Court's DRED SCOTT Case,34 and its
majestic restrainment on the Congress not to forcibly attach
Equity Jurisdiction on individuals absent a Grant of
Jurisdiction to do so (Citizenship is Equity Jurisdiction, and
the casting of Blacks (or anyone else) into King's Equity
Jurisdiction relational settings without the requisite
initiating Charter jurisdictional authority being there, is null
and void). The reasoning the Supreme Court used to rule on in
DRED SCOTT was quite correct; but unfortunately for political
reasons, it caused its correct reasoning to be related to
persons who are Blacks instead of persons carrying other
minority demographic characteristics, such as blue eyes.35 And
so although the pronouncements of Law in DRED SCOTT are quite
accurate, the factual setting was twisted around just enough to
cause those poor downtrodden Blacks to be pictured on the wrong
side of the practical issue, and so the DRED SCOTT Case became a
tool used by politicians seeking a hot issue to enrich their own
fortunes.36 But substitute some other demographic feature of
people for Blacks, and the DRED SCOTT Case would have been
ignored.37
The DRED SCOTT CASE ruled that African races, even though freed
as slaves by President Lincoln, and freed again from being
slaves by the 13th Amendment, still could not be placed into
that high and unique lofty political status called Citizen, with
all of the rights, privileges, benefits and immunities that
Citizens have: Because Congress was never given the
Jurisdiction to do so, and the reason has to do with the
original intentions of the Founding Fathers in 1787 to create a
sanctuary for white Christians to live in without the
uncomfortable tensions and frictions of society that always
follow in the wake of forced relations with other people of
strongly contrasting demographic characteristics. Although the
13th Amendment very much abolished slavery, it nowhere talks
about Citizenship, which as a contract is something totally
else, and which has very significant and important legal
meanings since Citizenship attaches King's Equity Jurisdiction.
Under this DRED SCOTT DOCTRINE, Blacks could not even become
naturalized Citizens (i.e., the Congress could not enact
statutory jurisdiction to grant Citizenship rights to Blacks
that the original version of the Constitution specifically
restrained and the 13th Amendment never reached into.) So the
14th Amendment came along, designed to change all that.38
Since politicians saw this DRED SCOTT Case as having very unique
qualities to acquire maximum political mileage out of it due to
the passionate public sentiments associated with it, the
movement towards adapting the 14th Amendment to deal with those
UTTERLY HEINOUS and RACIST SUPREME COURT JUSTICES quickly
acquired momentum; and having the powerful support that the 14th
Amendment possessed, it was simply assumed that it would quickly
pass Congress and be ratified by the States. Like statutory
bills in Congress,39 the 14th Amendment became loaded down with
very interesting declarations on the Public Debt, that had
absolutely nothing to do with granting Blacks Citizenship rights
-- seemingly the very reason for the 14th Amendment in the first
place. Like the Panama Canal Treaties, Gremlins saw a unique
window opening to perfect just one more turn of the screws. And
those pronouncements on Public Debts and Enfranchised Citizens
are the structured legal framework of the King to seek
Citizenship contract liability as a partial justification to pay
Income Taxes here in the 1980s. Remember that mere written
documents, of and by themselves, do not create liability.
Liability is always perfected in the practical setting; and it
is your acceptance of the benefits of Enfranchisement (of which
the Limited Liability of your share of the Public Debt is one
such benefit), that gives rise to a taxing liability scenario,
and not the unilateral debt declarations in the 14th Amendment
itself.40
The actual legal validity of the ratification of the 14th
Amendment is now disputed. The Utah Supreme Court once ruled
that the ratification of the 14th Amendment was invalid and
therefore the Bill of Rights was non-applicable in Utah.41
For more than a hundred years now, the courts have applied the
14th Amendment to pertinent Cases that have come before them.
And although questions have been raised about both its language
meaning and the legal correctness of its adaption process,
Federal challenges to the Ratification of the 14th Amendment
have always fallen on deaf ears. Its long time usage and the
LATENESS OF THE HOUR DOCTRINES have caused the Supreme Court to
accept the 14th Amendment as law.42 Of and by itself, the 14th
Amendment is an instrument that creates a great deal of
litigation.43
Despite the disputed authenticity of the background factual
setting permeating the Ratification Process of the 14th
Amendment, the story of its alleged Ratification is indeed a
strange and fascinating chapter in Constitutional history. It
goes well beyond the natural confusion that would be expected on
the heels of a great Civil War and the secondary political
readjustments that followed the disruption of power
relationships. The nature of the unique political conditions
back then and the emerging attitudes of individuals to furnish
the key elements in the factual setting relating to pure, raw
physical force that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment pressured
on Ratification-reluctant Southern States; and the same unique
political conditions are now responsible for the first two
assertions of an invisible layer of Admiralty Jurisdiction over
us all.44
Patriots now have a position to take on this 14th Amendment: Do
we want this 14th Amendment thing or not? On one hand, the 14th
Amendment has been used by judges as their excuse to give us
noble sounding, although largely milktoast, Due Process and
other wide-ranging rights that have been used as judicial
intervention justification jurisdiction in such diverse factual
settings like opening up Government law libraries to the public;
chopping away at the lingering vestiges of Richard Dailey's
Machine in Chicago; ordering the Tombs Prison in New York City
closed; ordering affirmative action in the hiring of policemen;
ordering school integration busing; denying retail business
proprietors the discretion to select their own customers; and in
Boston, Federal Judge Arthur Garrity actually took over
administrative operations management of a portion of the local
school district in an intervention effort to deal with that
utterly heinous evil of racism. And it was through an operation
of the 14th Amendment's INCORPORATION DOCTRINE that the entire
Bill of Rights was made binding on your regional Prince by the
Supreme Court (as the Bill of Rights was initially binding, by
original intent, only on the King himself).45
And on the other hand, in an area of more direct interest to
Gremlins, the 14th Amendment now spins an invisible stealthy web
of an adhesive attachment of King's Equity Jurisdiction so
strong and with benefits so invisible, that Black Widow Spiders
would be humbled if they could ever appreciate their reduced
Status in light of this new competition in the Jungle.
In a sense, what we want or do not want at the present time is
unimportant, since we as Individuals are without jurisdiction to
effectuate into the practical setting the corrective political
remedies of annulling the 14th Amendment. In FAIRCHILD VS.
HUGHES,46 the Supreme Court refused to consider the possibility
of the illegitimacy of the Ratification of the 19th Amendment,
and used as contributing justification the comparative example
of the judicial recognition of the 15th Amendment by its long
usage, regardless of arguments about its technical validity. In
COLEMAN VS. MILLER,47 the Supreme Court did lightly review
questions pertaining to the Ratification of the 14th Amendment,
and of attempts by two States to rescind their previous
Ratification of an Amendment as an example of their philosophy
that such questions be deferred to "the political departments of
government as to [whether or not the] validity of the adoption
of the 14th Amendment has been accepted."48
Although the right of judges to nullify statutes was seemingly
settled in MARBURY VS. MADISON,49 the question of Judicial
statutory annulment lingered on,50 Judicial Review now continues
down to the present day as a topical source of conversation,
since the DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW is often used as a legal
tool to justify taking a philosophical position.51
Just as the low level question of statutory annulment by the
Judiciary continues on as a disputed jurisdictional item, so A
FORTIORI52 the higher question of actually annulling portions of
the Constitution itself, due to technical Ratification
procedures, is strongly disputed.53
Although that line of reasoning is facially defective if
intended to apply universally to all circumstances [the right
time to do the right thing is right now], there is some merit in
the Supreme Court's desire that grievances of this nature are
best settled by what they call the POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF
GOVERNMENT, under normal circumstances. However, when unlawful
sources of jurisdiction are being used (such as nonexistent
Constitutional Amendments) as justification to damage someone,
then the ALICE IN WONDERLAND fantasy of gentlemanly
interdepartmental political comities that the Supreme Court
would prefer to intervene and settle the grievance, become
inappropriate and unrealistic grievance settlement remedy tools;
and by indifferently allowing fraudulent sources of jurisdiction
to be thrown at someone as justifying Government Tort damages,
the judiciary is diminishing its own stature.54
As for the holding of the Bill of Rights into binding effect on
the States, in every single Supreme Court decision I have read
involving the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause application, the
Supreme Court could have equally justified the ruling based on
the REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT CLAUSE in Article IV, Section
4, if they wanted to -- but they don't want to.
One of the receptive concerns one finds in the Supreme Court is
their perceived lack of federal jurisdiction to intervene into,
and overrule state proceedings -- This REPUBLICAN CLAUSE is a
real sleeper as such a Grant of Supervisory Jurisdiction is
inherent in its positive action mandates. Shifting to the
meaning of the Clause itself: A Republic, properly understood,
involves the restrainment of the use of Government by majorities
to work Torts on minorities, as distinguished from Democracies
where simple majority rule forces their will and their Torts on
everyone else.55
What are Minority Rights? Those Rights are the Rights to be
left alone and ignored by Government absent an infracted
contract or a Tort damage.56 And those rights are very
appropriate to invoke when you are in the midst of a criminal
prosecution, without any contract in effect, without any MENS
REA, and without any CORPUS DELECTI damages being found
anywhere; and it has to be this way since wisdom is not
conferred upon majorities by virtue of their sheer collective
aggregate numbers.57
I see a real germ of tyranny in theoretical Democracies.58 Since
everyone, even lobbyists for Special Interest Groups, belongs to
one or more overlapping minority interest groups of some type,
then attention to this REPUBLICAN CLAUSE by the Supreme Court
(and by us in our briefs) can accomplish far more than the less
specific "Due Process" words in a sinister Amendment that
carries negative and unattractive secondary enscrewment
consequences along with it. But we are not the Supreme Court, so
our knowledge and wisdom has to be filed away in abatement under
HIATUS STATUS, pending our future ascension into the corridors
of power.
There are several ways to cure the mischiefs of factions and
their Torts; one is to remove its seminal point of causality [by
the elimination of troublemakers, not permissible without
creating more problems than were "solved"]; another way is to
control the net practical effects of Majority Torts by creating
a confederate Republic, consisting of several regional states,
and then creating several layers of Juristic Institutions
operating on narrow jurisdictional contours, and somewhat
operating against each other to a limited extent; this is very
similar to the structural configuration of the United States,
with a federal layer operating VIS-A-VIS the regional States.59
By the way, the original version of the United States
Constitution, which includes the first ten Amendments (the BILL
OF RIGHTS), is organic just like a contract, and is subject to
modification, annulment, and reversal by any subsequent
Amendment.60 Therefore, the general applicability of this
REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT CLAUSE should be viewed
cautiously, and should even be viewed in the light of possible
non-applicability on any one Individual if any contaminating
adhesive attachment of King's Equity or Admiralty Contract
Jurisdiction is found operating on that Person. Therefore, the
pleading of this Clause without correlative averments of Status
pleading is to be discouraged, as multiple Amendments from the
11th to the 26th have quiet SUB SILENTIO lines of Admiralty
Jurisdiction running through them which may very well vitiate
the enforcement of the REPUBLIC FORM CLAUSE.61
Yet, nowhere in Amendments 11 to 26 do the words ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION appear anywhere, just like nowhere on your IRS 1040
form do the words "Admiralty Jurisdiction governs this contract"
appear anywhere: And they never will. Anglo-Saxon Kings have a
long history of showing little practical interest in the
financial health of their Subjects, and so any full disclosure
of impending financial liability, that would give the
Countryside something to think about in the nature of bugging
out of the Bolshevik Income Tax system altogether, is the last
thing that interests a King. So how do some of those Amendments
accomplish such SUB ROSA objectives, when a light and quick
reading makes the Amendments seem so facially reasonable?
Remember that Admiralty Jurisdiction grew up in the old days
quietly in the practical setting; and it is there, today, out in
the practical setting that Admiralty Jurisdiction is now roaring
along. But Admiralty Jurisdiction is not a block of concrete or
some grand monument like Mount Rushmore we can all look up at
and plainly see; Admiralty is only legal reasoning, and so
properly understood, Admiralty Jurisdiction is nothing more than
a sequential set of ideas in the brains of Federal Judges. So in
order to understand this line of Admiralty reasoning, we need to
examine its natural operation and practical effects. Since
"...the purpose of an [Amendment or Jurisdiction] must be found
in its natural operation and effect..."62
we now need to probe for the natural operation and effect of
these AFTER TEN Amendments. For an example of the real meaning
behind the AFTER TEN Amendments, let us momentarily consider
just one of them: The 25th Amendment. What an Amendment this
is. The closest draft to what is now the 25th Amendment was
written in New York City in the Spring of 1963 by lawyers hired
by Nelson Rockefeller for that purpose. Rockefeller family
political strategists had previously concluded that Nelson
Rockefeller's long-term Presidential ambitions were only
marginally feasible in a conventional American election setting,
and that a redundancy factor was therefore necessary to give
Nelson the best possible chance he wanted to be President: That
redundancy factor was a plan to circumvent that irritating
Constitutional requirement that all Presidents be elected.
After Ike had a heart attack, Nelson Rockefeller proposed an
appointment amendment to the Constitution in April of 1957, so
that a person could become the President BY APPOINTMENT, without
going through an election. The proposal was made through
Nelson's nominee in the office of United States Attorney
General, Herbert Brownell.63
Three weeks after President Kennedy was murdered in Dallas on
plans previously approved by the Four Rockefeller Brothers,64
Rockefeller legislative nominee Senator Birch Bayh introduced
Nelson's 25th Amendment into the United States Senate,65 and
supervised its way through the procedures of Congress,66 and
ratification through the States were later effectuated in 1967
under lobbying by imp Herbert Brownell, Nelson's intimate.67
So it was planned by the Four Rockefeller Brothers to try and
generate some circumstances so that a man could now come up the
Presidential ladder, by appointment and unelected, through a
succession of Presidents who left office prematurely for various
different reasons.68
With the 25th Amendment tucked in under his belt, just two years
later circumstances to place Nelson into the White House were in
full gear, and they soon blossomed into public view with what
was known publicly as WATERGATE, as two CIA Agents posing as
reporters for the WASHINGTON POST drove the story into the
ground, acting on instructions to do so and under continuous
advisory supervision. Nelson Rockefeller's plans to ascend into
the Presidential corridors of power were contingent upon his
successfully getting rid of both Spiro Agnew, as well as Richard
Nixon -- a very difficult task.69
First, Spiro Agnew was gotten rid of by Attorney General Elliott
Richardson, Nelson's friend, acting partially on some dirt
Nelson had been holding on Spiro all along, and partially by
Nelson's barking dogs in the news media; both TIME and NEWSWEEK
ran overly dramatic articles on Spiro during the week of August
13th, 1973, signalling that he was then to be cut down fast.70
After sicking the IRS on Spiro Agnew to go over every single
purchase Spiro made for 6 years -- even checking out $16 of
homespun cloth Spiro once bought,71 Nelson arranged the ultimate
incentive to have a resistant Spiro Agnew resign and get out of
the way: By planning to kidnap Susan Agnew, Spiro's daughter.72
The day Spiro Agnew resigned [October 10, 1973], Nelson was
quoted by the NEW YORK TIMES as being very well versed in the
technical wording of the 25th Amendment -- as well he should be
for the extreme central importance of that Amendment in his
important plans for conquest.73
With Spiro out of the way, Nelson sent his dogs to get Richard
Nixon. Nelson's barking dogs in the controlled major media had
been busy getting their juices primed; they were waiting for a
key feature article to appear in TIME MAGAZINE, which would call
for Richard Nixon's resignation [the article had been written,
and the accompanying photographs portraying a dejected Nixon,
had been chosen almost a year before publication]. When the
trigger article cue appeared, the dogs were turned loose, and
the howling was heard around the world. ...And a vindictive
Richard Nixon reluctantly left the White House.74
Now Nelson had the Vice-Presidency, but the Vice-Presidency
wasn't Nelson's objective: He intensely longed for the day when
he could officially hold, in public glory for the world to
honor, jurisdictionally the same powers he had already been
exercising practically in Washington since World War II through
a succession of Presidential nominees -- but now it was going to
be his turn.75
Following two assassination attempts in California on Gerald
Ford by Lynette Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, a poisoning attempt,
quiet staff suggestions that "...this might be a good time to
move on," offerings of private employment, and then public
demands from Henry Kissinger that Gerald Ford resign, Vice
President Nelson Rockefeller ran out of Aces to pull from his
sleeve.76
Nelson's 25th Amendment had gotten him this far, into the
Vice-Presidency, but it still wasn't the public spotlight of the
Presidency that he had been craving for since he was a
teenager.77 On the eve of Jimmy Carter's Inauguration as David's
nominee for President, Nelson made one final attempt to use his
25th Amendment to elevate himself into the Presidency via
appointment, by using a slick legislative device related to the
Electoral College and his Status as PRESIDENT PRO TEM of the
United States Senate;78 but under pressure from brother David,
Nelson reluctantly backed off and let go.79
Two years later, when Nelson was shot to death in his forehead
in his New York Townhouse on a Friday evening, his plans for
using his 25th Amendment to assist him in accomplishing his
political objectives died with him.80
Today, in reading the 25th Amendment, no where in it are there
any words like NELSON ROCKEFELLER or DALLAS or CONQUEST or
MURDER or WATERGATE or BOB WOODWARD appearing anywhere, yet an
understanding of the real existential meaning of the 25th
Amendment requires a contextual knowledge of the background
factual setting that Rockefeller political conquest was then
swirling in: A well-oiled vortex of kidnappings, torture,
dismemberment, bribes, wholesale executions, murder, and
intrigue.81 Historians writing their views on the history and
existential reasons for the 25th Amendment try to cast the
Amendment's origin in historical light, by discussing the
REMOVAL CLAUSE of Article II, Section 1, while leaving out any
commentary about any Gremlins EXTRAORDINAIRE at work in the
background, like Nelson Rockefeller, who stayed back in the
shadows while directing the visible players in this 25th
Amendment act.82
Likewise, a light and quick reading of the proposed Equal Rights
Amendment also reveals seemingly noble and righteous purposes
and lofty objectives that are designed to terminate, once and
for all, that utterly heinous evil of gender based
discrimination. The sponsors of the ERA, who circulate in the
genre of leftists, Bolsheviks, statists, and socialists, etc.,
have grand enscrewment plans for the ERA, but you are the last
person they intend to bring this information to.83 A large
number of other people who mean well also support it (or believe
that they want to support it for the righteous goals it says it
will accomplish).84 For an ominous portrayal of what the ERA
will accomplish on its mission in the United States, one need
only to examine the practical effects of laws similarly worded
in Europe and the Scandinavian Countries.85 But the real
objective and meaning of the Equal Rights Amendment lies in
another strata altogether: The Equal Rights Amendment was
designed to harm and damage people -- and how it will accomplish
that is quite subtle.86
Let us examine a favorite Patriot factual setting to see what
happens when legal equality is forced on objects that belong,
out in the practical setting, in their own class, free to
commingle with other similar objects sharing the same
approximate attributes, orientation, velocity, and dimensions.
Why are bicycles, pedestrians, and buggies discouraged from
using interstate highways where automobiles and huge semi's
reign supreme at accelerated velocities? Because as a matter of
practical concern, although, ARGUENDO, each form of
transportation is legally entitled to some right-of-way access,
in the practical setting each form of transportation operates
best in its own protected path and status, free from each
other's unique requirements. Do railroads really belong on
automobile highways? Even though both are particular forms of
transportation that carry freight and people, by their nature
they belong on separate tracks or paths. To have all forms use
the same highway path, by legally forcing non-discrimination in
effect between different forms of transportation ("It just isn't
fair that I cannot use my bike on that highway!"), although
initially it sounds legally impressive to get rid of
discrimination, this actually creates hard damages out in the
practical setting when high velocity vehicles weave their way
around buggies and bicycles that non-discrimination legislation
has forced into using the same track or status; bicycles and
pedestrians belong on their own bicycle/pedestrian paths,
sharing that path with transportation forms that operate under
similar characteristics, and under similar velocity parameters.
Not all particular forms of the same general classification
belong in the same status or path, and when forced to cross over
and commingle with each other, then damages occur. Customized
legislation (or DISCRIMINATION as some would characterize it by
trying to cast an illicit derogatory inference on the subject
even before the substance is addressed on its merits), providing
for each particular form of transportation to operate in its own
ideal tract and setting, at its own maximum velocity, prevents
the damages that are caused by reason of improvidently
commingling different particular forms. Correct PRINCIPLES OF
NATURE, however invisible, operate across all factual settings,
transparent to the particular application vicissitudes then
under discussion.87 And just as men and women were designed by
their Creator to operate at different velocities and accomplish
different objectives down here, although both are mammalian
vertebrates and share similar dimensions, forcing both
particular genders into the same track and status to accomplish
legal equality will actually secondarily create hard damages out
in the practical setting.88
Sorry, Gremlins, but each form of transportation should not be
entitled to equality before the Law; as F.A. Hayek stated so
well, forcing legal rights equality on material objects that
operate best in different strata, always creates hard damages.
And men and women are very different.89
One of the reasons why so many folks are sympathetic to the ERA,
is that they know, and properly so, that women have been given
the short end of the stick by having been denied political
rights and enfranchisement in the past; and so now is the time
to right all of that and give women full dignity rights. That,
too, sounds high, noble, and righteous; but remember the highway
transportation example I gave. The damages that are created by
forcing particular forms of transportation to operate on the
same track with each other, are not at all related to merely
allowing men and women to have identical political relationships
with the State. This means that there is a big difference in
legally forcing particular forms to commingle with each other,
as distinguished from allowing each form to politically
commingle with the State passively, if and when they feel like
it. Go back and read the ERA again, as it does not just merely
allow passive gender political equality relationally with the
State (which, of and by itself, is harmless and fine, and I
approve of); but it also forces hard inter-gender track
commingling out in the practical setting by jurisdictionally
disabling distinctive customized legislation that restrains
particular forms from crossing over into each other's paths and
status. And therein lies the presently invisible sinister
objective that the world's Gremlins want to see so much:
Damages.90
Yes, the police powers of Government are very often called upon
by Special Interest Groups to work Tortfeasance on others,91 but
legislators, however bought and purchased, will necessarily
always have to cast their Tortfeasance in noble and righteous
sounding rhetoric.92
But important for the moment, no words in the proposed Equal
Rights Amendment itself lead anyone to suggest that someone as
something possibly sinister planned, just like there were no
words in the proposed 25th Amendment of 1963 that would lead
anyone to believe that someone has something possibly sinister
up his sleeves. Only a handful of people knew at the outset of
the 25th Amendment that Nelson Rockefeller had grand sinister
plans for that Amendment: Plans that involved creating damages
by murder, if necessary.93
And as it is with those two Amendments, so it is with multiple
other Amendments which were appended to the Constitution after
our Founding Fathers left the scene and took their genius with
them: The real meaning of the "After Ten" Amendments are no
where to be found on their face, so a quick light facial reading
of any of the "After Ten" Amendments is to be discouraged.94
So this REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT CLAUSE appropriately
applies to everything from Jury size to enlightenment on Jury
Nullification, to a Jury of your Status peers, to taxing powers,
to police powers, to statutes sponsored by Special Interest
Groups: In any setting where Minority Rights are being hacked
away at. All factors considered, I am opposed to the legal
standing of the 14th Amendment. Opposition to the legal standing
of the 14th Amendment will itself come with bitter opposition
from Blacks -- as the termination of the 14th Amendment will
strip Blacks of all law enforcement jobs and many elected
Government positions where United States Citizenship is
required, and additionally create a status stigma over them that
is necessarily unpleasant for them. Yet, despite those
uncomfortable secondary practical effects of terminating the
14th Amendment, such termination, if it ever occurred, would be
just the right medicine, as a disciplinary measure, to shake the
King into thinking twice before pulling anything like that off
again; yes, a few good selectively placed judicial spankings can
act like restrainment magic in preventing Royal Torts. After the
Civil War ended, Union troops remained quartered in several
Southern States until after they ratified the 14th Amendment:
To perfect by naked physical duress what could not be perfected
by arguments of reason and logic, political attraction, good
common sense.95
Even so, Blacks do not have much substantive merit to their
arguments that the termination of the 14th Amendment would be
detrimental to them, as they try to deflect the termination of
the 14th Amendment with their sweet sounding rhetoric of
unfairness. Sending the Blacks back to Liberia, like was planned
after the Civil War, isn't very likely right now (although that
would be just the right medicine to get rid of racism in
America, by getting rid of the irritant races). If the 14th
Amendment was terminated tomorrow morning, the political climate
today is such that it would be reenacted by the Congress and
most States properly within a few weeks.96
And as for the Supreme Court, rather than believing like they do
that they are being smart and clever by protecting the King when
sweeping his dirty laundry under the carpet for him, they would
be truly wise, in contrast, to explore the possibility that a
few good public spankings once in a while are actually just the
right medicine to reduce their own Case load by conveying the
message to the King -- preventively -- that generous awards to
remedy his Torts will be enforced by the Court, and that
fraudulent administrative announcements on Constitutional
Amendment Ratifications by Secretaries of State will be annulled
in due time.97
Admiralty Jurisdiction has a sister called Maritime
Jurisdiction; and Maritime, like Admiralty, is a body of Law
international in character, and is considered by Federal Judges
to be the Law of all Nations.98 In 1922, Justice Holmes of the
United States Supreme Court had a few words to say about the
reason why we are now burdened down with Maritime Jurisdiction:
"There is no mystic overlaw to which the United States must
bow... However ancient may be the traditions of Maritime Law, it
derives its power from having been accepted in the United
States."99
Like the National acceptance of Maritime Jurisdiction by the
Federal Judiciary, it is the individual acceptance of the
benefits of King's Admiralty Jurisdiction by you that is your
problem, and not the universal benign assertion of that
Jurisdiction by the King that is your problem. Yes, Admiralty
Jurisdiction is a jurisdiction skewed heavily to favor the King,
and it very much operates in chronologically compressed giblet
cracking Summary Proceedings. Yes, Admiralty has quite a
reputation for being curt and abbreviated, and the curtness of
Admiralty extends even into such areas as pleading itself.100
This silent benefit acceptance is what is partially responsible
for the King's ability to throw his Special Interest Group
criminal LEX at us: Without any express contract, without any
MENS REA, and without any CORPUS DELECTI damages anywhere;
that's right, no damages to be found anywhere, no evil State of
Mind as a driving force in the mind of the actor, and seemingly,
no contract: Just summary giblet cracking. The King is making
an assertion of Admiralty Jurisdiction here against you, but it
is an assertion only in the sense that it is a qualified
assertion: The Judiciary exists to intervene and separate the
King from you, after you have filed your NOTICE OF SEVERANCE and
WAIVER, FORFEITURE, AND REJECTION OF ADMIRALTY BENEFITS on the
King, and have recorded a rescission ["Waiver and Rejection of
Benefits"] derived from your Birth Certificate in your County
Clerk's Office, and NOTICE OF ENFRANCHISEMENT BENEFITS
FORFEITURE, and NOTICE OF STATUS, that you are a STRANGER TO THE
PUBLIC TRUST.101
The word "Trust" itself means contract. However, the mere
unilateral declarations by you of your relational Status
EX-CONTRACTU means nothing by itself without a correlative
substantive contract annulment termination; and by the end of
this Letter you will see the correct contract annulment
procedure. PUBLIC TRUST CONTRACTS are in effect automatically by
your acceptance of juristic benefits -- an acceptance that takes
place, very properly, through your silence, as I will explain
later; but getting out of Public Trust Contracts is a different
story.102 And the Contract remains in effect until you correctly
attack the Contract substantively, such as through FAILURE OF
CONSIDERATION by the timely rejection of benefits.
The 14th Amendment story is a very long one, and that is another
Letter. If you at all question the ability of that 14th
Amendment to actually do all of this, then may I suggest that
you consider the possibility of reading the 14th Amendment over
very carefully, and ask yourself why questions of debt validity
would be discussed in a Constitutional Amendment and not in
statutes? Like the 16th Amendment, what words an Amendment
contains actually spell a far different story than what a light
quick reading of the Amendment actually conveys. The Judiciary
of the United States has never applied the force of a
Constitutional Amendment to a specific factual setting in a
grievance presented to it that I can remember without a prior
detailed analysis of the Amendment Clause's real meaning through
successive cases; and I would suggest that we all follow similar
detailed procedure. And as for debt collection, the Congress
already had all of the necessary initiating jurisdiction in the
original version of the Constitution of 1787 to borrow money and
pay debts. What was different about the Civil War Era that
prompted the RADICAL REPUBLICANS, so called, into placing that
language into that Amendment?103 (An examination of the DRED
SCOTT Case may open your eyes).104
The severance of yourself away from the Admiralty Jurisdiction
that the 14th Amendment creates for the King is by Rescission
and a Notice of Public Record served on the King, Notifying him
that your acceptance of his assertion of Admiralty Jurisdiction
and his contemporary version of old Roman Civil Law on you is
now terminated, and that all benefits he intends to offer on the
good ship United States, particularly those benefits of Limited
Debt Liability, are now declined, rejected, and waived. Remember
that it is the WAIVER OF BENEFITS in the practical setting that
terminates contract liability, and not the so-called NOTICE OF
RESCISSION CONTRACT, IN REM I hear talked about, which means
absolutely nothing.105
Contracts do not dissolve themselves merely because you announce
a Rescission to the world; contracts can only be unilaterally
terminated by you for good reason, such as a required Operation
of Nature that collapsed -- such as FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION or
default by the other Party, etc.106
Those last few words I just spoke are the Grand Key to
effectuating a rescission that the Supreme Court will respect.
Remember the Pan Am jet leasing example and our friend the
roofing contractor: You don't need a written contract on
someone else to work him into an immoral position if the money
is not handed over. So too you don't need any evidence of
someone else's knowledge of the existence of the facial contract
to extract money out of him as well. But you do need to show an
acceptance of benefits. And when the King publishes a large
volume of statutes that define statutory benefits, a good case
can be made that liability exists, even in ignorance, under the
RATIFICATION DOCTRINE I will discuss later. And so those
individuals who have filed a NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF CONTRACT,
IN REM regarding their Birth Certificate are deceiving
themselves, as that Rescission, of and by itself, means
absolutely nothing. You missed altogether the one single most
important feature that attaches liability to contracts: The
acceptance of benefits out in the practical setting. Correctly
written, those contract Rescissions many folks have been filing
should emphasize that benefits are being waived, rejected, and
forfeited, and no benefits are being accepted; and excessive
attention to the existence of the facial Birth Certificate
document itself, is in error. And it is the rejection of
benefits that is the Grand Key to unlock an adhesive attachment
of state taxation jurisdiction.107
I know of several criminal prosecutions where merely filing a
clumsy Objection to the 14th Amendment in their local county
recorder's office terminated the prosecution. In one Case, there
was a pre-Trial dismissal; in others appeal was necessary, with
the prosecution being sandbagged on appeal. In another Federal
criminal Case, the Defendant was mysteriously released from
pre-Trial commitment on his friend's Noticing the Court of his
Status and Rescissions. (Even though his Rescissions were
deficient in Waiving Benefits). That is just how powerful that
14th Amendment really is -- so much so that improperly prepared
defense attacks have been summarily granted at the trial level
occasionally to terminate prosecutions. But remember that absent
an explicit appellate court ruling, lower Trial Magistrates will
always rule inconsistently; so propagating legal suggestions
based on a handful of isolated trial level victories is
improper. The 16th Amendment story is not taught to Federal
Judges in their seminars, and so in a similar way, there will be
inconsistent Trial level rulings on 16th Amendment pleadings
just as there is now inconsistent trial level rulings on the
14th Amendment, until such time as the High Lama in Washington
settles the question [and they will settle it by affirming an
Individual's liability attachment to the Internal Revenue Code
of Title 26, while ignoring the 16th Amendment as being either
necessary or as a source of jurisdiction, as I will explain
later.]
So it is the acceptance of the benefits of Admiralty
Jurisdiction by us that is responsible for this state of
affairs, and not totally by the King's benign juristic
aggression.108 And if the contract calls for Admiralty
Jurisdiction, and you are still experiencing Federal Benefits,
the contract is still very much in effect, regardless of what
unilateral declaration you announce to the world with your Birth
Certificate document. Any snickering at Federal Judges for
ruling adversely against us under a factual setting that skews
off on a tangent favoring the King by virtue of multiple
invisible contracts in effect is improvident; and any
tongue-lashing administered by the Judge in such an adhesive
Admiralty Jurisdiction environment is a fully earned account.
The invisible Birth Certificate Enfranchisement story, and the
hairy tentacles of Admiralty and Equity Jurisdiction it
attaches, is a long one (and that is another Letter, and further
elucidation in this Letter is unwarranted), but the important
realization is that none of this introductory information I have
told you is to be found anyplace in the typical juristic sources
of legislative or judicial pronouncements. The assertion, all
across the United States, of such an Enfranchised jurisdiction
without your knowledge and perhaps even alien to your desired
Status, originates out in the practical setting, and it is also
there in the practical setting that it will be terminated by
you: Without any statutes saying you can, without Presidential
certification saying you can, without New York news media
approval saying you can, and without a Court ruling from a
judicial tribunal differentiating criminal liability on Persons
based on Public Trust Status grounds. None of those sources will
ever tell you that contract termination can be perfected by
Rescission and Waiver and Rejection of Benefits. It is only your
own exploratory self-initiative that will terminate this
adhesive attachment of King's Equity and Admiralty Jurisdiction
taxing liability; and Federal Judges are correct in so attaching
Title 26 liability to Enfranchised Persons accepting Citizenship
benefits, benefits the King has created and offered. And your
Status and your Benefit Waivers are very much a powerful
practical instrument to use to rescind invisible Admiralty
Contracts the King will never publicly admit to their
existence... Only a tiny handful of words in a few Federal
Appellate Courts cautiously speak about the significance of
Admiralty Jurisdiction in a Tax Collection setting. I know of
some Judges who only reluctantly talk about these concepts in
their chambers, but clam up tight and refuse to talk about
anything in their Court while on the record; almost as if they
are afraid of being eaten alive by a super-sized Black Widow
Spider. But the most important item of business is waiver,
forfeiture, and rejection of benefits -- and to accomplish that,
your explicit disavowal is required.109
Yet, that story of the relationship in effect between Admiralty
Jurisdiction and the 14th Amendment is only the first layer of
two layers of Admiralty Jurisdiction that the King has to
justify picking your pockets clean. The second layer of
Admiralty involves your acceptance of Social Security benefits.
Very simply stated, Social Security is an insurance program with
Premiums being paid into it, claims being paid out of it, and
future retirement endowment benefits are being accepted.110
Several private commentators have suggested that there is a
close correlation between what is called TONTINE INSURANCE and
Social Security. Tontine Insurance is characterized as
benefiting only the remaining survivors of the policy holders,
i.e., no money is paid out to those Persons who die off. Thus,
the Insurance Company pays out benefits to the survivors based
on the Premium forfeitures that those who died (and got nothing)
left behind. So the survivors are enriched based on maximizing
the number of co-policy holders that have died off.111 Think
about that for a moment, because it fits Social Security
straight down the line. In Social Security, if you die, your
wife gets nothing (with a few dog bone exceptions), but rather
what would have gone to you is simply given away (forfeited) to
other Premium payers who haven't died yet.112
But the Congress does recognize Social Security as an insurance
operation, and in Title 42, which contains the Social Security
Act, there are numerous blunt references to Social Security to
be structured as the insurance program that it is; such as:
Section 426(a): "Transitional provision... for hospital
insurance benefits"
When the Congress created the Social Security program itself in
the 1930s, the creation legislation specifically referred to
their intention and desire to have Social Security be modeled
around that collectivist welfare program of social insurance
that its Gremlin sponsors wanted so much.
"The [Social Security] Board shall perform the duties imposed
upon it by this Act and shall also have the duty of studying and
making recommendations as to the most effective methods of
providing economic security through social insurance, and as to
legislation and matters of administrative policy concerning
old-age pensions, unemployment compensation, accident
compensation, and related [insurance] subjects."113
Social Insurance itself is commonly defined as an Insurance
program:
"SOCIAL INSURANCE: A comprehensive welfare plan established by
law, generally (compulsory) in nature, and based on a program
which spreads the cost of benefits among the entire population
rather than on individual recipients. The federal government
began to use insurance programs in 1935 with the passage of the
Social Security Act. The basic federal and state approaches to
social insurance presently in use are: Old Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance (i.e., social security); Medicare and
Medicaid; unemployment insurance; and worker's compensation."114
If in fact Social Security is an Insurance Program at law, then
the reason why the King has another invisible layer, a second
layer, of Admiralty Jurisdiction to steam roll you over with, is
because in the United States, going clear back to Day One, the
Federal Judiciary has always considered grievances that were
brought into their Court based on POLICIES OF INSURANCE, to fall
under the summary giblet cracking legal reasoning of Admiralty
Jurisdiction:
"My judgment accordingly is, that policies of insurance are
within... the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United
States."115
In 1870, the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed in
extended detail the history of Admiralty Jurisdiction as it
relates to insurance contracts, and of the opinion of Judge
Story in DELOVIO, and then affirmed DELOVIO; ruling that
insurance policies are now to be considered without any dispute
as being contracts within Admiralty Jurisdiction, and this
remains true even though the contracts were written on land with
no part or party to the contract having anything to do with a
marine or High Seas physical setting.116 So, it is the fact that
Social Security is an Insurance Program that is the tie-in
between that IRS 1040 form, and Admiralty Jurisdiction.117
No, that Social Security Number of yours is not "just a number"
-- it is a Taxpayer Identification Number, just like that bank
account of yours is not "just a checking account." The fact
that so many other folks have these instruments does not reduce
or diminish their legal significance in a Federal Courtroom.
Just because you are surrounded by a very large number of fellow
people who also have these multiple instruments does not mean
that they lose their force or effect in Status declension to
perfect an attachment of King's Equity Jurisdiction. The
commingling of the passive national acceptance of these
instruments, with an attitude that there just must not be that
much special significance to these instruments, is defective
reasoning.
Remember the environment of risk that insurance underwriters
encumber themselves with when writing insurance policies for
merchandise that goes afloat on the High Seas: That is where
Maritime (now Admiralty) Jurisdiction has formed and took root.
Initially, "Policies of Assurance" grew out of the DOCTRINE OF
CONTRIBUTION AND GENERAL AVERAGE, which is found in the Codes of
the ancient Rhodesians. By this doctrine, if any ship, cargo, or
freight was lost, damaged, etc., then all of the remaining pool
holders had to contribute their proportionate share of the loss.
This division of loss naturally suggested a division of risk:
First amongst those engaged in the same enterprise, and Second,
amongst associations of ship owners and shipping merchants. So
what we have here is mutual insurance.118
Once mutual insurance was accepted as a common business
practice, it was made obligatory in Italy and Portugal,119 and
the next step up its ladder of organic development was that of
insurance risk assumed upon a paid-in premium. Once insurers
became acquainted with the risks and numbers involved with
merchandise floating around on the High Seas, they then became
willing to guaranty against damages for a small specific premium
paid.120
So contemporary American legal reasoning is that, well, the risk
environment of premium based insurance policies should be the
same today as it was under the old days of marine based
Maritime, because the legal grievance adjudication environment
that insurance underwriters used to encumber themselves with
back then is replicated over again today when anyone goes to an
insurance company and asks them to assume some risk they don't
feel like taking themselves. As you and I would perceive it,
that line of comparative reasoning is not quite accurate,
because folks today are forced into Social Security and
automobile insurance they would not have bought if left to their
own free will and business judgment, but state penal Special
Interest Group motor vehicle statutes and clever Federal
administrative rule making on Employers has changed all that --
but with virtually no one filing an Objection to their
involuntary entrance into policies of insurance, Federal Judges
had little choice but to obey the mandates of the Supreme Court,
until such time as a different factual setting (regarding the
involuntary application of Admiralty applied coercively) is
presented to them.
Yes, very much, now you should see the fact that there is a
strong relationship going on nowadays between the collection of
Internal Revenue and Social Security insurance premiums in the
United States and Admiralty Jurisdiction. The IRS generally does
not pursue folks for Tax Collection purposes without a Social
Security Number having appeared somewhere, absent special
circumstances ("...GET HIM"); although remember that Social
Security is only one of several King's Equity contracts most
folks have with the King, and the IRS does not have to have a
Social Security Number to go after someone. Through the
unnecessarily expansive legal reasoning on Insurance policies,
and through the historical custom of marine merchants, this
Admiralty Jurisdiction which grew up out on the High Seas to
govern the risk and risk-taking marine based grievances of
merchants, and where it still belongs today, is now inland all
over the United States.121
Yes, the King did acquire this envious enrichment machine (an
enrichment machine that Kings and looters in other countries
only wildly dream in fantasy about possessing for themselves)
through the clever use of Admiralty Jurisdiction -- but never
forget that before we badmouth the King for his Torts, first we
examine our own circumstances. The one real reason why there are
two separate layers of Admiralty Jurisdiction smothering us all
today is because we gave the King the right to lay Admiralty on
us like that, both individually and collectively. Yes, the King
has a demon chokehold of Admiralty over most of us, but an even
more honest assessment of the passing American scene today is
that many folks out there want (that's right, WANT) Social
Security. If you do no more than go around town and select a
typical cross-profile of people at random, you will find that
Social Security, so-called, isn't so badly thought of as many
Patriots believe.122
So if you have voluntarily surrendered over your Social Security
Number to your Employer, or to a bank, or to anyone else -- then
not only have you accepted numerous statutory benefits that
Employees and bank customers enjoy (that I discussed earlier),
but the King also has you into both ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, and
an ADMIRALTY CONTRACT on taxation, where Federal Judges
routinely deal with defendants in contract defilement summarily
along abbreviated lines that both skirt the fringes of Due
Process and also largely get away with on Appeal. But you can
get out of a contract in Admiralty the same way you can get out
of any other contract you don't want [FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION].
Yes, any poor soul that the King's Agents have dragged into a
Federal Court for a Royal fleecing and a shake down, is in for
curt process and abbreviated trouble. But remember I speak these
words playfully and condescendingly down to the King: Patriots
and Protesters are up to their necks in multiple invisible
contracts that are in effect whenever benefits have been
accepted (and when reciprocity is expected in return), and so
the typical protesting Patriot, like Armen Condo and Irwin
Schiff, putting up a good fight the way they do, is in error.
If that Waiver, Forfeiture, and Rejection of the benefits of
Limited Liability that you experience under your Admiralty
related Contract, as well as Social Security Benefits -- if that
FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION turns out to be just not good enough
for the High Lama in Washington -- the Supreme Court -- then
perhaps the time will have arrived to take seriously the
timeless mandates of our Founding Fathers: And deal with an
inappropriate assertion of Admiralty Jurisdiction by the King in
terms that accelerate in velocity as they transverse down the
barrel of a gun.123
1 In such a loose evidentiary arena, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is
generally considered the ultimate form of proof in Maritime and
Admiralty litigation matters. Again, this is so by reason of the
special factual setting that Admiralty grievances have their
gestation in. For example, in Admiralty such factors as "seaman
status" or unseaworthiness are generally not admitted and must
be demonstrated through a series of logically connecting
factors. The only way to demonstrate the existence of these
factors and the conclusions that they have a significant meaning
within the confines of Admiralty Law is through strong proof of
circumstantial evidentiary chains leading to inferences of the
various types of status. In COX VS. ESSO SHIPPING [247 F.2nd 629
(1957)], a seaman brought an action for Maritime Tort damages
after he fell twenty feet to the deck of the ship. The maritime
jury was not instructed that it was not Cox's duty to choose
seaworthy equipment (which allegedly caused the fall) or to
select good equipment from bad, but rather under ADMIRALTY
JURISPRUDENCE, it was the duty of the shipowner to select good
equipment from bad. By the trial court having improvidently
instructed the jury along such a biased evidentiary skew,
failure to explain the special assignments of negligence
liability inherent in ADMIRALTY mandated reversal on appeal. But
it was CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that won the Case.
2 The insurance companies never change their MODUS OPERANDI in
their very successful manipulative use of legislation to limit
the amount of money they have to pay out on claims. For example,
few people realize it, but here in the United States, up until
the early 1950s there were no commercial nuclear power plants in
operation, and none were going to be built. Reason: No
insurance carrier wanted to underwrite and pay for the potential
losses involved if an accident occurred. The insurance companies
knew that some day there would be problems surfacing with one of
those nuclear plants -- insurance companies know risk and risk
management better than anyone else on the fact of this Earth. So
electric utilities who wanted to build nuclear plants, but could
find no insurance carrier, acted in combination with insurance
carriers in sponsoring the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT in Congress, which
limited the potential liability of Tort claims of a domestic
nuclear accident to $500,000,000. [Remember that Tort claims are
lawsuits between parties where there is no contract in effect
between the parties to govern the grievance]. See the
PRICE-ANDERSON ACT today in Title 42, Section 2210. Had there
been no PRICE-ANDERSON LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ACT, there would
be no Commercial nuclear power plants built in the United
States. For a brief history of the development of nuclear power
in the United States, see the Supreme Court in DUKE POWER VS.
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, 438 U.S. 59 (1978). The
well-known involvement of the private insurance companies and
their influence on the legislation bringing forth the
PRICE-ANDERSON ACT is discussed in DUKE POWER, starting at page
64, et seq.
3 "The [Federal] Limitations of Liability Act has been applied
to even small boats like outboard motorboats... but the law
is... understood and [insurance] underwriters in particular know
exactly what they are dealing with."
- A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A PARTY;
FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS, [Part II] in
Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United States Senate, 92nd
Congress, 2nd Session, discussing Senate Bill 1876, at page 697
(May, 1972).
4 DOUBLE INSURANCE means collecting double the premium, but the
number of ships lost at sea did not double, so the claims did
not double. The insurance companys' lobbyists were busy behind
that legislation, as they made their descent then on the
Parliament in vulture formation, just like today. BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY defines DOUBLE INSURANCE as existing where:
"...the same person is insured by several insurers separately
in respect to the same subject and interest."
- BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, Fifth Edition ["Double Insurance"].
This is a correct definition of what is known as DOUBLE
INSURANCE, but that is not the DOUBLE INSURANCE once forced on
Admiralty carriers in another era (and, of course, you just
don't need to concern yourself with something illicit being
pulled off by an insurance company).
5 Such a seemingly expansive use of Admiralty Jurisdiction
initially triggers an inquisitive attitude questioning such an
expansive application of Admiralty. But the Judiciary is merely
replicating the legal environment out on the High Seas that risk
insurance was born in.
"Polices of insurance are within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of
the United States."
- DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 7 Federal Cases 418, Case #3776, at page
444 (1815) [that Case also has a very extensive history of
Admiralty Jurisdiction discussed in it].
Consider the words of Federal District Court Judge Pelag Sprague:
"...I consider the jurisdiction of the Admiralty over polices
of insurance, to be the settled law and practice of this
circuit."
- YOUNGER VS. GLOUSER MARINE, affirmed on appeal, 2 Curt. C.C.
323; as cited in DECISIONS OF THE... DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS IN ADMIRALTY AND MARINE CAUSES, 1841-1861 (1854).
6 Trial by Jury has never, ever been a feature of prosecutions
held under summary Admiralty Jurisdiction rules. See:
- UNITED STATES VS. LAVENGEANCE, 3 U.S. 297 (1796);
- WHELAN VS. THE UNITED STATES, 711 U.S. 112 (1812);
- THE SARAH CASE, 21 U.S. 391 (1823).
7 "...the precise scope of [American] admiralty jurisdiction is
not a matter of obvious principle or of very accurate history."
- Justice Holmes in THE BLACKHEATH, 195 U.S. 361 (1904).
8 An exemplification of lawyers simply lumping everything into
Admiralty would be a treatise that teaches lawyers how to do
exactly just that: See a huge seven volume set of Admiralty
Jurisdiction practice Law and Rules called BENEDICT ON
ADMIRALTY, by Matthew Bender Publishers in New York City. (Kept
current with frequent updates to subscribers).
9 13 RICHARD II, c.5. (1389)
10 15 RICHARD II, c.3. (1391)
11 The ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, Volume One ["High Court of
Admiralty"], page 171 (1929 Edition).
12 REPORTS, Part 13, page 51; and COKE'S INSTITUTES, Part IV,
Chapter 22.
13 This resulted in his statutes being modified to restrain the
expansion of the Admiralty Courts. See 2 HENRY IV, c.11 (1400).
14 In the DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL
CONGRESS 1774, we find the following words:
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British
parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of
America by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts
expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various
pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue,
hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies,
established a board of commissioners with unconstitutional
powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty not
only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes
merely arising within the body of the county."
- JOURNALS OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, edited by W.C.
Ford, Volume I, page 63 et seq.
15 A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A PARTY;
FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS [Part II] in
Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United States Senate, 92nd
Congress, 2nd Session, discussing Senate Bill 1876, at page 639
(May, 1972).
16 See the NEW YORK TIMES ["Rescuers Head Whales Back from
Florida Beach"], page 14 (February 7, 1977).
17 Exploratory plutonium poisoning trials were conducted at the
American Legion Convention in Philadelphia on July 21 to 24,
1976; and as expected by the Gremlins who administered the
poisons through an atmospheric discharge, the symptoms that
surfaced were of a flu-like nature [see ["20 Flu-Like Deaths in
Penn Still A Mystery"] in the NEW YORK TIMES for August 4, 1976,
page 1]. The TIMES article noted the puzzling sickness variation
of what appeared to be a flu; but without possessing requisite
background factual knowledge on the invisible high-powered
toxicity involved, the medical doctors stumbled from one
erroneous diagnostic conclusion to another [id., at 1]. [Also
note the Government's selection of patriotic war veterans for
their SUB ROSA plutonium poisoning tests, as opposed to some
lesser sub-class of Americans, such as perhaps convicted felons
serving life sentences without parole in a federal cage
somewhere for heinous crimes committed, or perhaps irretrievably
insane occupants of numerous mental hospitals scattered around
the countryside. In other words, assume for the moment that you
were in charge of selecting the "test group"; would you select
American war veterans innocently enjoying a convention gathering
in Pennsylvania of their peers, who had previously put their
lives on the line for "god and country," who had served their
country honorably and patriotically? Furthermore, please note
that somewhere, right now, the person or persons responsible for
this atrocity, who are guilty of felonious murder in the First
Degree (20 American Legion veterans were murdered), and/or who
were accessories to this multiple murder, have yet to be brought
to justice. Where is "America's Most Wanted" now?]
18 Very few American doctors are skilled in recognizing the
symptoms of atomic particulate plutonium poisoning; plutonium is
not measurably radioactive in that it does not radiate ionizing
electrons at a rate sufficient to trigger geiger counters. This
type of radiation toxicity is easily misdiagnosed, and not just
for medical reasons, but for political and LACK OF JUDGMENT
reasons stemming from the manipulative withholding of public
information on uncontrolled atmospheric plutonium distributions
by Gremlins. The symptoms of such ionizing toxicity replicates
closely the symptoms associated with a flu like illness, but
since medical doctors are unaware of any public concern for
radiation toxicity, the uncomfortable idea of a THREE MILE
ISLAND scenario is tossed aside by the diagnosing physician, and
the more comfortable but incorrect diagnosis of a hybrid
flu-like illness is then substituted in its place. For a
discussion on some of the uncontrolled atmospheric discharges of
radioactive elements in the United States, see THE MEDICAL BASIS
FOR RADIATION ACCIDENT PREPAREDNESS by Hubner and Fry, Editors
[Elsevier-North Holland (1980)], which discusses publicly
suppressed radiodines discharge "accidents" in 1974 and 1978 in
New Jersey, and 1978 in Algeria. And it is my hunch that other
similar radioactive incidents have also occurred worldwide, with
knowledge of the existence of those events also being publicly
sequestered. Bureaucratic Gremlins nestled in Juristic
Institutions have also withheld public dissemination about
radioactive atmospheric contamination originating from the now
abandoned Central Core Vault of the United States Gold Bullion
Depository located at Fort Knox Kentucky, which is leaking
radioactive plutonium 239 that the Government improvidently
stored there in 1968. Folks placing reliance on Government for
both radiation accident recovery assistance as well as
deflecting the occurrence of the toxic poisoning event
altogether ar exercising defective judgment -- individual
responsibility is the correct management technique; and, as a
point of beginning, factual knowledge is required. For
beneficial advisory information in this area, see generally ARE
YOU RADIOACTIVE? PROTECT YOURSELF by Linda Clark [Devin-Adair
in Old Grenwich, Connecticut (1973); republished by Pyramid
Publications in Moonachie, New Jersey (1974); republished by the
Cancer Control Society in Los Angeles (1977)]. The isochronous
dietary incorporation of potassium iodine is known to manifest
great relief from radioactive poisoning, due to its "sponge"
like effect in going after those determined little plutonium
contaminates that home in on your thyroid gland; and this
remains true even though some physicians, speaking through
institutions sponsored by Gremlins, do not want you to take any
such preventative measures [Dr. David Becker, et al.,
discourages such use in THE USE OF IODINE AS A THYROIDAL
BLOCKING AGENT IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, appearing in
252 Journal of the American Medical Association, at page 659
(August 2, 1984). For a story of the financial sponsorship of
the American Medical Association in the late 1800s by Gremlin
EXTRAORDINAIRE John Rockefeller, Sr., see Volume II of WORLD
WITHOUT CANCER -- THE STORY OF VITAMIN B17 by G. Edward Griffin
[American Media, West Lake Village, California (1980)].]
19 Admiralty Jurisdiction has a long term habit of "following"
Government around when new conquests are made. When His
Britannic Highness would conquer a foreign land, Consular Courts
of Admiralty followed His Majesty's conquests to the far corners
of the globe. While India was under British colonial rule,
Vice-Admiralty Courts were established in Calcutta, Madras, and
Bombay. Similarly in China, Japan and Turkey, while under
British colonial rule, a layer of Admiralty Jurisdiction was
smothered on them. Parliament enacted the Colonial Courts of
Admiralty Act in 1890 to automatically confer Admiralty
Jurisdiction on Civil Jurisdiction Courts, where ever His
Highness exercised his dynastic dominion.
20 See THE FIRST FEDERAL COURT by Henry J. Bourguignon [American
Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (1977)].
21 When a Natural Person is "enfranchised," such a PERSON takes
upon himself the status of a corporation, which isn't very much.
"The corporation is an artificial creation of the state endowed
with franchises and privileges of many kinds which the
individual has not."
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court in THE INCOME TAX CASES, 148
Wisconsin 456, at 515 (1912).
However, the low status of corporations that numerous Patriots
emphasize in status distinction arguments is actually not that
important [meaning, you are not hitting the nail right on the
head], because such a low relational status is only the net
effect of having accepted benefits the state created; and when
benefits conditionally offered by the state are accepted by you,
as a human being, then contracts are in effect and alleged
status distinctions are irrelevant. This is the real meaning of
"enfranchisement" -- a contract is in effect that is largely
invisible -- because juristic benefits carrying taxation hooks
on them were accepted by you. Some of the invisible juristic
benefits that are automatic in corporations are:
"The corporation,... enjoys under our laws many privileges
separate and apart from simply doing business, such for instance
as the legal status to sue and be sued in the Courts of our
state, continuity of business without interruption by death or
dissolution, transfer of property interests by the disposition
of the shares of stock, advantages of business controlled and
managed by corporate directors, and the general absence of
individual liability, among others."
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana in COLONIAL PIPELINE VS.
TRAIGLE, 421 U.S. 100, at 106 (1974).
22 To hypothecate means generally to pledge assets to someone
else, without delivering either Title or possession of the
asset. Debt Hypothecations are sometimes used when the
collateral does not lend itself well to Title or possession
security, such as borrowing a Certificate of Deposit to be held
by a bank in your name, when the person who really owns the
money has practical control over it (such as through his
signature on the deposit card). In contrast, when borrowing
money to finance a new car, the Title, so called, is normally
mailed by your regional Prince to be in the possession of the
first lien holder, so car loans are not considered to be
Hypothecated Debts.
23 An exemplary accoutrement of what Admiralty Jurisdiction can
pull off that Common Law did not allow, was the summary seizure
of property in criminal Cases, pending a posting of bail by the
Defendant:
"Historically, maritime attachment originated as a means of
obtaining by attachment of the defendant's property the same
security for payment of a judgment against the defendant's
property which was obtained by the marshal's body arrest and
holding to bail of the defendant's person. ... Just as when a
defendant's body was arrested in personam, he was required to
give bail in order to be released from the custody of the
marshal, so when his body could not be found for such arrest IN
PERSONAM, his property was attached by the marshal and held to
bail in the same way."
- A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A
PARTY; FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS, [Part
II] in Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United
States Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, discussing Senate
Bill 1876, at page 645 (May, 1972).
24 The international WARSAW CONVENTION of October, 1929 was
ratified by the United States Senate in June of 1934. Section 21
of that Convention Limits the amount of money air carriers need
concern themselves with on claims payments for Tort damages. And
as International Law, it is binding on all courts in the United
States.
25 Title 46, Section 181 to 183.
26 In the mid 1970s, medical doctors in California "went on
strike" to protest high insurance premiums they paid for
protection against on medical malpractice claims thrown at them
for Tort damages they worked on their clients (such as being
told to surgically cut out a defective left kidney, and the
doctor takes out the right kidney on the operating table, thus
leaving the poor patient with no kidneys -- surprisingly,
mistakes like that are actually quite frequent, and doctors have
no one to snicker at but themselves). Numerous state
legislatures enacted statutory limitations on the amount of
money trial courts could award for medical malpractice suits. In
California, it was the MICR ACT of 1975, but those statutory
wealth transfer schemes were later declared to be
unconstitutional [see AMERICAN BANK VS. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, 660
P.2nd 829 (California, 1983), and ARNESON VS. OLSEN, 270
N.W.2nd, 125 (North Dakota, 1978)].
27 Limited Liability for Tort claims is very much a marvelous
tool for insurance carriers to amass wealth through; but there
is always a pathetic footnote to be told when Special Interest
Groups reign supreme in the corridors of Legislatures. For a sad
discussion on the legislative massaging by insurance company
produced statutes mandating the Limited Liability of Tort claims
for damages from airplane crashes, has relaxed both the level of
safety interest by insurance carriers in the airplane products
that they insure, as well as also diminishing economic
incentives by the airlines themselves for safer operations
(particularly in TCA's), see IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN AN AIRLINE?
by Robert Poole, 10 Reason Magazine 18 (January, 1979).
28 Remember that throughout Life, in all factual settings,
always try to evaluate the position of the other party with an
open mind; quite often we will find that the other party has a
strong case and that there has been some error in our reasoning
or standing. No, it is not an easy procedure to be objective;
the snickering by a Protester of what is being viewed in the
Courtroom [of a judge throwing one successive retortional
snortation after another at the Protester, seemingly ventilating
expressions of philosophical discomfort with the arguments and
the position of defiance taken by the Protester] -- snickering
at the judge is much easier than adopting the following
procedure into our MODUS OPERANDI: Maybe let us assume, just
for a moment, that we are in fact not correct when trying to
weasel out of WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE and correlative traffic
ticket scenarios where invisible contracts actually govern the
grievance (as I will explain later). Rather than adopting the
MODUS OPERANDI of a Protester by the presumption he is right,
and that the judge is a moronic Commie pinko philosophically
opposed to the defiant political position being taken by the
Protester, let us assume, just for a moment, that the
expressions of judicial ensnortment being thrown at us might
originate with something else. Maybe, just maybe, the
snortations from on high are actually the final stages of
judicial expressions of discontentment, with our own argument
error, and the incorrect position we are taking, and might not
originate with the political overtones associated with the
philosophical position of our naked defiance -- a defiance
exhibited in areas very few people would dare to defy. Let us
enlarge the basis of factual knowledge that we are using to
exercise judgment on and to form conclusions with, by adopting a
new MODUS OPERANDI: By taking the judge's snortations under
advisement at first, and asking ourselves a series of deep
probing questions to try and enlarge the factual picture we are
viewing. Let's try out this new MODUS OPERANDI on the following
news article. Like the scene in the Courtroom we will only
initially accept what is presented to us as a point of beginning
and take it in under advisement, and we will not arrive at a
conclusion until after we have asked ourselves several deep
probing questions:
"A TANK IN THE PARKING LOT"
"Many obscure imports have made their way through Baltimore's
port, but this one was a true rarity: a Soviet T-54 tank. It
was discovered last week near Pier 10, perched on top of a flat
bed trailer in the parking lot of a farm-supply company. Not
quite sure just why the tank was there, a specially equipped
unit of the Baltimore police force dismantled the T-54's two
250 caliber machine guns and carted them off for safekeeping
while they searched for the owner. A call to nearby Fort Meade
did nothing to clear up the mystery. Eventually, the truck
driver responsible for the tank called the police to report two
stolen machine guns.
"The tank, of 1950s vintage, belong to the Egyptian army and
had been transported to Baltimore on the U.S. barge LASH
ATLANTICO on its way to Teledyne Continental Motors in Muskegon,
Michigan for repairs and rebuilding. The driver parked the T-54
for more than a week while he went off in search of a special
permit to transport the overweight load on Maryland's roads. In
the end, the police returned the guns, and the tank continued
its decades-long voyage from Moscow to Muskegon."
- This news article on the tank was extracted verbatim in its
full text from TIME MAGAZINE ["A Tank in the Parking Lot"], page
23 (May 6, 1985); That article is Copyright c 1985 Time-Life,
Inc. Next to this news article, there appears a photograph of
the huge tank, sitting on top of a tractor-trailer's flatbed.]
If in reading that news article while leafing through TIME
MAGAZINE we adopted the MODUS OPERANDI of Protesters, we would
then exercise our judgment and come to our conclusions based
largely on the information immediately presented to us in the
news article; so, with this interesting story on how the
Baltimore police quickly grabbed some guns from a tank on its
way to Michigan -- we would conclude that, well, it is rather
obvious that the police acted properly, decisively, boldly, and
exercised good judgment in returning the guns to the tank after
they straightened out everything. Gee, that was pretty good work
on their part -- so let's turn the page and see what else is
going on in the world.
..To most folks reading that article, that was the typical
reaction; here is an old tank in Baltimore going through its
foibles and headaches just trying to get to Michigan -- but it
is also the same caliber of judgment that a Tax Protester
exercises his decisions and conclusions on, digesting largely
only that slice of factual information that is immediately
presented to the Protester to feed his intellectual judgments
and opinions. And the Tax Protester replicates the MODUS
OPERANDI of the general public by simply accepting the factual
picture that is presented to them -- by the Protester in the
ensnortment tornado of a Courtroom, and by the general public in
the coziness of their living room reading some news article. In
both settings, no probing or deeper questions were asked, and no
hypothetical WHAT IF scenarios were entertained [hmmm, WHAT IF
maybe the judge is right?]. And so as a result, the general
American state of political ensleepment continues on, accepting
comforting reassurances from news articles that the police are
alert, on their toes, and that all is well, and indifferent to
the possibility that termites are running the house in
Washington; just like the Protester continues on in argument
error from one WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE courtroom to a traffic
ticket courtroom, indifferent to the possibility that invisible
contracts govern the grievance and that he is not entitled to
prevail for any reason [except for the several technical reasons
protesters frequently win on, such as WANT OF JURISDICTION, the
COUNSEL QUESTION, etc., that are not related to the merits of
the grievance itself].
..So let us now reread the story of the tank once again, but
this time, things will be different -- because this time we are
going to start asking ourselves a few probing and razor sharp
questions:
1. The first and only question that I would like to ask is:
Why is a tank, manufactured in Russia, and now owned by Egypt,
being freighted and transported halfway around the world --
shipped literally to the other side of the globe -- to have some
mechanical work done on it; sent to a factory located in one of
the most expensive hourly labor cost nations on Earth, sent to a
factory that did not manufacture this tank; why is Egypt willing
to spend the $20,000 or so to get the tank to Michigan, spend
the big bucks to have the work done here, and then spend another
$20,000 or so in freight to get the tank sent back to Egypt?
..That is the Question I want some answers to. Simple COMMON
SENSE is telling me that whatever mechanical and machining work
that needs to be done, can be done in Egypt. Have you ever been
to Alexandria or Cairo, Mr. May? Even if you have not, you
should still be ordinarily aware of the fact that Egypt has, at
a minimum, SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND cars, trucks, and other
motor vehicles on its streets, and that a very large pool of
mechanical talent exists locally to repair and re-machine parts
for all types of vehicles. Do people in Egypt send their Datsuns
back to Japan to remachine the transmission? Does Frank May,
living in New Jersey, send his MERCEDES-BENZ to Australia or
South America for repairs? Even discontinued automobiles, such
as STUDEBAKERS, PIERCE-ARROWS, and PACKARDS are not sent to
Australia for even total restoration jobs or mechanical work --
New Jersey has quite a pool of such shops right then and there.
A MERCEDES-BENZ would never be sent to Australia from New
Jersey, except for very special reasons, and ordinary mechanical
work is not a special reason. The reason why such long voyages
are not undertaken for work on heavy vehicles is because of the
ridiculous freight charges incurred, and simple lack of
necessity to do so by reason of very competent local situs
talent. So the Question is begging: Why did Egypt send that
tank to the other side of the planet -- to Michigan -- for
repairs? Let us say, just for a moment, that the tank talked
about was a very highly complex machine that required the
maintenance attention of specially factory trained experts
[which was not the case with a tank out of the 1950s -- those
tanks had no more back then than an engine, a unique
transmission, and firing power]; great, let's say that technical
expertise was required -- but that still does not answer the
question: Why was that tank sent to Michigan for repairs
instead of anywhere else in the Middle East or the Mediterranean
Coast -- or even Russia itself where the tank was manufactured?
..We find the ANSWER to this QUESTION the same way that the
Protester would find the Answer to his Question: Why is this
judge snorting at me?
The Protester needs to ask himself a hypothetical Question:
What if I am wrong for some reason I don't know of? But
Protesters never ask that Question -- his tremendous volume of
Tort Law arguments and of Case Law from another era is
staggering and impressive, and the mere possibility that error
might be present in the defiant position being taken, because of
something invisible controlling the grievance that he is unaware
of, is not even being considered. Unlike the Protester, we will
now consider the possibility that factual elements governing
Egypt's motive in sending that tank to the other side of the
globe for repairs were not presented to us in that news article;
and we will now consider the possibility that the factual
picture presented to us is distorted slightly (although not
necessarily intentionally by the news media's reporters who
wrote the article).
..The reason why the tank was transported from one side of the
planet to the other side, from Egypt to Michigan [if in fact the
tank even originated in Egypt], the reason why someone was
willing to spend those big bucks just to get the tank here, is
because that Russian tank is on a special trip: On a one-way
trip into the United States, and not for the cover story of its
needing mechanical repairs. That tank will never leave the
United States. When that tank is finally at its home somewhere
in the United States, it will be hidden away in some barn, some
warehouse, some garage, or some old industrial building
converted into an AD HOC Russian military storage depot. This
author has photographs of other Russian military hardware
sitting inside American army bases; generally that hardware is
stored behind fenced areas. The word sent around the base is
that those Russian tanks "...were captured somewhere," when in
fact they are literally brand new and are stored here very much
with not only Russian consent, but with Russian supervision as
well.
This tank in TIME MAGAZINE is waiting for a great and grand
Russian Day to appear, that long awaited Russian Day of
conquest, when along with the other extensive hardware that has
been slowly and quietly smuggled into the United States over a
20 to 30-year time period, it will be brought forth out into the
open in some variation of a RED DAWN attack on the United States
[a provoked attack based partially on military hardware already
sitting at its final destination inside the United States], to
bring about the great Bolshevik objective of merging the United
States with Russia. Yes, Russian intellectual element of
conquest are involved here, as the quick lock down of American
military installations will be justified to the world at that
time as being necessary to prevent a nuclear war -- when in fact
the political sponsorship of a Patriot to the Presidency would
accomplish the same thing under less intensive circumstances.
The Russian strategy for North American conquest, through the
slow accumulation of a handful of tanks, personnel carriers, and
jeeps each week, is a brilliant strategic move that the
Bolshevik Gremlins are now controlling the American House in
Washington want to see occur, even though those Gremlins in
Washington are the very targets Russia is really going after.
That's right, the tank described in that news article will never
leave the United States -- until, at least, it has first been
used offensively in military operations against the United
States.
..Yes, that tank is on a one-way trip into the United States
[if in fact it ever gets to Teledyne Continental]. See what
happens when we accept information presented to us, and take it
in under advisement, holding its acceptance out in abeyance as a
point of reference, until we first ask ourselves some peripheral
questions about it from several different view points? What
happens when asking ourselves deeper questions than was
presented to us, is that great Truths come forward to us, are
appreciated by us, and our Eyes are Opened. This is a procedure
that should be followed in all settings -- business, commerce,
work, school, family life, everything -- and particularly in
ecclesiastical settings, as we ask ourselves a sequence of the
single most important Questions that could ever be asked down
here: WHO AM I? WHAT AM I DOING HERE? WHERE AM I GOING?
..The Answer is that you are literally, Mr. May, the offspring
of Celestial Beings, and that a germ of Deity dwells within you
-- THAT IS WHO YOU ARE. You were brought forth into this world
bristling full of Gremlins and their intrigues from the presence
of your Father in Heaven -- THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE. The
correct procedure to return to Father's presence once again is
to take seriously His advice He once gave you in the First
Estate when we were all then speaking His angelic language:
Enter into Covenants with me, be proven in all things, and a
successively ever enlarging number of planets and offspring will
be yours [remember that Contracts draw lines which enable
behavior to be measured and tested against; Tort indicia places
facts on continuum measuring the absence, presence, and extent
of damages. I personally would not want to get involved with a
God who was fixated on the mere absence of damages] -- THAT IS
WHERE YOU ARE GOING.
29 "Trials [in Admiralty Jurisdiction]... take place without the
intervention of a jury, and without any fixed rules of law or
evidence. The rules on which offenses are to be heard and
determined... are such rules and regulations as the President...
shall prescribe. No previous presentment is required, nor any
indictment charging the commission of a crime against the laws;
but the trial must proceed on charges and specifications. The
punishment will be -- not what the law declares, but such as an
[Admiral] may think proper..."
- President Andrew Jackson in the CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39th
Congress, 1st Session, page 916 (February, 1866).
30 For example, when benefits have been accepted in the context
of reciprocity being expected in return, then there lies a
contract; and where no Consideration [benefits exchanged] is
evident on the record, then the contract collapses in front of a
judge (FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION). To show you just how improper
it is to rely on documents for anything of significance in the
area of attaching liability, remember earlier, when I talked
about the Taxable Franchise of Social Security, and of
Justiciability, I spoke of an Affidavit [document] I filed
admitting to an utterly heinous agricultural crime I had
committed. But as I mentioned, the police could do nothing
without any collaborating evidence obtained from out in the
practical setting that a crime had in fact been committed. Yes,
Nature does operate out in the practical setting, and to
understand Nature is to understand the Law in all settings.
..Incidentally, when we shift from a worldly setting over to a
Heavenly setting, nothing changes either. When entering into
Contracts with Heavenly Father down here, it will be emphasized
to you over and over again that the promissory Blessings
[benefits] from On High contained within the Contract are
conditional, and that the facial Contract itself that you just
entered into means nothing; and that it is what you do with that
Contract out in the practical setting that means everything.
31 At least entrance should be and is theoretically so. This is
why that if, for any reason, the Supreme Court upholds the
Income Tax grab on a properly document involuntary DE MINIMIS
participant in King's Commerce (who timely waived, rejected and
refused all Commercial and political benefits), then we will
turn away from dealing with the King out of the barrel of a
fountain pen, and start to deal with the King out of the barrel
of a gun.
32 "Does history repeat itself? Yes. Today, the term SECURITY
is best defined in the promises of economic kings and
politicians in the form of doles, grants, and subsidies made for
the purpose of perpetuating themselves in public office, and at
the same time depleting the resources of the people and the
treasury of the nation. The word SECURITY is being used as an
implement of political expediency, and the end results will be
the loss of freedom, and temporal and spiritual bankruptcy.
[Throughout this Letter, other examples will be presented
showing how the violation of Principles will always produce
adverse secondary consequences, with the true seminal point of
causality remaining latent, elusive, and obscured]. We have
those among us who are calling for an economic king, and the
voice of the king replies in promises wherein the individual is
guaranteed relief from the mandate given to Adam:
'In the sweat of thy face thou eat bread.'
"Disobedience to this mandate involves the penalty of loss of
free agency and individuality, and the dissolution of the
resources of the individual. These economic rulers have
advocated, and do practice, a vicious procedure called the
LEVELING DOWN PROCESS which takes from one man who has achieved
and distributes to those who are not willing to put forth like
effort. Taxation is the means through which this LEVELING DOWN
PROCESS is implemented. Taxes in the United States during the
last decade have increased five hundred percent. If such
increases continue, it will mean final confiscation of the
property of the people.
"A clear cut example of the promises of economic kings to the
people, with all of the penalties involved, stands out in the
case of Great Britain. Great Britain, with fifty years of rule
over the Seas of the Earth, the Sun never setting on her Empire,
finds herself now in a convulsion of spiritual, political, and
temporal bankruptcy. She has a king, but he is merely a symbol
of her past greatness; but the people, like those of Israel,
cried for a new king, an economic king, and the king has
responded with the rule of dictatorship, bringing deterioration
to the character of the individual, loss of ambition, freedom,
individual progress through the right to work when and where he
would, and regimentation. The people are forced to heed the call
and feel the iron hand of the dictator. Above all, they have
lost their free agency. The British people are but mere cogs in
the great machine of socialism. The state is paramount; the
citizen has been subdued. Their resources have been absorbed,
the treasury of the government has been depleted, and had it not
been for the generosity of this great republic, where a few of
the fundamentals of freedom, personal initiative, and free
enterprise remain, Great Britain would have been but a memory.
Just as was in Israel, so would it be with Great Britain --
dissension, division, and communistic captivity.
"What does this mean to you and me? We have those among us,
too, who over the years have cried for a controlled economy. We
have those among us who give succor and support to such a plan,
which plan of controlled economy involves the same theories and
false philosophies that ruined Israel and are now destroying
Great Britain. Economic kings have responded to the call of some
people, promising them security against want for their votes. In
the attempt to meet the desires of these people, the treasury of
this great nation is being depleted, and it covers deficit
spending with promissory notes. Expansion of this disastrous
policy will deprive American citizens of their God-given
freedom, the right to work when and where they will, freedom of
speech, freedom of the press -- and who knows but what some day
the right to worship God according to the dictates of one's
conscience may be taken away. It is destroying, and will
continue to destroy, the very fundamentals upon which this
nation and its people have found prosperity and genuine
security. These are not idle words, but the counsel and the
words of the Lord as they have been revealed to this nation
through Prophets and the Founding Fathers of this great
Republic. For one hundred and twenty years modern day Samuels
have pleaded with the people to preserve the fundamentals of
temporal and spiritual security by being obedient to the Gospel,
through work, being thrifty and staying out of debt, and above
all to conserve our resources to provide temporal security
during periods of sickness, unemployment, and the days of old
age. This people has been taught by the Prophets of God that to
waste the bounties of Earth is a sin, and surely there is a
penalty therefor. The Lord cannot bless an individual or a
nation with the bounties of the Earth and have that individual
or nation deliberately and wantonly waste them, without the law
of retribution of want and famine being imposed.
"Economic kings have advocated the doctrine that those in
distress should be provided for abundantly with no obligations
on the part of the recipients, but the Lord has revealed through
his Prophets a great welfare plan which does not rob individuals
in distress of their freedom, personal initiative, and the right
to work. In the welfare program [of the Church] the individual
is the objective, and through the generosity and cooperative
efforts of the membership of the Church, the individual is
assured of temporal security, not as a dole or a gift, but as a
bridge to cover the gap of unemployment or illness until the
individual can again stand on his own feet and work out his
temporal security. It is required of him that during this period
of assistance from the welfare program he shall give freely of
his labor, if physically fit, in the production of the things he
needs, and out of it becomes one of the independent sons of the
Lord, having notably received but having also given."
- Joseph B. Wirthlin in CONFERENCE REPORTS, at page 134 (April,
1950).
33 If you have a Lease contract as a Tenant with your Landlord
to occupy his premises and pay him rent, then is it correct and
provident that you could withhold rent from him because one
night you saw that Landlord of yours defile himself at a bar
downtown by spending your money and his strength on a pair of
harlots? No, it is not, and your excuses and arguments not to
honor the Lease contract is foolishness and will be summarily
ignored by all judges from your local justice courts clear up to
the Supreme Court. What your Landlord does with his money after
you give it to him through an operation of that Lease contract
is his business and none of yours, and what the King does with
his money once he has his hands on it is also his own business.
[All Internal Income Tax Revenue collected is turned over to the
Federal Reserve Board as payment on the National Debt]. The
unfairness of the Landlord to demand and get high rents he
doesn't really need, and then to turn around and throw the money
out the window on harlots, just like the King throwing his money
out the window to Poland and to looters throughout the rest of
the world... this unfairness that eats and gnaws at you, is a
Tort Law fairness rationalization, and has no business in a
Leasehold Tenant Eviction proceeding in your local municipal
court, and has no business in a WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE action
in a Federal District Court, as both are contract enforcement
actions. Defenses and arguments made in a Contract Law judgment
setting are necessarily very narrowly construed; background
factual elements not contained in the contract are relevant only
to the extent that they influence a clause in the contract that
is presented to a court for a ruling. And absent unusual
circumstances, only the content of the contract is going to be
discussed in any courtroom; just like only the content of your
Contracts with Father will be discussed at the Last Day and
rationalizations sounding in the Tort of EQUALITY like this one
will be ignored:
"Oh, yes Father -- I accepted Jesus Christ, and I was just as
good as anyone else."
34 DRED SCOTT VS. SANFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
35 I once told a state judge that I was demanding my minority
rights. He looked at me and snorted something, and so I quoted
the state statute which granted a right given to generic
minorities, without any qualification of just what a MINORITY
was. So I brought in some statistics to prove that people with
blue eyes are a demographic minority in the United States, and
that therefore I was redemanding my minority rights. [Those
minority statutes of rights and special hand out grants are
quite flaky; they are structurally improvident, bearing no
intrinsic relationship to Nature, and are, and have always been,
a Special Interest Group political payoff to either buy or
retain votes, power, and money. But state statutes are not
designed or intended to be conformal with Nature or manifest
even a quasi-rational basis: Citizenship is like joining a
Country Club, as I will explain in the next section on
CITIZENSHIP, so house rules that operate to favor some class of
persons while harming others are largely viewed by the Federal
Judiciary as being just part of the game (just like a Country
Club's Board of Governors decision to name Tuesday as being
LADY'S DAY on the back 18 holes; no, it isn't fair to you men
when Tuesday is your only day off from work and you want to use
the back 18 holes then, but the Tort of unfairness is not
relevant as long as you are a MEMBER, because a contract is in
effect).]
36 See generally:
- Joseph James in THE FRAMING OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT [University
of Illinois Press, Urbana (1956)];
- Phillip Paludian in A COVENANT WITH DEATH [University of
Illinois Press, Urbana (1975)];
- Thomas Cooley in CHANGES IN THE BALANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL
POWERS, AN ADDRESS TO THE LAW STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
[Douglas and Company, Ann Arbor (March, 1878)];
- Howard Graham in OUR "DECLARATORY" FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 7
Stanford Law Review, at 3 (September, 1954).
37 Abraham Lincoln was also dragged into this DRED SCOTT
controversy; on June 26, 1857, Abraham Lincoln found himself
divided on the DRED SCOTT CASE -- it was one of those difficult
factual settings where no matter what was said or done, you
could only be viewed as being wrong. He suggested on that day in
Springville, Illinois that the rulings of the United States
Court do not create binding obligations on the two political
branches of Government. This was a risky philosophical position
for Lincoln to take; DRED SCOTT effectively repudiated the
Principles upon which Lincoln's new REPUBLICAN PARTY rested; and
Lincoln exposed himself to the charge of "attempting to bring
the Supreme Court into disrepute among the people" [the charge
was thrown at Lincoln by Steven A. Douglas in the course of his
Fifth Debate with Abraham Lincoln on October 7, 1857]. See Gary
Jacobson in ABRAHAM LINCOLN ON THIS QUESTION OF JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY: THE THEORY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL ASPIRATION in 36
Western Political Quarterly, at 52 (March, 1983).
38 Remember that pursuant to the MERGER DOCTRINE, contracts we
enter into today overrule contracts we entered into yesterday,
since it is out of harmony with Nature that contracts cannot be
altered, modified, or otherwise rescinded in the future by the
consent of the Parties. This is why Constitutional Amendments
can overrule whatever was written into the original Constitution
of 1787 at an earlier time.
39 The Panama Canal Treaty ratification bill in the Senate in
1978, being sponsored by very powerful Rockefeller Cartel
interests like it was, with people IN THE KNOW knowing that it
would most likely pass the Senate, quickly became loaded down
with several hundred amendments that wouldn't pass by
themselves. This legislative device is sometimes called
PIGGY-BACKING. See THE PROPOSED PANAMA CANAL TREATIES -- A
DIGEST OF INFORMATION, Subcommittee on the Separation of Powers,
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 95th Congress,
2nd Session (February, 1978); and PANAMA CANAL TREATIES
(DISPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TERRITORY), in Parts 1,2,3,4 of
Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Separation of Powers,
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 95th Congress,
1st Session (July, 1977).
40 Yes, the 14th Amendment, announced by its sponsors to have
the high, noble, and righteous goal of reversing that bad,
wicked, terrible, heinous and utterly evil DRED SCOTT Case, of
overturning those racist Supreme Court Justices, and giving
those poor exploited and downtrodden Blacks their political
rights, actually has a silent correlative sinister profile to it
that now damages everyone, including Blacks. In 1978, every
single member of the United States Senate knew that Rockefeller
Cartel Gremlins were behind the Panama Canal Treaties, and
knowing that, a pathetic majority went right ahead and voted for
it anyway; just the political inveiglement surrounding the real
objectives of the 14th Amendment was also known at the time it
was being considered for Senate approval...
"It is their deliberate purpose, tomorrow or next week, or a
month hence, or as soon as they can, to make the Federal
Constitution a different instrument from what it is now, and
then, under somewhat latitudinarian expressions contained in
this proposed fourteenth article of amendment to the
Constitution... any kind of law the majority party here desire
be... enacted into law."
- Congressman Michael Kerr of Indiana, in the CONGRESSIONAL
GLOBE, 40th Congress, 2nd Session, page 1973 (March, 1868).
41 See DYETT VS. TURNER, 439 Pacific 266 (1968), and the
numerous other cites therein; that State Tribunal later backed
down and reversed itself by one vote.
42 See COLEMAN VS. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).
43 Felix Frankfurter once remarked that the 14th Amendment was
the largest source of the Supreme Court's business. [See Felix
Frankfurter in JOHN MARSHALL AND THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION, 69
Harvard Law Review 217, at 229 (1955).]
44 In his book entitled THE RATIFICATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
by Joseph James [Mercer University Press (1984)], the author
names his 20 chapters after marine and maritime events, almost
as if Mr. James is quietly warning his readers allegorically as
a veiled presentation of what the 14th Amendment is really all
about. The names range from THE LAUNCHING and SETTING SAIL to
TROUBLED SOUTHERN WATERS, DANGEROUS PASSAGE, and MAKING FOR PORT.
45 After the Civil War, popular opinion in the Southern United
States was running against the adoption of the 14th Amendment,
on the grounds that the 14th Amendment would consolidate all
power into Washington (which is exactly what happened, and which
is exactly what some Gremlins wanted). See the CINCINNATI
COMMERCIAL for April 21, 1866, quoting the MEMPHIS ARGUS and the
CHARLESTON COURIER for April 2, 1866. The CHARLESTON COURIER had
made the prophetic statement that the State Judiciaries would be
made subservient to Federal authority, and that the 14th
Amendment would be conferring upon Congress "powers unknown to
the original law of the country"; which is exactly what has
happened. Yet, in reading the 14th Amendment, no where are State
Judiciaries even mentioned. See generally DOES THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT INCORPORATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS? THE ORIGINAL
UNDERSTANDING by Charles Friedman, 2 Sanford Law Review at 5
(December, 1949).
46 258 U.S. 126 (1922).
47 307 U.S. 433 (1939).
48 "...the question of the efficacy of ratifications by State
legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted
withdrawal, should be regarded as a political question
pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate
authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over
the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment."
- COLEMAN VS. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, at 450 (1938).
49 "...it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution
contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of
courts, as well as that of the legislature. Why otherwise does
it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?"
- MARBURY VS. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
50 Twenty one years after MARBURY VS. MADISON, Chief Justice
Marshall backed off slightly by making the following comment,
which is astonishing by contrast:
"Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the
laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of law,
and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a
discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be
exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when
that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it."
- OSBORNE VS. BANK OF UNITED STATES, 22 U.S. 738 (1824).
Although the Judiciary is given its own perpetual existence in
Article III, in a sense Justice Marshall is correct, since it is
the Legislature that ultimately holds the upper hand. The
Legislature could, if it wanted to, repeal Article III
altogether and shut down the Judiciary IN TOTO, and appoint,
perhaps, Committees of Congress to act in the capacity of what
was once the Judiciary by individually considering Cases that
come before them.
51 "...the Framers did not see the courts as the exclusive
custodians of the Constitution. Indeed, because the document
posits so few conclusions it leaves to the more political
branches the matter of adapting and vivifying its principles in
each generation... The power to declare acts of Congress and the
laws of the state null and void... should not be used when the
Constitution does not [explicitly allow it]."
- Attorney General Edwin Meese before the D.C. Chapter of the
Federalist Society Lawyers Division, November 15, 1985,
Washington, D.C.
52 A FORTIORI means "with the greater force," as one conclusion
is compared with another.
53 A minority collection of four Supreme Court Justices once
stated that:
"[Article IV of the Constitution]... grants power over the
amending of the Constitution to Congress alone. Undivided
control of that process has been given by the Article
exclusively and completely to Congress. The process itself is
called "political" in its entirety, from submission until an
amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and not subject to
judicial guidance, control, or interference at any point."
- COLEMAN VS. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, at 459 [Concurring
Opinion] (1938).
54 "...the glory and ornament of our system which distinguishes
it from every other government on the face of the earth is that
there is a great and mighty [judicial] power hovering over the
Constitution of the land to which has been delegated the awful
responsibility of restraining all the coordinate departments of
the Government within the walls of the great fabric which our
fathers [built] for our protection and our immunity forever."
- Chief Justice Edward White, in a speech shortly before he
ascended into the corridors of judicial power; 23 CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, 6515 (1892).
55 "In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction
can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly
be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker
individual is not as secured against the violence of the
stronger..."
- Alexander Hamilton, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, Number 51.
56 "A majority taken collectively may be regarded as being whose
opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those
of another being, which is styled a minority. If it be admitted
that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by
wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be held
liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their
characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the
presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their
strength."
- Alexis de Tocqueville, 1 DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, at 249
[Arlington House (1965)].
57 "Tyranny is not the only problem. Majorities do not
necessarily have enough knowledge, insight, or expertise to
assure wisest action... issues require expertise and
understanding far beyond that which is possessed by the
majority... The collective wisdom is not likely to be less
fallible."
- Bernard Siegan in ECONOMIC LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTION, at
273 [University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)].
58 "When I see that the right and means of absolute command are
conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a
democracy, a monarchy or republic, I recognize the germ of
tyranny, and I journey onwards to a land of more helpful
institutions."
- Alexis de Tocqueville, 1 DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, at 250
[Arlington House (1965)].
59 THE FEDERALIST Number 9 goes into this in greater detail. Not
very well known is the fact that the dual shared contours of
Federal/State legislative jurisdiction are sometimes in a state
of tension, which frictional relationship has existed right from
the start of the Union. While the Continental Congress was once
meeting in Philadelphia on June 20, 1783, soldiers from
Lancaster, Pennsylvania arrived in Philadelphia "...to obtain a
settlement of accounts, which they supposed they had a better
chance [to collect] at Philadelphia than at Lancaster." On the
next day, June 21st:
"The mutinous soldiers presented themselves, drawn up in the
streets before the State House, where Congress had assembled.
The executive council of the State, sitting under the same roof,
was called upon for the proper interposition [to get rid of the
soldiers]. President Dickerson came in [to the Hall of
Congress], and explained the difficulty, under actual
circumstances, of bringing out the [State] militia of the place
for the suppression of the mutiny. He thought that, without some
outrages on persons or property, the militia could not be relied
on [to get rid of the mutineers]. General St. Clair, then in
Philadelphia, was sent for, and desired to use his
interposition, in order to prevail on the troops to return to
the barracks. His report gave no encouragement...
"In the meantime, the soldiers remained in their position,
without offering any violence, individuals only, occasionally
uttering offensive words, and wantonly pointing their muskets to
the windows of the Hall of Congress. No danger from premeditated
violence was apprehended, but it was observed that spirituous
drink, from the tippling-houses adjoining, began to be liberally
served out to the soldiers, and might lead to hasty excesses.
None were committed, however, and about three o'clock, the usual
hour, Congress adjourned; the soldiers, though in some instances
offering a mock obstruction, permitting the members to pass
through their ranks. They soon afterwards retired themselves to
the barracks. ...
"The [subsequent] conference with the executive [of
Pennsylvania] producing nothing but a repetition of doubts
concerning the disposition of the militia to act unless outrage
were offered to persons or property. It was even doubted whether
a repetition of the insult to Congress would be sufficient
provocation. During the deliberations of the executive, and the
suspense of the committee, reports from the barracks were in
constant vibration. At one moment, the mutineers were penitent
and preparing submissions; the next, they were meditating more
violent measures. Sometimes, the bank was their object; then the
seizure of the members of Congress, with whom they imagined an
indemnity for their offense might be stipulated."
- Elliot, 5 MADISON PAPERS CONTAINING DEBATES ON THE
CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION, at pages 92 et seq. [Washington,
D.C. (1845)].
The harassment by the soldiers which had begun on June 20
continued across four days until June 24, 1783. On this date,
the members of Congress now abandoned any hope that the State of
Pennsylvania might disperse the soldiers, so the Congress
removed itself from Philadelphia. General George Washington had
learned of the uprising only on the same date at his
headquarters at Newburgh, and reacting promptly, he dispatched a
large contingent of his whole force to suppress this "infamous
and outrageous Mutiny"; see 27 WRITINGS OF WASHINGTON, at page
32 [George Washington Bicentennial Commission, GPO (1938)]. But
the news of his intended response arrived too late, as the
Congress had by now packed their bags and left for Princeton,
and traveled thereafter to Trenton, Annapolis, and New York
City. There was not any repetition of the circumstances
preceding the decision by Congress to leave Philadelphia,
however, this incident was never forgotten by the Congress. A
few months later on October 7, 1783, the Congress while meeting
in Princeton adopted the following Resolution:
"That building for the use of Congress be erected on or near
the banks of the Delaware, provided a suitable district can be
procured on or near the banks of said river, for a federal town;
and that the right of soil, and an exclusive or such other
jurisdiction as Congress may direct, shall be vested in the
United States."
- 8 JOURNALS OF CONGRESS, at 295.
Those mutineers contributed strongly to the feeling in Congress
that the United States needed its own geographical district,
exercising its own exclusive jurisdiction over it, and so when
it acquired the District of Columbia, the Congress made sure
that there were no lingering vestiges of State Sovereignty left
to surface again under possibly unpleasant circumstances. George
Mason of Virginia expressed his sentiments in July of 1878 that
the new seat of the Federal Government, where ever that may
eventually be, not be `in the city or place at which the seat of
any State Government might be fixed,' because the establishment
of the seat of Government in a State Capital would tend `to
produce disputes concerning jurisdiction' and because the
commingling of the two jurisdictions would tend to give `a
provincial tincture' to the important national deliberations
[see Jonathan Elliot, Editor, in 5 MADISON PAPERS CONCERNING
DEBATES ON THE CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION, at page 374].
Down to the present day, just what legislative jurisdiction the
Congress does have in criminal matters is disputed; no doubt it
can very much exercise criminal jurisdiction over all crimes so
listed in the Constitution, and for all crimes that take place
on land owned by the King. But where a crime has taken place in
a building on leased land not owned by the King, the Congress
probably does not have criminal jurisdiction, and must yield to
the States for the administration of a spanking [but the
criminal Defendant has to demand it; jurisdiction originates out
of the barrel of a gun, and the King is not about to be a nice
guy and just simply turn around and walk away from exercising
recourse against an exhibition of defiance in his leased office
spaces he provides to his termites]. Necessarily so when twin
separate and distinct Juristic Institutions are making
assertions of jurisdiction over the same geographical districts,
tensions and frictions surface as the jurisdiction of one is
slightly limited, and the jurisdiction of the other is
specifically limited, and one is reaching outside of its
appropriate contours. In 1954 an extensive study of the area of
Federal-State jurisdiction was studied by an Inter-Departmental
Committee under the supervision of imp Herbert Brownell, United
States Attorney General. Discussing in detail the legal
relationship of the States to Federal Enclaves, the acquisition
of legislative jurisdiction (by consent, by the Constitution, or
on Federal Lands), Criminal Jurisdiction, and operations of
State and Federal Jurisdiction over Residents without and within
Federal Enclaves and other Federal Lands, the report gives a
good profiling glimpse into the limited nature of Federal
legislative jurisdiction. See REPORT ON THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL
COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS
WITHIN THE STATES [GPO, Washington (April and June, 1956)].
60 Remember the operation of the twin combination of the
SPECIFICITY DOCTRINE and the LACHES DOCTRINE as they blend
together in a confluence to form the wider MERGER DOCTRINE:
That the most recently executed contract addendum applies first
(the first being MERGED with the last), and the most SPECIFIC
contract wording also applies first (the most general being
MERGED into the most specific).
61 In other words, plead that the implied appearance of
Admiralty and Equity in the AFTER TEN Amendments does not
operate with derogation on your rights, by virtue of your
previous successful decontamination away from that King's Equity
Jurisdiction due to the absence of any QUID PRO QUO equivalence
proprietary to Admiralty having been accepted.
62 WILLIAM TRUAX VS. MIKE RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, at 40 (1915).
63 The proposal appears in HEARINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE STUDY OF PRESIDENTIAL INABILITY OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 85th Congress, First Session, Serial
No. 3, at pages 7 and 8 (1957). For a good intellectual
flavoring of Gremlin Herbert Brownell, see his views on that
utterly obnoxious Fourth Amendment in THE PUBLIC SECURITY AND
WIRE TAPPING [39 Cornell Law Quarterly 195 (1954)]. When Herbert
Brownell was nominated to be the Attorney General of the United
States by Nelson Rockefeller, he was unaware of the fact that
the Office of Patents was under the Attorney General's Office
[see HERBERT BROWNELL, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL DESIGNATE in
"Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United
States Senate," 83rd Congress, First Session (GPO 1953)].
Herbert Brownell was on a mission for the Four Rockefeller
Brothers, so pesky little details like administrative competence
are unimportant. The next time you are in Washington, Mr. May,
stop by the WILLARD HOTEL on Pennsylvania Avenue on the east
side of the White House; in the WILLARD is a restaurant called
THE OCCIDENTAL. Hanging on the wall next to the coat room is a
photograph of little Gremlin Herbert Brownell; there is a
radiant mystique about that photograph that is different... as
if there was a Gremlin sparkle in his eyes... as if he was on
the threshold of pulling off something grand... something big...
something important.
64 Dallas was one of three cities where planning for the murder
was considered.
65 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 139, 88th Congress, Second Session
(1964).
66 Senator Birch Bayh held the Chair of the Senate SubCommittee
on Constitutional Amendments. See a Report authored by Birch
Bayh entitled PRESIDENTIAL INABILITY AND VACANCY IN THE OFFICE
OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, Senate Report Number 1382, 88th Congress,
Second Session (1964); this report includes many private views
on the ABSOLUTE DIRE EMERGENCY NEED for the 25th Amendment;
views expressed by Nelson Rockefeller's nominees.
67 Occasionally, headaches surfaced during the ROCKEFELLER
RATIFICATION OPERATION which Herbert Brownell coordinated. For
example, in 1965 a law review article appeared which caused the
Speaker of the Legislature of Arkansas to adjourn indefinitely
his State's ratification vote on the proposed 25th Amendment.
The article, entitled VICE-PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION: A CRITICISM
OF THE BAYH-CELLAR PLAN in 17 South Carolina Law Review 315
(1965) correctly noted that there was no big urgency for any new
Constitutional machinery to fill a Vice-Presidential vacancy
[but there very much was a big urgency on Nelson Rockefeller's
part]. Herbert Brownell quickly got the situation under control,
with the end result being that the State of Arkansas ratified
the 25th Amendment on November 11, 1965 [see THE TWENTY-FIFTH
AMENDMENT by John Feerick ["Ratification"], at page 111 [Fordham
University Press, New York (1976)].
68 Nelson's water boys have spoken very highly of the 25th
Amendment:
"As this Nation celebrates the two-hundredth anniversary of its
birth, we should take special note of one unique feature of our
great constitutional experiment. Unlike almost any other Western
democracy, the United States has never been faced with a serious
crisis in the line of succession to the office of its chief
executive and head of state. Our ability to avoid such a crisis
throughout much of our earlier history was, perhaps, largely a
matter of luck. Fortunately, we have never had to confront the
prospect of a double vacancy in the offices of both President
and Vice-President. Thus, one of two individuals specifically
designated by the voters as President and next-in-line served in
the office at all times."
- Senator Birch Bayh in the Forward to THE TWENTY-FIFTH
AMENDMENT by John Feerick [Fordham University Press, New York
(1976)].
Notice the selection of words that imp Birch Bayh uses:
EXPERIMENT, DEMOCRACY and LUCK. Down to the present day in 1985,
had Nelson Rockefeller not used his recurring accessory
instruments of murder and kidnappings to help him accomplish his
political objectives, the "serious crisis" of dual vacancies his
water boy Birch Bayh refers to would never have occurred in the
first place; as fundamental Gremlin MODUS OPERANDI always calls
for having just the right medicine to remedy ailments they
themselves create.
69 At a strategy meeting held in 1973 in Nelson's Washington
offices at 2500 Foxhall Road, Nelson reiterated that he wanted
Spiro to go first, before the final siege was laid on Richard
Nixon.
70 Staying on top of an impending Presidential grab that was in
the air, Senator Birch Bayh's SubCommittee issued on an informal
Report on the history of the 25th Amendment entitled REVIEW OF
THE HISTORY OF THE 25TH AMENDMENT, 93rd Congress, First Session,
Senate Document #93-42 "Report of the SubCommittee on
Constitutional Amendments to the Committee on the Judiciary"
[GPO, October, 1973].
71 Subpoenas were issued by the IRS to try and find something to
get the goods on him. See the NEW YORK TIMES ["Tax Agents
Compile Data on Net Worth of Agnew"], page 1 (October 7, 1973).
72 Susan Agnew received kidnapping threats against her while
traveling in Brazil [see the NEW YORK TIMES ["Agnew's Daughter
Quits Brazil After Report of Threat"], page 22 (August 30,
1973]. In that same article, reassurances were quickly presented
that there was nothing to be concerned about, as those
impressive Brazilian Federal Police, who must know everything,
were quoted as denying the threat existed:
"There was never any threat against her physical security,
including kidnapping..."
- NEW YORK TIMES, id., at page 22.
The following day, Brazilian Army Intelligence sources were
quoted as saying that they were familiar with the threats, and
spoke knowledgeably about the terrorist group who had been
making kidnapping preparations [see the NEW YORK TIMES ["Miss
Agnew Did Get Threat, Aide Says"], page 6 (August 30, 1973)].
With those threats in mind, Spiro Agnew brought Susan home to
the United States quickly. Whether or not Susan Agnew was
eventually kidnapped here in the United States as an inducement
to her father to resign and get out of Washington is an unknown
event Nelson Rockefeller would have more than loved to have
pulled off. For all of the people Nelson and David Rockefeller
have murdered, killed, mangled, distorted, mutilated, and
tortured -- a playful little political kidnapping is the least
that Nelson would have concerned himself with. The day Spiro
resigned the Vice-Presidency, Susan Agnew was reported being at
home in the Agnew residence [see the NEW YORK TIMES ["Shades
Drawn at the Agnew's $190,000 Suburban Maryland Home"], page 33
(October 11, 1973)]. As is usual, the NEW YORK TIMES is playing
cutesy by directing attention to economic values on irrelevant
matters -- it was just as important for me to know the resale
value of their home as it is for me to need know what color the
Agnew's mailbox is. Gremlin journalists.
73 See "Rockefeller Said To Be Available" in the NEW YORK TIMES,
page 33, October 11, 1973].
74 A Gremlin once scratched the following ideas into his
personal diary:
"For him alone, winter seems to have arrived. He is being
secretly undermined and is already completely isolated. He is
anxiously looking for collaborators. Our mice are busily at
work, gnawing through the last supports of his position."
Those words could have been written about the final days of
Richard Nixon, but they were not; they were written by Paul
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, during another
Rockefeller grab for power from another era, 12 days before
Chancellor Brunning was forced to resign on May 30, 1932. Franz
von Papen was appointed to replace Brunning, and President von
Hindenberg appointed Hitler to replace Papen on January 30,
1933. What Hitler did was to take advantage of a key weakness in
the Weimar Republic Constitution that allowed for appointed
executives, which created an open window for Gremlins to slip
into office though, without the irritation and nuisance of an
infeasible election. Young Nelson Rockefeller had recommended
Hitler to his dad, John Rockefeller, Jr. in 1930 as an ideal man
to be used for their purposes; Nelson had studied Hitler very
closely and admired many of Hitler's traits, and so when Hitler
had finally succeeded in acquiring his power and kingdom without
the nuisance of an election, Nelson quietly vowed to himself
that he, too, would someday have his own appointment Amendment
in the United States.
75 After Nelson had grabbed the Vice-Presidency, many people in
Washington finally OPENED THEIR EYES and realized that it was
the Presidency all along that Nelson had wanted; and so a
proposal was introduced into the United States Senate to modify
Section 2 of the 25th Amendment [now that the real intent was
visible]. This proposal would have changed Section 2 so that
when an unelected Vice-President comes into the Presidency by
way of appointment, and if there is more than one year remaining
in the Presidential term, then a special national election would
have to be held for the President and Vice-President to go
through -- thus negating the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE BY APPOINTMENT
grab the 25th Amendment was designed to create. See EXAMINATION
OF THE FIRST IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION TWO OF THE 25TH
AMENDMENT, in Hearings before the 94th Congress, First Session
(discussing Senate Joint Resolution 26); [GPO, 1975].
Unfortunately, Senator Birch Bayh still held the Chair of the
SubCommittee on Constitutional Amendments, so the proposal died
a quiet sandbagging.
76 For a while, a vindictive Richard Nixon spoke to Gerald Ford
almost daily on the telephone, encouraging Ford not to resign.
77 In a sense, Richard Nixon was smart by appointing Gerald Ford
President instead of Nelson Rockefeller to replace Spiro Agnew:
Because having Nelson Rockefeller behind you as Vice-President
is a good way to get yourself killed. Incidentally, Richard
Nixon is quite familiar with the plans by the Rockefeller
Brothers arranging to have Jack Kennedy murdered in Dallas;
trying to keep the lid on that BAY OF PIGS that was talked about
constantly in the Watergate Tapes was the Kennedy Assassination.
H.R. Haldeman discusses how the BAY OF PIGS was the Kennedy
Assassination; see THE ENDS OF POWER by H.R. Haldeman, at page
38 et seq. [New York Times Books, New York (1978)]. Many folks
are a bit defensive about poor Richard Nixon, the way he was
hounded out of office by all those barking dogs in the news
media and all that... But how much sympathy should you give to a
President who spent a considerable amount of time, while in
Office, sequestering the conspiracy to murder a previous
President -- a conspiracy that would expose not only his own
sponsors, but himself as well? I would like to hear someone try
and stick up for Richard Nixon with that in mind. Those who
studied Richard Nixon in those days were puzzled in relating to
his extreme motives in so tightly controlling every single
little thing in the cover-up process, up and down the line.
Numerous commentators stated that some political dirty trick
does not justify such protracted and intense cover-up
supervision; nor does it justify E. Howard Hunt's demand for $2
million in bribe money to keep quiet about the BAY OF PIGS. That
is correct, some burglary that was already publicly out in the
open does not justify all that: But the murder of an American
President does. Yes, Richard Nixon's mind was fixated on his own
involvement in a murder, not someone else's burglary.
78 The direct election of United States Senators by the 17th
Amendment is a political enigma; here the States gave up an
important source of power in the Congress for no reciprocating
beneficial reason -- but Gremlins had a reason -- more direct
control of the Congress, and bringing the United States down one
more step lower to a degenerate Democracy status where
Majoritarianism rules. And for similar reasons, in 1953, the
Congress was again tempted by Gremlins -- trying to rid the
United States of the Electoral College, and structure a direct
Presidential popular vote (A LA democracies) when then allows
for tighter Gremlin control [see ABOLITION OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE
-- DIRECT ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT in "Hearings
Before a SubCommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the
United States Senate," 83rd Congress, First Session, discussing
Senate Joint Resolutions 17, 19, 55, 84, 85, 95, 100 (June,
July, August, 1953)]. Rockefeller Cartel nominee Senator Estes
Kefauver urged the dismantling of the Electoral College [id., at
page 14].
Even seemingly politically disinterested people have offered
their two bits in support of abolishing the ELECTORAL COLLEGE:
"...I have come before you today with one simple statement.
This Republic could find itself in grave danger because of a
fatal weakness in the process by which it elects our President."
- Author James Michener in a Congressional Hearing DIRECT
POPULAR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, SubCommittee on the Constitution, Committee on
the Judiciary, United States Senate, 96th Congress, First
Session, Senate Joint Resolution 28 (March, April, 1979).
James Michener cited some research he did into the Presidential
elections of 1872 and 1968 as justification for his
over-dramatization of the effects of retaining the ELECTORAL
COLLEGE as he declared that the collapse of the Federal
Government was a certainty -- but never in this Hearing did
author James Michener ever cite the Founding Fathers or explain
why they incorporated such a juristic device in the first place.
Like the MODUS OPERANDI of Gremlins on a mission, to James
Michener the past is irrelevant.
Socialists have gotten into the attack on the ELECTORAL COLLEGE;
see Aaron Wildavsky in THE PLEBISCITARY PRESIDENCY: DIRECT
ELECTION AS CLASS LEGISLATION in 2 Commentaries (Winter, 1979).
For a glimpse into what one of the Founders had to say about the
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, see Donald Dewey in MADISON'S VIEWS ON
ELECTORAL REFORM in Western Political Science Quarterly, at page
140 (March, 1962).
79 There was also internal Cartel division now working against
Nelson's final power play in December of 1976, as numerous
associates of Nelson issued advisories discouraging him from
using this Presidential acquisition device; some of Nelson's
strongest former supporters in the Cartel now no longer trusted
Nelson's judgment explicitly like they had done so in the past,
after the Four Brothers seriously bungled their handling of a
Russian double cross in the Summer of 1976.
80 Henry Kissinger's murder of Nelson Rockefeller, a friend
since 1955, through a college educated hit man in his 50's, was
a power play that Henry thought he would succeed at; a grand
power play Henry reasoned that the success of which would be
probable, since surviving Rockefeller Family members should
likely expect to have Henry fill the vacuum of power that would
follow in Nelson's absence -- at least, that was the reasoning
Henry was operating under. But Henry was also operating under
the attractive primary inducement of Rothschild prompting,
intelligence guidance, and background support in this murder --
people SEEMINGLY above double cross. But Henry ran out of time
before he succeeded in consolidating his gains -- the promised
Rothschild post-murder background support never materialized
when Henry needed it most on that Monday evening, February 5,
1979.
81 The phrase WELL-OILED means that plans generally go on
smoothly to completion without too much friction or
distractions; the players possessing the magic of a MIDAS TOUCH.
82 Like a large volume of American historians, these 25th
Amendment commentators do not write factually accurate
information, as the mere omission of the dominate roles played
by Nelson Rockefeller and his associates in the sponsorship of
the 25th Amendment -- such a factual deficiency, IPSO FACTO,
nullifies the veracity of the remaining limited information that
is presented. See:
- Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., ON THE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION,
89 Political Science Quarterly 475 (Fall, 1974);
- John D. Freerick, THE PROPOSED 25TH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, Fordham Law Review (December, 1965);
- John D. Freerick, THE VICE-PRESIDENCY AND THE PROBLEMS OF
PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION AND INABILITY, 32 Fordham Law Review 457
(1964).
83 The way to pierce through all distraction arguments and get
to the very bottom of Gremlin intrigue is not to search the
present record for Gremlin sponsorship, which is often invisible
at first, but rather to search the past record for similar acts
that Gremlins sponsored, because time has a way of unravelling
details that were once secret. The reason why examining the past
as a strong testing methodology for determining Gremlin
participation in the present setting is because Gremlins find it
unnecessary to change, alter, amend, or modify their MODUS
OPERANDI from one successful conquest to the next, as they go
about their work trying to run one civilization into the ground
after another. And so as we turn around and examine the past, we
very much find Gremlin intrigue in Russia starting in the
pre-Revolutionary days of 1914, as the Gremlins were highly
active in "liberating" or "emancipating" downtrodden women. For
743 documentary pages of political intrigue carried on by
Gremlins in Russia working to "liberate" women from the clutches
of some fictional and non-existent adversary, see the doctorate
dissertation of Robert Drumm entitled THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY AND
THE ORGANIZATION AND EMANCIPATION OF WORKING WOMEN, 1914 TO
1921; OR A HISTORY OF THE PETROGRAD EXPERIMENT [Columbia
University (1977)] (Order Thesis Number 77-24,326 from
University Microfilms in Ann Arbor, Michigan).
84 It is in the nature of people that once they have made a
decision about something, folks often rearrange their logic to
justify the end conclusion, ignoring divergent peripheral
factual elements that make their unwanted appearance at random
occurrences; just like folks will also enhance in their minds
the worth of something they believe that either they or someone
else has paid a price for, while ignoring conflicting factual
items that would derogate the worth. See Leon Festinger in A
THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE [Row, Peterson Publishers,
Evanston, Illinois (1957)] and Hal Arkes and John Garske in
PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF MOTIVATION [Brooks/Cole Publishing,
Monterey, California (1982)].
..Both behavioral operants are unfavorable intellectual habits
that should not be allowed a domiciliary presence in our minds;
it is difficult enough to acquire an enlarged basis of factual
knowledge to exercise judgment on, and so tossing aside
uncomfortable factual irritants is improvident.
85 Up until 1971, there had been some form of an equal feminine
rights amendment introduced into each Congress since 1923. After
the ERA lost its ratification journey through the states the
first time around, the Congress held new Hearings on the
amendment to reexamine the likely impact of the ERA on the
United States. For 1,900 pages of discussions on the
contemplated impact, see HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES SENATE, 98th Congress, First and Second Sessions (from
May, 1983 to May, 1984). For all of the 1,900 pages of
distraction arguments presented to the Congress, none of the
discussions focused in on Gremlin maneuverings with women's
rights movements in other political jurisdictions around the
world that have already gone to the dogs.
86 "From the fact that people are very different it follows
that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in
their actual position, and that the only want to place them in
an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality
before the law and material equality are therefore not only
different but are in conflict with each other; and we can
achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same
time."
- F.A. Hayek in THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, as quoted by Joan
Kennedy Taylor in 7 Libertarian Review 30, at 33 (December,
1978).
Author F.A. Hayek belongs to the Austrian School of Economics,
which propagates reasoning in favor of pure LAISSEZ-FAIRE.
87 Even the organic flourishment of dynastic families is
contoured around the Law, a statement that I am sure would be
shocking to Nelson and David Rockefeller. See LAW IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF DYNASTIC FAMILIES AMONG AMERICAN BUSINESS ELITES:
THE DOMESTICATION OF CAPITAL AND THE CAPITALIZATION OF FAMILY,
by George Marcus, 14 Law and Society Review 859 (1980).
88 "The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions
to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in
the capacity for long-continued labor, particularly when done
standing, the influence vigorous health upon the future
well-being of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to
assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle
for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in
legislation and upholds that which is designed to compensate for
some of the burdens which rest upon her."
- MULLER VS. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, at 422 (1907).
89 "...history discloses the fact that women have always been
dependent upon man. He established his control at the outset by
superior physical strength, and this control in various forms,
with diminishing intensity, has continued to the present. As
minors, though not to the same extent, she has been looked upon
in the courts as needing special care that her rights may be
preserved... Though limitations upon personal and contractual
rights may be removed by legislation, there is that in her
disposition and habits of life which will operate against a full
assertion of those rights... Differentiated by these matters
from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by
herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be
sustained, even when like legislation is not necessarily for
men, and could not be sustained."
- MULLER VS. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, at 421 (1907).
90 "A doctrinaire equality, then, is the theme of the [Equal
Rights] Amendment. And so women must be admitted to West Point
on a parity with men; women must be conscripted for military
service equally with men... girls must be eligible for the same
athletic teams as boys in the public schools and state
universities; Boston Boys' Latin School and Girls' Latin School
must merge (not simply be brought into parity); life insurance
commissioners may not continue to approve lower life insurance
premiums for women (based on greater life expectancy) -- all by
command of the Federal Constitution."
- Paul Freund of Harvard University in HEARINGS BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEE #4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, page 611, 92nd Congress, First Session
[Discussing House Joint Resolutions 35 and 208 "The ERA"] (March
and April, 1971).
91 One classic example can be found in footnote 6 to NEW MOTOR
VEHICLE BOARD VS. ORRIN FOX, which gives history to the
California Automobile Franchise Act. In that Case, the Supreme
Court reviewed a grab of the use of the police powers of the
State of California -- by automobile dealers of all people -- to
create a shared Commercial enrichment monopoly for themselves to
feast on, through the use of penal statutes. We are told that:
"Disparity in bargaining power between automobile manufacturers
and their dealers prompted some 25 states to enact legislation
to protect retail car dealers from perceived abusive and
oppressive acts by the manufacturers... Among its other
safeguards, the Act protects the equities of existing dealers by
prohibiting manufacturers from adding dealerships to the market
areas of its existing franchisees where the effect such
intrabrand competition would be injurious to the existing
franchisees and to the public interest."
- NEW MOTOR BOARD VS. ORRIN FOX, 439 U.S. 96, at 101 (1978).
Yes, if you would believe those poor little downtrodden
California car dealers, why those evil and utterly heinous
manufacturing vultures are just trampling all other their
rights; whereas talking about vultures -- those car dealers
should be the VERY LAST ONES to talk. Appropriate medicine for
the automobile dealers would be to pull their thumbs out of
their mouths, get rid of their corporate diapers, and have them
start taking some responsibility for the contracts they enter
into, and stop thinking in their typical enscrewment terms of
how everything has always GOTTA BE THEIR WAY (in a business
sense, that is great if they can get away with it). When
negotiating with a car manufacturer refusing to give them an
exclusive geographically assigned marketing district, then the
car dealer should go negotiate with some other manufacturer; but
car dealers want the Franchise itself much more than they want
something derivative like protected marketing districts (which
is only of secondary importance); so as usual, car dealers seek
to excuse their own weakness and mistakes by calling on the guns
and cages of the State to pick up their loose ends and throw
Torts at car manufacturers [and denying manufacturers the
ability to offer their Franchises with two prices: One with a
protected district and one without -- is a Tort against the
manufacturer]. If assigned and protected geographical districts
were really all that important, prospective car dealers faced
with such unfeasible proposed contract terms could simply turn
around and go negotiate with some other manufacturer, even
foreign manufacturers; thus leaving the uncompromising
manufacturers with the decision to either assign exclusive
districts, or in the alternative, face the consequences of not
signing up any dealers. Who else is being damaged by politically
restricting the geographical placement of car dealers? The car
buying public is -- as a reduction in the number of automobile
dealers can do absolutely nothing but constrict retail
competition and raise prices.
92 RHETORIC is the artificial elegance of language.
93 Whenever Principles are violated, secondary damages follow
later on its wake -- but the surfacing of the secondary damages
later on is so subtle as to render the true causal point of
origin almost invisible. For example, let's say you are E.
Howard Hunt, a career CRACKER for the CIA. Having finished your
mission on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, having
put in your honest days' labor by helping to murder Jack
Kennedy, under the cover of being a railroad bum (an awfully
clean looking bum), you turn around and leave the ambush scene.
WELL, THAT WAS BUSINESS.
..Now it is nine years later, and now there has been another
murder, but this time things are different. This time a chill
travels up one side of your spine and down the other; this time
things are unpleasant; this time the victim is your wife,
Dorothy Hunt. On Friday, December 8, 1972, some 200 Federal
Agents from the Chicago offices of the FBI and DEA had travelled
out to Midway Airport, in advance, to wait for a United Airlines
Flight #553 to crash that afternoon; and they had brought with
themselves machine guns and special orders from Washington. The
plane had been rigged to self-generate an electrical blackout on
arrival by having the bus bar stripped down and replaced with a
filament that would break on flight descent; and the air traffic
controllers were also standing by, ready to manufacture a crash
-- some of the most inhumane circumstances imaginable. On that
flight was your wife, Dorothy, carrying $2 million in bribe
money from CREP (Committee to Re-Elect the President); Dorothy
had been sitting next to a sharp CBS newswoman, Michele Clark
[as sharp as journalists go], and had been spilling the beans.
When the firetrucks and ambulances arrived on the crash site,
the jet (which had demolished a house), had already been
cordoned off by a small army of Federal Agents, and while pleas
and wailings for help by trapped passengers inside the jet could
be heard at a distance by emergency personnel, Federal Agents
brandishing machine guns physically restrained any help from
reaching the jet. The local rescue squads were shocked at what
they saw, but the Federal Agents were on a mission: To make
sure that Dorothy Hunt and the CBS Newswoman she was talking to,
as well as other troublesome people who were conveniently on
board that were irritating to Attorney General John Mitchell,
were thoroughly incinerated.
..Now let's say that you were E. Howard Hunt. QUESTION: How
would you have known that helping out the Four Rockefeller
Brothers to murder Jack Kennedy in 1963 would directly lead to
the murder of your own wife nine years later, as your supporting
role in one Rockefeller PRESIDENTIAL REMOVAL OPERATION
organically grew into another? ANSWER: You would not have
known -- secondary consequences are inherently latent and
difficult to see. So when invisible PRINCIPLES OF NATURE are
violated [Would a CRACKER like E. Howard Hunt bother to concern
himself with PRINCIPLES?], damages to yourself will always
surface at a later time, with the true seminal point of
causality also remaining largely invisible. And as we change
settings, PRINCIPLES OF NATURE never change; and the forced
commingling of genders that the ERA will originate will in fact
generate damages later on, with the true seminal source of the
damages remaining largely obscured. If the ERA does promote
PRINCIPLES OF NATURE when forcing improvident inter-gender
commingling, then could someone please explain to me where it
does so.
94 "The first eleven Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States were intended as checks or limitations on the
Federal Government and had their origin in a spirit of jealousy
on the part of the States. This jealousy was largely due to the
fear that the Federal Government might become too strong and
centralized unless restrictions were imposed upon it. The
[Civil] War Amendments marked a new departure and a new epoch in
the constitutional history of the country, since they trench
directly upon the powers of the States, being in this respect
just the opposite of the early Amendments."
- Horace Flack in THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, at
8 [John Hopkins Press, Baltimore (1908)].
95 The coordinated selected presence of Union and Confederate
Troops in the South after the Civil War to deal with the New
York City sponsored Carpetbaggers is something else.
96 The 26th Amendment under the incentive of light financial
pressure by a Supreme Court ruling, sailed through the States in
a few weeks.
97 "It is a wholesome sight to see `the Crown' sued and
answering for its torts."
- Maitland in 3 COLLECTED PAPERS, at 263 [quoted by Harold Last
in THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE IN ENGLAND, 32 Harvard Law
Review 447, at 470 (1919)].
98 For a commentary on Maritime having an international flair to
it, see the remarks of Gremlin Lord Mansfield, in 35 TULANE LAW
REVIEW, at pages 116 to 118 (1960).
99 THE WEST MAID, 257 U.S. 419, at 432 (1921).
100 "But in the Admiralty, as we have said, there are no
technical rules of variance or deception. The court decrees upon
the whole matter before it..."
- DUPONT VS. VANCE, 60 U.S. 162, at 173 (1856).
101 "The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration
of government is to secure the existence of the body politic, to
protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with
the [benefit] of enjoying in safety and tranquility their
natural rights. ... The body politic is formed by a voluntary
association of individuals; it is a social compact [contract],
by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each
citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by
certain laws for the common good."
- The Preamble of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, F.N.
Thrope, editor, III THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS,
COLONIAL CHARTERS, AND OTHER ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
at pages 1888, et seq. (GPO, Washington, 1907), 7 volumes.
102 The PUBLIC TRUST is cited by judges as justification to
throw penal LEX at folks where there is no Tort indicia of MENS
REA or CORPUS DELECTI damages present in the factual setting,
and neither is there any specific contract that can be cited.
For example, growing a Marijuana plant in your backyard, or
gambling in your basement, offers no contractual infraction, no
MENS REA, and no CORPUS DELECTI damages anywhere; and the
incarceration of Individuals under such a factual setting is an
operation of MAJORITARIANISM to the extreme, and is supposed to
be forbidden under the Constitution's REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT CLAUSE. Question: How do judges, who know all of
that, circumvent the positive restrainments in the REPUBLICAN
CLAUSE? The answer is best explained by way of analogy:
"The State, on the other hand, has a substantial interest in
protecting its citizens from the kind of abuse which [this Case
is about]. ...our decisions permitting the exercise of state
jurisdiction in tort actions based on violence or defamation
have not rested on the history of the tort at issue [which falls
clearly under Tort Law principles], but rather on the nature of
the State's interest in protecting the health and well being of
its citizens [which is an operation of indirect third party
contract]."
- FARMER VS. CARPENTERS, 430 U.S. 290, at 302 (1976).
Since the turning point in FARMER was the allowance of State
jurisdiction to intervene where only some prospective or
indirect damages existed to its Citizens under protective
contract, then the criminalization of innocuous relationships
that folks have with plants in their backyards and with policy
slips in their basements is similar predicated on the interest
of the State in protecting the health and well being of its
Citizens from prospective or indirect damages -- and the fact
that the State itself is unnecessarily creating damages where
there were none before, is a question not relevant to the
factual setting addressed. In this way, coming to grips with the
direct question of identifying either hard damages or a contract
is avoided, and is replaced by the Judiciary with the indirect
milktoast question of possible prospective damages to Citizens
[who are being protected under contract], by third parties. In
this slick way, a violation of the PUBLIC TRUST is referred to
as incarceration justification -- but as is usual, it is an
invisible contract that is to be found lying at the bottom of
this circumvention of the Principles behind the REPUBLICAN
CLAUSE. However, as surprising as it may sound, Government is
not being placed in any special or privileged status here by the
Judicature of the United States, as factually innocent third
parties (like gamblers and Marijuana growers) are damaged via
incarceration. In 17 Harvard Law Review at 171 (1903), there
lies an article by James Ames entitled SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FOR
AND AGAINST STRANGERS TO THE CONTRACT, wherein he discusses how
third parties, interfering (or seeming to interfere) with the
Commercial contract administration of others can be hauled into
a Court and have an Injunction thrown at them -- then
incarceration follows for continued disobedience. So the right
of your regional Prince to throw penal LEX at you without any IN
PERSONAM contract in effect and no Tort indicia damages, is no
different from the recourse available to non-juristic Persons to
throw their contract irritants into jail via a CONTEMPT
CITATION. As is usual, it is ultimately a contract lying at the
bottom of all of this.
103 The low profile background involvement of the RADICAL
REPUBLICANS in working the 14th Amendment through the Congress
is discussed in an article by Daniel Farber, entitled THE
IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, 1 Constitutional
Commentary 235 (1984).
104 Many times groups of people that hold special interest make
their descent on Congress; some are under cover on missions for
Gremlins, while others have the best of intentions. For example,
one such group with the best of intentions surfaced in 1954 by
proposing an amendment to the Constitution recognizing the
authority, dominion, and laws of Jesus Christ. Citing Supreme
Court rulings declaring that the United States was a Christian
Republic, and other legal commentators like Kent, an impressive
statement was made that irritated Jewish spokesmen [see HEARINGS
BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE, 83rd Congress, Second Session, discussing
Senate Joint Resolution 87 (May 13 and 17, 1954)]. However well
meaning those folks were, the enactment of such a Constitutional
amendment would have the Federal Government assume the role of
Tortfeasor on PERSONS antagonistic to Jesus Christ. So the
placement of that proposed Christian Amendment on to a Juristic
Institution's Charter, may have been improvident -- at that time.
105 Another legal definition of WAIVER is that a WAIVER is an
intentional relinquishment of a known right. So, naturally, one
who waives must intend to do so and must know of the existence
of the right which he gives up. See generally INSURANCE -- THE
DOCTRINES OF WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL in 25 Georgetown Law Journal
437 (1937).
106 Yes, the Law does operate out in the practical setting -- it
is out there where liability attaches, and it will also be found
out where liability detaches, and not on paper as many Tax
Protesters would like you to believe; our Father's Law is not
predicated upon the existence on recent technological
innovations like INK AND PAPER. For example, Marriage Covenants
entered into before a judge -- signed, sealed, delivered, and
possessing all of those correlative requisite legal indicia that
characterize a juristic Civil Law Marriage mean absolutely
nothing if the Marriage Covenant did not physically start by
reason of cohabitation out in the practical setting. Common Law
does not recognize the merely contractual marriage that took
place SEEMINGLY by acknowledgement in front of a judge, but also
requires cohabitation as a key indicia to deem the Marriage
valid. Therefore, in MILFORD VS. WORCESTER [7 Massachusetts 48
(1810)], the wife was deemed not married. The WORCESTER Court
relied in turn on an English case written by Lord Mansfield in
MORRIS VS. MILLER [4 Burr. 2059] stating that acknowledgement,
cohabitation, and reputation are all key indicia to determine a
Marriage's validity. [See generally, Stuart Stein in COMMON LAW
MARRIAGES, 9 Journal of Family Law 271 (1969)].
107 In the context of a discussion as to whether or not state
revenue jurisdiction attached to a corporation, consider the
following words:
"...the simple but controlling question is whether or not the
state has given anything for which it can ask return."
- COLONIAL PIPELINE VS. TRIAIGLE, 42 U.S. 100, at 109 (1974).
108 And as the QUID PRO QUO of taxation reciprocity expectations
are being held binding because benefits were previously
accepted, is applied to the King, so too does this QUID PRO QUO
also apply to the several regional Princes:
"Accordingly, decisions of this Court, particularly during
recent decades, have sustained non-discriminatory... state
corporate taxes... upon foreign corporations... when the tax is
related to a corporation's local activities and the State has
provided benefits and protections for which it is justified in
asking a fair and reasonable return."
- COLONIAL PIPELINE VS. TRIAIGLE, 421 U.S. 100, at 108 (1974).
109 When discussing the attachment of liability to taxation
statutes, the Supreme Court has very simple rules:
"The question is whether... [General Motors accepted]
consequent employment of the opportunities and protections that
the State has afforded. ... The simple but controlling
[taxation] question is whether the state has given anything for
which it can ask return."
- GENERAL MOTORS VS. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, 377 U.S. 441
(1963).
And when the record shows that benefits have been accepted, then
rightful liability does correctly attach, as reciprocity is
expected back in return and there lies a contract.
110 Therefore, contracts are in effect, right? The correct
answer is partly yes and partly no. This Social Security is a
hybrid. Although revenues extracted from the Countryside by the
King on this Rockefeller wealth redistribution scheme originate
under juristic contracts (or shall we say, justified by the
imposition of contracts), however, when it comes time for the
King to start to decide just where and when and to whom is he
going to redistribute the loot to, now all of a sudden the
contract is gone from the scene, and the political Tort question
of fairness enters into the scene; and the reason is because
Social Security does not conform with the contractual model of
an Insurance Annuity policy:
"The Social Security system may be accurately described as a
form of Social Insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to
"spend money in aid of the `general welfare'," Helvering vs.
Davis [301 U.S., at 640], whereby persons gainfully EMPLOYED,
and those persons who EMPLOY them, are taxed to permit the
payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their
dependents. Plainly the expectation is that many members of the
present productive workforce will in turn become beneficiaries
rather than supporters of the program. But each worker's
benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the
national economy while actively EMPLOYED, are not dependent on
the degree to which he was called up to support the system by
taxation. It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an
EMPLOYEE covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that
of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed
on his contractual premium payments."
- FLEMMING VS. NESTOR, 363 U.S. 603, at 609 (1960).
The reason why Social Security does not replicate an Insurance
Annuity in the classical sense is because, unlike Annuities,
Social Security has:
"...a clause reserving to it `[t]he right to alter, amend, or
repeal any provision' of the Act. [Title 42, Section 1304]"
- FLEMMING, id., at 611.
Annuity Policies do not have the right to pay out of the Annuity
whatever the Insurance Company now feels like paying; Insurance
Companies cannot just drop the payments to zero or to a low
level simply because they feel like it -- BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD
BUY THAT GAME -- but Congress does have this right to make
payout changes, because people who have paid into Social
Security over the years did so knowing [or should have known]
that their retirement benefits are indeterminate, that they have
no recourse to sue the Congress if they do not approve of the
payout level when they retire, and that the Congress retains the
right to pay out nothing [if that day should ever come when the
Congress feels like it]. And since Congress has the right to
change the terms of the Social Security payout rates at its sole
discretion, then payout schedules and the like [unlike Insurance
Annuity contracts where everything is agreed upon exactly and
set certain, up front], Federal Courts have been reluctant to:
"...engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of
`accrued property rights' [since that] would deprive it of the
flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing
conditions which it demands."
- FLEMMING, id., at 610.
Since people entering into a participatory relationship with
Social Security have no fixed, specific, or exactly known
expectation of what their level of benefits might be in the
future, Federal Courts have declined invitations to force the
issuance of such benefit payments, and have declined invitations
to declare that Social Security beneficiaries posses what Judges
call VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS in Social Security [if you have a
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT in something, you can force its surrender
over to you]. The payout question is, quite reasonably, a purely
POLITICAL QUESTION (as Federal Judges would call it), for the
Congress to decide. Yes, Judges did correctly characterize this
one as being POLITICAL.
111 Tontine Insurance has been analogized to contracts
constituting a wagering operation, and therefore forbidden under
the policy doctrine of gambling intolerance.
"In support of their contention that the DUAL-PAY policy does
not offend against public policy as a wagering contract,
respondent refers us to cases dealing with the Tontine or
Semi-Tontine Plan of Insurance. Under such plan no accumulation
of earnings are credited to the policy unless it remains in
force for the Tontine period of a specific number of years.
Thus, those who survive the period and keep their policies in
force share in the accumulated fund. Those who die or who permit
their policies to lapse during the period do not, neither do
their beneficiaries participate in such accumulation. ..."
"We have concluded that the MORTALITY ENDOWMENT provision of
the DUAL-PAY policy for the reasons herein stated, is a wagering
contract."
- COMMERCIAL TRAVELER'S INSURANCE COMPANY VS. CARLSON, 137
Pacific 2nd 656, at 660 (1943).
112 As you can feel, insurance programs based on the Tontine
Model are quite unfair and are actually degenerate, but coming
down Lucifer's chain of command from Rockefeller Cartel Gremlins
to their imp nominee Franklin D. Roosevelt like it did, and then
blossoming out into the open public amid FDR's insincere
orations, ceremonial pomp, and irritating little propositional
lies, we really shouldn't be too surprised. A great man once had
a few words to say about Principles, popularity, and political
opportunities:
"Men are often asked to express an opinion on a myriad of
Government proposals and projects. All too often, answers seem
to be based not upon solid Principles, but upon the popularity
of the specific Government program in question. Seldom are men
willing to oppose a popular program if they themselves wish to
be popular -- especially if they seek public office.
"Such an approach to vital political questions of the day can
only lead to public confusion and legislative chaos. Decisions
of this nature should be based upon and measured against certain
basic Principles regarding the proper role of Government. If
Principles are correct, then they can be applied to any specific
proposal with confidence.
"Unlike the political opportunist, the true Statesman values
Principles above popularity and works to create popularity for
those political Principles which are wise and just.
"It is generally agreed that the most important single function
of Government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual
Citizens. But, what are those rights? And what is their source?
Until these questions are answered, there is little likelihood
that we can correctly determine how Government can best secure
them.
"Let us first consider the origin of these freedoms we have
come to know as human rights. Rights are either God-given as
part of the divine plan or they are granted by Government as
part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition, and
religious convictions all lead me to accept the Divine origin of
these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are
granted by Government, then we must accept the corollary that
they can be denied by Government. ...
"We should recognize that Government is no plaything. It is an
instrument of force; and unless our conscience is clear that we
would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail, or
forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given
law, we should oppose the law. ...
"Once Government steps over this clear line between the
protective or negative role into the aggressive role of
redistributing the wealth through taxation and providing
so-called "benefits" for some of the Citizens, it becomes a
means for legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited
power that is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals
and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to
fatten his own pockets or to benefit his favorite charity, all
with the other fellow's money, of course. Each class or special
interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of
Government power in its favor, or at least to immunize itself
against the effect of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum
wage. Agriculture gets a price support. Some consumers demand
price controls. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and
everyone suffers the burden of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss
of personal freedoms. With each group out to get its share of
the spoils, such Governments historically have mushroomed into
total welfare states. Once the process begins, once the
Principle of the protective function of Government gives way to
the aggressive or redistributive function, then forces are set
in motion that drive the nation towards totalitarianism."
- Ezra Taft Benson in CONFERENCE REPORTS, at page 17
["Political Opportunists -- Origin of Human Rights -- Legalized
Plunder"] (October, 1968).
113 THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 49 U.S. Statutes at Large, page 636
(August, 1935).
114 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Edition.
115 Federal Judge Story, in DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 7 Federal Cases,
#3776, at page 444 (1815).
116 INSURANCE COMPANY VS. DUNHAM, 78 U.S. 1 (1870).
117 "Polices of insurance are known to have been brought into
England from a country that acknowledged the civil law [as
distinguished from the Common Law]. This must have been the law
of policies at the time when they were considered as contracts
proper for the admiralty jurisdiction."
- CROUDSON VS. LEONARD, 8 U.S. 434, at 435 (1808).
118 This discussion is extracted from INSURANCE COMPANY VS.
DUNHAM, 78 U.S. 1, at 32 (1870).
119 INSURANCE COMPANY VS. DUNHAM, id., at page 33.
120 INSURANCE COMPANY VS. DUNHAM, id., at page 33.
121 Although Admiralty Jurisdiction may be designed, in its
optimum sense, to rule over grievances originating out on the
High Seas, the Supreme Court does not want Admiralty
Jurisdiction to be so geographically restricted in its locus to
water only:
"The exclusive jurisdiction in admiralty cases was conferred on
the national government, as closely connected with the grant of
the commercial power [of Article I, Section 8]. The Admiralty
court is a maritime court instituted for the purpose of
administering the laws of the seas. There seems no ground,
therefore, for restraining jurisdiction, in some measure, within
the limit of the grant of the commercial power [the power to
regulate Interstate Commerce]; which would confine it, in cases
of contracts, to those concerning navigation and trade of the
country upon the high seas and tidewaters with foreign
countries..."
- NEW JERSEY STEAM VS. MERCHANTS' BANK, 47 U.S. 344, at 392
(1815).
In 1919, there appeared an article in Harvard Law Review, in a
commentary written by the Editors, discussing the background
history of how Admiralty Jurisdiction had once came ashore to
find a home inland for a short time in England; but in America,
when Admiralty came ashore at an early date, it stayed ashore:
"In the fourteenth century, the jurisdiction of admiralty,
which until that time had been extended to all cases partaking
of a maritime flavor, was greatly curtailed by successive
enactments. [Goldolphin, A VIEW OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, c.12.
See DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 2 Gall. (C.C.) 398, 418]. Thereafter, the
court could not take cognizance of a contract made on land, even
if to be performed at sea. SUSANO VS. TURNER, Noy, 67 CRADDOCK'S
CASE, 2 Brownl. & Gold 39. Nor if made at sea to be performed on
land. BRIDGEMAN'S CASE, Hobart II. These restrictions upon
admiralty jurisdiction were rejected in the United States from
an early date. THE LOTTAWANNA, 21 U.S. 558; WARING VS. CLARKE, 5
U.S. 44]. The civil jurisdiction was made to depend, not as in
matters of tort upon locality, but upon the subject matter of
the contract, which must be essentially concerned with maritime
services, transactions, or causalities."
- ADMIRALTY -- JURISDICTION -- TEST OF JURISDICTION OVER
CONTRACTS, 33 Harvard Law Review 853 (1919).
122 Yes, Social Security is quite popular today. No sooner had
Social Security been enacted by the Congress, then both
Republicans as well as Democratic Parties quickly endorsed the
idea as a great thing:
"We have built foundations for the security of those who are
faced with the hazards of unemployment and old age; for the
orphaned, the crippled, and the blind. On the foundation of the
Social Security Act we are determined to erect a structure of
economic security for all our people, making sure that this
benefit shall keep step with the ever increasing capacity of
America to provide a high standard of living for all its
citizens."
- DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM OF 1936, at page 360, infra.
"Real security will be possible only when our productive
capacity is sufficient to furnish a decent standard of living
for all American families and to provide a surplus for future
needs and contingencies. For the attainment of that ultimate
objective, we look to the energy, self-reliance and character of
our people, and to our system of free enterprise.
"Society has an obligation to promote the security of the
people, by affording some measure of protection against
involuntary unemployment and dependency in old age. The NEW DEAL
policies, while purporting to provide social security, have, in
fact, endangered it.
"We propose a system of old age security, based upon the
following principles:
1. We approve a PAY AS YOU GO policy, which requires of each
generation the support of the aged and the determination of what
is just and adequate.
2. Every American citizen over 65 should receive a
supplemental payment necessary to provide a minimum income
sufficient to protect him or her from want.
3. Each state and territory, upon complying with simple and
general minimum standards, should receive from the Federal
Government a graduated contribution in proportion to its own, up
to a fixed maximum.
4. To make this program consistent with sound fiscal policy
the Federal revenues for this purpose must be provided from the
proceeds of a direct tax widely distributed. All will be
benefited and all should contribute.
"We propose to encourage adoption by the states and territories
of honest and practical measures for meeting the problems of
employment insurance.
"The unemployment insurance and old age annuity of the present
Social Security Act are unworkable and deny benefits to about
two-thirds of our adult population, including professional men
and women and all engaged in agriculture and domestic service,
and the self-employed, while imposing heavy tax burdens upon
all."
- REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM OF 1936, at page 366. Both
PLATFORMS appear in NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS -- 1840 TO 1972;
compiled by Ronald Miller [University of Illinois Press, Urbana,
Illinois (1973)].
..Here are the so-called DEMOCRATS gloating over Nelson
Rockefeller's SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM, and also the Republicans,
who detected early and felt quite strongly the enormous vote
pulling power of Social Security, they too quickly started
drooling at the gibs for more of this wealth redistribution;
like Gremlins, REPUBLICAN platform writers like to play cutesy
by skirting the fringes of deception as they first state how
opposed they are to FDR's Social Security, but then go right
ahead and construct their own GRAB AND GIVE -- replicating in
its entirety the structural contours of FDR's Social Security
Program legally and practically.
123 "Tumult is from the disorderly manner of those assemblies,
where things can seldom be done regularly; and war is that
DECERTARIO PER VIM, or trial by force, to which men come when
other ways are ineffectual. If the Laws of God and men are
therefore of no effect, when the magistracy is left at liberty
to break them, and if the lusts of those who are too strong for
the tribunals of justice, cannot otherwise be restrained, then
by sedition, tumults, and war, those seditions, tumults, and
wars are justified by the Laws of God and men.
"I will not take upon me to enumerate all the cases in which
this may be done, but content myself with three, which have most
frequently given occasion for proceedings of this king.
"The first is, when one or more men take upon them the power and
name of a magistracy, to which they are not justly called.
"The second, when one or more, being justly called, continue in
their magistracy longer than the laws by which they are called
do prescribe.
"And the third, when he or they, who are rightfully called, do
assume power, though within the time prescribed, that the law
does not give; or turn that which the law does not give, to an
end different and contrary to that which is intended by it. ...
"He that lives alone might encounter such as should assault him
upon equal terms, and stand or fall according to the measure of
his courage and strength; but no valor can defend him, if the
malice of his enemy be upheld by public power. There must
therefore be a right of proceeding judicially or
extra-judicially against all persons who transgress the laws; or
else those laws, and the societies that should subsist them,
cannot stand; and the ends for which governments are
constituted, together with the governments themselves, must be
overthrown. Extra-judicial proceedings, by sedition, tumult, or
war, must take place, when the persons concerned are of such
power, that they cannot be brought under the judicial. They who
deny this deny all help against an usurping tyrant, or the
perfidiousness of a lawfully created magistrate, who adds the
crimes of ingratitude and treachery to usurpation. ...
"If this be not enough to declare the justice inherent in, and
the glory that ought to accompany these works, the examples of
Moses, Aaron, Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Samuel, Jephthah,
Jehu, Jehoiada, the Maccabees, and other holy men raised up by
God for the deliverance of his people from their oppressors,
decide the question. They are perpetually renowned for having
led the people by extraordinary ways to recover their liberties,
and avenge the injuries received from foreign or domestic
tyrants. The work of the Apostles was not to set up or pull down
the civil state; but they so behaved themselves in relation to
all the powers of the Earth, that they gained the name of
pestilent, seditious fellows, disturbers of the people; and left
it as an inheritance to those, who, in succeeding ages, by
following their steps, should deserve to be called their
successors; whereby they were exposed to the hatred of corrupt
magistrates, and brought under the necessity of perishing by
them, or defending themselves against them. And he who denies
them the right does at once condemn the most glorious actions of
the wisest, best, and holiest men that been in the world,
together with the laws of God and man, upon which they were
founded."
- Algernon Sidney in DISCOURSES CONCERNING GOVERNMENT, as
quoted by Phillip Kurland and Ralph Lerner in THE FOUNDER'S
CONSTITUTION ["The Right of Revolution"], at 77 [University of
Chicago Press, Chicago (1978); DISCOURSES CONCERNING GOVERNMENT
is a lengthy treatise first circulated in 1689].
