Next, we turn now and address some Commercial debt instruments
that just about everyone uses constantly. And when this
Commercial paper is used and then recirculated by you, Federal
Benefits are being quietly accepted by you and so now subtle
contracts are in effect. As COMMERCIAL HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE,
you and the King are experiencing mutual enrichment from each
other.1 The King believes that the mere use of Federal Reserve
Notes, those "circulating evidences of debt"2 that his Legal
Tender Statutes3 have enhanced the value of as a co-endorser;
and that the mere acceptance and beneficial use of those
circulating Commercial equity instruments of debt, constitutes
an attachment of Equity Jurisdiction sufficiently related to
experiencing Commercial profit or gain in Interstate Commerce as
to warrant the attachment of civil liability to his so-called
Title 26. Remember, once you get rid of your political contracts
to pay taxes (like National Citizenship), Federal Judges will
then start examining the record to see if there are any
Commercial benefits out there that you have been experiencing.
Once you are a Citizen, Federal Judges will generally stop
looking for other contracts; but once Citizenship is gone, then
other normally quiescent Commercial nexuses that attach King's
Equity Jurisdiction suddenly take upon themselves vibrant new
importance.4
I have thought out this perspective that the King has on this
subject matter over and over again, and based on an analysis of
principles, rights, liabilities, and Cases that surface in
Commercial Contract Law relating to Negotiable Instruments (as
Federal Reserve Notes are Negotiable Instruments), and of the
rights, liabilities and duties of HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE, and I
have come to the conclusion that the King is basically correct.
For example, bills, notes, and checks are also Negotiable
Instruments, as well as Inland Bills of Exchange. Collectively,
Negotiable Instruments differ somewhat from orthodox Commercial
contracts for the reason that the American Jurisprudential law
concerning them springs from several different and independent
sources. Whereas the simple Law of Contracts had its origin in
the Common Law of England, in contrast this Law of Negotiable
Instruments arose largely out of the summary and chronologically
abbreviated practices and international customs of merchants in
Commerce. Those merchants formulated a body of rules and common
practices relating to their trade which were gradually adapted
into the Law of the Law by the English Courts. Bills of exchange
and promissory notes, of which Federal Reserve Notes are a
composite blend of, acquired early on the peculiar quality and
nature among merchants in Commerce as being negotiable, i.e.,
passable as Tender to different people. Negotiability was then
defined to mean that if an instrument is negotiable in form and
is in the hands of a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE, then possible
personal defenses someone may later assert against the Holder
are cut off of in the Holder's favor. This idea of negotiability
is an intriguing one. It differs quite a bit from the conception
of assignability underlying the transfer of CHOSES IN ACTION
which are not negotiable.
Furthermore, all factors considered, it is my opinion that the
King is not only just basically correct, but that the King is
also in a very strong position here, and that Federal
Magistrates are not Star Chamber Chancellors when throwing out
your civil tax defenses that ignore this invisible and adhesive
attachment of King's Equity Jurisdiction, and the strong
presumption of your entrance into King's Commerce that the
acceptance and beneficial recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes
necessarily infers. However, the seminal reason why the King is
in such a strong position is only partially related to his SUB
SILENTIO aggression against you; the largest reason is because
you, by your own default, have accepted the benefits of this
Commercial nexus Equity relationship with the King. The King is
in a very strong position here under normal circumstances, so
you can be perfectly right for 100 reasons in your Income Tax
defense, and ignore this last tiny little area in your defense,
and lose (assuming that your Case is adjudged on the substantive
merits, and not on some technical distraction question).
Under the Common Mercantile Law of Commercial Contract Law
applicable to Negotiable Instruments, it has always been PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE5 that the mere issuance of the Negotiable
Instrument itself constitutes the evidence of the receipt and
enjoyment of Consideration.6 This acceptance of Consideration
Doctrine is of maximum importance to understand and appreciate
in its placement into the contemporary Income Tax setting, as
this Doctrine has been around for a very long time, and the King
is only now using it for his own enrichment. Law books repeat
over and over again that acceptable Consideration may be
anything that will support a simple contract, and may even
specifically include previously existing debt. This
Consideration Doctrine survives the codification of the Law
Merchant into the Negotiable Instruments Law, and also survives
the later restatement of the N.I.L. into the Uniform Commercial
Code.
The Law of Commercial Contract applicable to the use and
recirculation of Negotiable Instruments is quite old, just like
King's Commerce itself. Commercial Paper was also used
extensively by merchants in the Middle Ages, and the origin of
our contemporary LAW OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS was an unwritten
Common Law applicable to merchants, called the Law Merchant.
This Law Merchant was gradually assimilated as an appendage onto
English Common Law, and subsequently became a part of our
American Jurisprudence when the New England Colonies turned into
states and adapted English Common Law. The Law Merchant is
spoken of by English Judges with reference to Bills of Exchange
and negotiable securities. It is neither more nor less than the
common usages of merchants and traders in the different
departments of trade, ratified by decisions of Courts of Law,
which Courts later upon such usages being proved before them,
readapted those merchant practices into the Common Law of
England as settled law with a view to the interest of trade and
the public convenience. Therefore, what was at one time mere
custom in between merchants then became grafted upon, or
incorporated onto, the Common Law, and may now be correctly said
to form an overlapping part of the Common Law. When such general
Commercial practices have been judicially ascertained and
established, those Commercial practices become a part of the Law
Merchant, which contemporary American courts of justice are
bound to honor. In the early 1800's, many American states
enacted their own statutes pertaining to Commercial paper, with
the result being a lack of uniformity in both statutes, as well
as the court decisions applying those statutes to different
factual settings. Lawyers don't like lack of similarity, and so
the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
drafted a bill to make the Law of Negotiable Instruments uniform
from one state to the next. The draft of the bill was called the
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW, which when completed in 1896 was
largely enacted into LEX by almost all the states. The
contemporary Uniform Commercial Code repeals the N.I.L. in those
states that have enacted the UCC; but the kicker is that old Law
Merchant himself is still very much around, alive, enforceable,
and kicking.
And if the King has got you accepting the Consideration inherent
in Negotiable Instruments that he is a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE to,
and that his Legal Tender Statutes have enhanced the value, and
additionally retains a distant Equity interest in, then the King
has got an invisible contract on you and the King has you plump
little turkeys exactly where he wants you: Ripe for a Federal
plucking. So to correctly handle this beneficial "use of Federal
Reserve Notes" creating a taxing liability story, we need to
start out with the basic premise that the King is correct in his
assertions, and so are judges in their reasoning; to believe
otherwise is to be self damaging, as we have no time to waste
with any error in our reasoning.
If you are like most folks, the King has got you accepting his
Consideration and financial benefits with your mere use of
Federal Reserve Notes, because most folks want to use and want
to experience the beneficial enjoyment that widespread
acceptance and Commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes brings.
But read those words over again carefully, as they also contain
the Grand Key for getting out of this Equity Ace our King has
neatly tucked up in his Royal Sleeve: The contract that is in
effect whenever benefits, conditionally offered, were accepted
by you.7
Examining a profile slice of the tens of thousands of Cases out
there addressing questions of Commercial Contract Law applicable
to the annulment of the rights and duties of HOLDERS IN DUE
COURSE of Commercial Paper (notes, bonds, securities, checks,
equitable specialties in general, etc.), it is the STATE OF MIND
of the parties at the time the Negotiable Instrument was
accepted, that determines the subsequent rights and duties of
HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE. HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE, so called, are in
a special Status as it pertains to the use and recirculation of
Commercial instruments. HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE are assumed to
have taken the Negotiable Instrument (Federal Reserve Note) free
of the defense of "Absence or Failure of Consideration," and
additionally, are generally free of all other defenses as well.
When the King is a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of Federal Reserve
Notes, then the King is immune to any defense we may assert
against him, as he collects on an invisible contract created
when his Commercial benefits were accepted by you. Do you see
why it is not very wide to snicker at Federal Judges if you have
not properly handled your defense line in this area of using
Federal Reserve Notes? In some cases, a PERSON wants to be in
this HOLDER IN DUE COURSE Status due to its protective nature,
and in other circumstances, we don't want to be a HOLDER IN DUE
COURSE due to the liabilities involved. Generally speaking,
subject to the condition that the PERSON accepted the Negotiable
Instrument in good faith and for value, a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
occupies a protected position free from any personal defenses
someone else may assert. But in dealing with the King on those
Federal Reserve Notes, our declared Status as HOLDERS IN DUE
COURSE or HOLDERS NOT IN DUE COURSE is not important: Because
by filing Objections and Notice of Protest, etc., the King's
Status as a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE is then automatically
terminated, and getting the King off of that sovereign Status
Throne of his is what's important.
So merely filing a Notice of Protest and Notice of Defect will
automatically deny the King his coveted and protected Status as
being a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE with Federal Reserve Notes, as that
protective status applies to you. Remember that in our Pan Am
jet leasing example, a PERSON must both want and then use a
benefit provided by another party, prior to effectuating an
attachment of Equity Jurisdiction strong enough to extract money
from, in a judicial proceeding, out of the part in default.
And in addition to outright Consideration, by your Commercial
use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes, the King has you
strapped into his debt as an "Automatically Transferred and
Joint Obligation Debtor." Under a very large body of Roman
Civil Law, and Jewish Commercial Law going back to Moses and the
Talmud, there is a kind of an obligation in law whose source is
not contract or promise in the classical sense, but due to a
ripple effect of debt, an obligation can be automatically
transferred down a line of notes passers and debtors. This
Doctrine is elucidated quite well in Jewish Law, where this
doctrine is formally known as SHIBUDA D'RABBI NATHAN (meaning
the line of Rabbi Nathan). Under this liability dispersion
model, debt ripples from one PERSON to another back up the line,
without the appearance of any contract being readily apparent.
Say that a PERSON "A" owes money to "B", and "B" owes money to
"C". PERSON "C" can then recover from "A" an amount of money not
exceeding the sum PERSON "B" owes to "C".8
The reason why this debt liability being rippled back up the
line a few person is called "Rabbi Nathan's Lien" is because
this rule is generally attributed to Rabbi Nathan, a tannaitic
sage (Babylonia and Palestine, in the Second Century), who first
formulated it on the basis of a certain interpretation of a
Mosaic text. Here in the contemporary United States, a very
similar analogy is found operating both in Contract Law and in
Tort Law, but for different reasons.
1. Under Tort Law liability reasoning, persons who you never
had any contract or contact with, are liable for damages they
work on you. For example, be underneath an airplane when it
crashes. Under the JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY DOCTRINE,
attorneys will sue the Federal Aviation Administration, the
pilot, the local political jurisdiction that owns the airport,
the contractor who built the airport, the airline, the airline's
insurance company, the airline's airplane manufacturer, persons
who supply parts to the airplane manufacturer, the pilot's
mother, etc., without limit, right up the line.
2. When a grievance is under Contract Law jurisprudence,
generally, persons not a party to the contract are normally
exempt from liability absent an interfering Tort they worked,
somehow (called TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT).
But properly viewed at the conclusion of the grievance, this
Rabbi Nathan's Lien is no more than just an asset seizure
against debtor's assets held by third parties, and whether the
underlying factual setting behind the Judgment was under Tort
Law or Contract Law is now irrelevant, once the Judgment has
been docketed, and that PERSON'S assets are now under attack. So
when a judgment has been obtained against Party "B", and Party
"C" owes "B" some money, then when Party "A" throws an action at
"C", then that arrangement is no more than the equivalent of a
directed wage garnishment that goes on every single day of the
week, here in the United States. And just as this Liability
Ripple Scenario goes on at such a quiet level with wage
garnishments, so too does it carry on at a national level with
you and I and our assets being pledged to pay off the National
Debt of the United States.
But our King is our adversary in Court, and his attorneys use
partially twisted logic to quiet our exception from taxation
arguments, and so their attitude is a simple "you pay." But
important for the moment is your knowledge that your Commercial
use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes is properly
deemed a sufficient nexus to the King's Equity Jurisdiction as
to effectuate an attachment of liability for the payment of the
King's outstanding debt that he owes to the Federal Reserve
Board, with the amount of your payment being measured by your
net taxable income. Other personal assets are deemed collateral
material as well, but the King's key to effectuate this
liability is our Enfranchised Status, under contract. Since the
Angle-Saxon Law Merchant wants to see Consideration, and
Consideration is present when Federal Reserve Notes are
recirculated in King's Commerce, a taxing liability does exist
of and by itself under English Common Law. This Jewish Ripple
Liability Model is supporting evidence to conclude that although
we might not like our King, there is a very wide body of law out
there in the world to support our King with his taxing
justification theories. The Law is always justified, and this is
just another layer of justification for the King to use as an
excuse to raise revenue. This Ripple Effect Liability Law
springs forth from several different seminal global points of
pronouncement, and it does support the King in this very subtle
attachment of taxing liability. So let's change the factual
setting by correcting our Status, and stop snickering at the fat
King, as he is only using common law (the national equivalent of
wage garnishments) and ancient law (its longevity and long term
universal acceptance means that it is well Principled and well
founded) to support his excessive financial demands.
Question: What if you don't want to accept the benefits of and
use of Federal Reserve Notes?
What if you are different? What if you have factual knowledge
that the King only got this monopoly on American currency
circulation (both gold and silver), not by free market
acceptance and competitive universal respect and appreciation
for benefits offered by his Legal Tender Statutes, which is the
way all Commercial transactions should be based, but rather,
through force, duress, coercion, penal statutes, naked physical
duress, and literally out of the barrel of a gun: Because guns
being drawn is exactly what two remaining private coin mints saw
as United States Treasury Agents raided the last diehard private
coin mints in California in the late 1800's, and physically
destroyed them (but that intriguing Americana history following
an act of Congress in 1864 banning private coins as currency is
another Letter). But dealing with Private Coin Mints out of the
barrel of a gun is only half the story, as our King is usually
quite thorough in whatever he decides to muscle in on. The King
also dealt with the private circulation of Notes (both bank
notes and private company notes that circulated just as if they
were currency) through a series of penal statutes going back to
the Civil War.9
After the Civil War, the King's enactment of currency monopoly
statutes paralleled his Private Express Statutes in the sense
that private postal companies previously competing with the King
were ordered shut down and put out of business at gun point,10
and our King sealed himself up a national postal monopoly. No
more would be the days of the 1800's, when many banks and
private companies issued and circulated their own widely
accepted currency. Our King doesn't like competition, and he has
this nasty habit of his to use penal statutes and his hired
bouncers (the U.S. Marshals, as the King's Bouncers) to force
people into relationships with him, against their will and over
their objection, that they would never have voluntarily
consummated on their own free will and volition.
[For example, here in Rochester, New York, some enterprising
folks, seeing the escalating rise in postage prices going on in
the early 1970's, and detecting that something just wasn't right
here due to the wide percentage variance in cost and pricing,
promptly went about setting up their own postal company in 1976.
They concentrated on Rochester's Central Business District, and
offering the lower prices that they did, quickly signed up law
firms, banks, accountants, hotels, and the like. Several
national magazines featured articles about them,11 but the
King's Agents in the Postal Service, smelling an inexpensive
upstart on the block offering cheaper prices and accelerated
delivery schedules, quickly threw a Restraining Order Petition
at Rochester Postal Service in Federal District Court here. The
Petition was granted, with justifying reference being made to
the Private Express Statutes of the Civil War Era. On appeal,
the Second Circuit in New York City went into a discussion on
how the King's right to seal up a national postal monopoly under
penal statutes has never been successfully challenged, and
remains essentially airtight.]12
But for our purposes here in addressing the attachment of
revenue Equity Jurisdiction by the acceptance and use of Federal
Reserve Notes as a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. What is important is
that it is you, under the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, by your own
silence and default, by your failure to object and to object
timely, it is by your silence that the King wins. Under this
Doctrine, your silence in the face of a proposition being made
to you constitutes your approval of the proposition, if
synchronous with the silence you experienced a benefit. Reason,
logic, and common sense. Let us consider the application of this
RATIFICATION DOCTRINE as it hypothetically applies to a person
acting in the subordinated position of agency for another
person.13
When one such person, as agent, does an act on behalf of another
person, but without complete authority, the person for whom such
act is done may afterwards adopt the act as if it is done in his
behalf, thereby giving the act the same legal effect as if it
had been originally fully authorized. This subsequent
retroactive consent, the effect of which relates back to the
time of the original act and places the Principle in the same
position as if he had originally authorized the act, is called
RATIFICATION.14 Under this hypothetical agency relationship,
when a person finds that an act has been done in his name or on
his behalf, that person must either Ratify it, or in the
alternative, disaffirm it.15 But silence constitutes approval of
the act.16
RATIFICATION may be implied from any form of conduct
inconsistent with disavowal of the contract; therefore anything
else, other than explicit and blunt disavowal, is RATIFICATION
-- if synchronous with the silence, benefits offered
conditionally were accepted. This is quite a strong Doctrine,
but it has to be this way under Natural Law, since benefits
offered conditionally are being accepted, invisible contracts
are in effect, and failure to require the party experiencing the
benefits to act quickly and reject the benefits constitutes a
Tort on the other party. This RATIFICATION is analogous under
Contract Law to the acceptance of the contract's proposition
(MUTUAL ASSENT), and hence is irrevocable.17
And this is why filing an Objection, Notice of Defect and
Rejection of Benefits to the King, objecting to your involuntary
use of Federal Reserve Notes, carries no retroactive force or
effect with it back into preceding years.18 It is a Principle of
Law mentioned over and over again in Contract Law books that
silence can effect ratification in the context of a benefit
assertion.19
Remember that to really understand a doctrine, we need to
examine it from manifold trajectories; and in so viewing, from a
Judge's perspective, what the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE is trying to
avoid, we find that to allow the annulment of a contract on
repudiation grounds on anything less than a firm and positive
"no," has the direct effect of working a Tort on the other
party, since benefits were transferred from one party to the
next.20
The application of this RATIFICATION DOCTRINE is not restricted
to favor the Government in the evidentiary presumptions of
consent that it creates, as the Supreme Court holds this
Doctrine to be binding on all persons dragged into its
machinery.21
The application of this RATIFICATION DOCTRINE in the area of the
Citizenship Contract does create an invisible contract, as the
burden to prove that the contract does not exist then falls on
the individual, with the King not required to prove or adduce
anything. This Doctrine is held operational against everyone
indiscriminately as the Principle that it is, when the factual
circumstances warrant its provident application; this even
includes drawing inferences against the Congress itself.22
There is an old Roman saying that "... He who remains silent
certainly does not speak, but nevertheless it is true that he
does not deny."23 The situation expressed by that legal truism
has been the source of some blurry confusion in our Law of
Contracts. Though acceptance of an Offer is usually made by
spoken or written words, quite often the Offer may call for act
or authorization requiring some other mode of acceptance. As the
Offeror is the "Czar of his Offer," such acts, when induced by
the Offeree, constitute the acceptance.24
In such cases of negotiated commercial contracts, now there is
something here explicit by which to judge the intention of the
parties; but as we shift over to invisible juristic contracts,
where the mere passive conduct of the Offeree (you and me) is
claimed to be an acceptance of benefits by Government, now the
question is more difficult -- as some of the requisite indicia
applicable to Laws governing commercial contracts has to be laid
aside; like Mutual Assent.25
However, rather than Patriots fighting an area of grey where
there is some DE MINIMIS merit to the Government's position, it
might be best to simply accept the application of the
RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, accept the fact that invisible contracts
are in effect by your silent passive benefit acceptance and
refusal to explicitly disavow and reject benefits, as generally
held by Judges - but then turn around and walk away from the
contract for other reasons, like FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.26
So the assertion by the King of his Status as a HOLDER IN DUE
COURSE (and therefore normally protected from any defense that
you may throw at him via a Federal Judge in an Income Tax
grievance) then becomes meaningless: If you first Notice the
King out and Object with a Rejection of Benefits, and have so
Objected timely. Failure to serve a Notice of Defect on the King
is fatal, as without that Objection by you, the King retains his
protective HOLDER IN DUE COURSE Status, and with that Status you
have absolutely no substantive defense to assert against him.
Question: How do you Object?
In Objecting to Federal Reserve Notes, we need to be mindful of
the fact that Federal Judges normally do not take Judicial
Notice of the Federal Reserve Note equity attachment question.
By the end of this Letter, you will see the larger and more
important invisible contracts to be dealt with, if a pure and
correct severance of yourself away from the adhesive siphon of
the Bolshevik Income Tax is to be perfected. Primarily, they
search the record for the political contract of Citizenship, and
when Citizenship is found, generally they stop right there and
then. However, if dealing with a Denizen or some type of
non-resident alien, Federal Judges then shift their attention
over to finding some Commercial benefits that were accepted, in
order to justify the extraction of Income Taxes out of the poor
fellow's pockets, acting Ministerially as enforcement agents the
way they do. So although Federal Judges find it unnecessary to
take Notice of your acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes at the
present time, when all other political and Commercial contracts
have been correctly severed, this one remaining Commercial
contract is going to be an item that needs to be wrestled with,
in advance of its apparent necessity.
So if three years from now the IRS throws a prosecution at you,
and you argue non-attachment of liability to Title 26, so
called, based on a pure severance of Equity, then how will you
prove what your STATE OF MIND was in 1986, as it pertains to the
Federal Reserve Note use and recirculation question? Remember
that the claimed STATE OF MIND of a Party is an affirmative
defense. The person asserting the defense has the burden to
prove its merit, and reasonably so. The King does not have to
prove that you entered into the acceptance and beneficial use of
Federal Reserve Notes with profitable expectations in your mind.
Such a positive, beneficial, and Commercial Federal Reserve Note
use assumption is automatically inferred by the Commercial
nature of those Notes and the "Public Notice" Status of the
King's Title 26 statutes, and so you have to prove the opposite.
How are you going to prove what your STATE OF MIND was in 1986?
Are you going to subpoena your wife into the Courtroom and ask
her to tell the Court what you said three years earlier in 1986?
"Oh, yes. I remember. Hank said that he didn't like using them
things."
Well that is not much, and that is not the kind of an Objection,
Notice of Protest, and document STATE OF MIND that the Supreme
Court will respect. So what we need to do in order to Object
timely, is to file a specific Objection with the Secretary of
the Treasury, and simply tell him what your STATE OF MIND is at
the present time; and synchronously record that document in a
Public Place. Documents written by individuals are often very
strong pieces of evidence to prove a person's STATE OF MIND, and
will, under some circumstances, directly overrule another
person's first-person oral testimony on grounds relating to the
PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE (most often such circumstances surface in
Probate proceedings in Surrogate's Court when a Will or its
Codicil is being contested). If the IRS has a prosecution in
gestation against you at the present time here in 1985, and the
IRS is moving against you in some manner for the years, say,
1982 and 1983, then filing this Notice of Protest and Objection
will have no retroactive effect. Filing this Objection at the
present time merely documents your STATE OF MIND at the present
time, and so if the IRS moves against you in three years, this
preventative step you take at the present time is interesting
prosecution annulment material.27
Since the King's Attorney will present some old bank account
that you had gotten rid of years earlier, and will conveniently
not show your recessions to the Judge at the time the Summons is
signed, none of this Status correction material will likely
deflect the original initiation of a prosecution itself.
In your Objection and Notice of Protest, we might want to
mention that you are using Federal Reserve Notes for minimum
survival purposes only, and that even this use is reluctant,
because in a previous day and in a previous era, the King used
his police powers to seal a monopoly on currency instruments,
and so now you have no choice in selecting between different
currency instruments to use -- and the involuntary adhesive
attachment of Title 26 civil liability that occurs while you are
being backed into such a corner, occurs against your will and
over your objection. Your STATE OF MIND is not one of beneficial
acceptance and enjoyment of Federal Reserve Notes, but one of a
forced DE MINIMIS coercion. You are not using Federal Reserve
Notes for Commercial profit or gain, but such use is out of
practical necessity since the King has physically removed all
currency competitors from the marketplace under his penal
statutes and literally by physical duress; and so now your use
of Federal Reserve Notes is by lack of alternatives to select
from, not freedom of choice. By such monopoly tactics, the King
is engaging in unfair Trade Practices, which if you or I did the
identical same thing, we would be incarcerated for it under
numerous Racketeering and Sherman Anti-Trust criminal statutes.
Yet the FORCED monopoly of a currency serves no beneficial
public interest,28 and is actually an instrumentality to work
MAGNUM damages on us all after the King replaces his initial
hard currency later on with a paper currency (which has now
happened). Remember that Federal Judges see important benefits
in everything the King does, and there are legitimate benefits
in having a uniform national currency to pursue Commercial
enrichment with -- when those benefits were sought after
voluntarily.29
Judges perceive of those benefits as being related to the Legal
Tender status of the King's Currency, among other things. What
Federal Judges do not see collectively is that those FRN's
possess only those benefits that any widely accepted circulating
currency would also offer, and are the same benefits that
privately circulating notes and coins did in fact offer here in
the United States prior to the Civil War. The King is not
entitled to demand taxation reciprocity by merely replacing
benefits originating from private mints with benefits
originating from the Congress under the cloak, cover, and duress
of penal statutes. So by enacting that succession of penal
monopoly statutes that shut down competitors, the King has
transferred the origin of currency benefits away from private
mints and banks, over to himself. A forced uniform national
currency serves only the private financial enrichment objectives
of the King by getting everyone into Interstate Commerce, among
other things, and also serves the objectives of Special Interest
Groups who very much want to see the King circulate paper
currency expressly for the purpose of perfecting our enscrewment
-- if it were not so, the King would not have had to use penal
statutes and armed stormtroopers in the 1800's to enforce the
acceptance of his currency monopoly LEX. If a single national
currency medium did in fact serve everyone's best interest, if
everyone wanted to use the King's paper money, then why did the
King have to resort to the display of physical force when
initiating such a currency monopoly by police powers
intervention in the 1800's, and now unilaterally use that
monopoly to administratively coerce people into contractual
situations they did not otherwise want or enter into?
Therefore, you do not accept any Consideration the King is
handing you when Federal Reserve Notes circulate into your
possession (and remember that the King's Legal Tender Statutes
have very much enhanced the market value of Federal Reserve
Notes). And that such use of Federal Reserve Notes is occurring
against your will and over your objection and Protest, for,
INTER ALIA, want of alternatives, and with the reason why there
are no alternatives is due to Federal monopoly penal statutes
forbidding such alternatives, and that such a monopoly is an
unfair restraint of trade (unfair because it is unnecessary)
anyone else gets incarcerated for.
Remember that in dealing with Federal Judges, you need to "hit
the nail right on the head," and by rejecting Federal benefits,
and then explaining your rejection through chronologically
sequential presentations of facts and of reasoned legal
arguments; when that has been done, then where once there was a
Courtroom hurricane of unbridled retortional ensnortment by
Federal Judges, designed to rub in, in no uncertain terms, their
strong philosophical disapproval of Tax Protestors -- now
suddenly in contrast, everything changes over to a quiescent
environment.30
Additional objections along the lines that Warburg and his
Gremlin brothers in crime, the Rothschilds, through their
ownership of the Federal Reserve System, are third party
beneficial interest holders, and that use of the police powers
for the private enrichment of a Special Interest Group is
unlawful, since under Supreme Court rulings, when the King
enters into Commercial activity, his Status descends to the same
level as other merchants,31 and that any other American merchant
who pulled off such a gun barrel monopoly grab would be
incarcerated for doing so. Numerous Contract Law books provide a
rich abundance of defenses to assert against Negotiable
Instruments.32
Numerous defenses to assert in your Objection and Notice of
Protest against the use of Federal Reserve Notes attaching
liability to Title 26 due to their Status as circulating
Commercial Negotiable Instruments involve both Real33 and
Personal Defenses.34
Some of the defenses you could claim include undue influence,35
absence or failure of Consideration,36 moral fraud,37 necessity,
unilateral adhesion contract made in restraint of trade,38
economic duress,39 and the like.
Some of those Objections and statements are milktoast, and will
later fall apart and collapse under attack by the King's
Attorneys in adversary proceedings, and properly so. Reason: The
Use and recirculation of Commercial Federal Reserve Notes
necessarily involves a Contract Law factual setting, and so our
arguments along the lines of the King's basic unfairness in
sealing up his national currency monopoly, etc., are only
peripheral arguments; only direct coercion in the use of Federal
Reserve Notes is strong enough to strip the King of his Status
of a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. And unfairness arguments sounding in
the Tort of third party Special Interest Group penal statute
sponsorship and of Congressional intrigue in 1913, even though
very accurate factually, are way off base, if we are going into
the Supreme Court under a factual setting calling for
Contractual Law settlement reasoning.
But for us right now, which Objection reason that we stated,
either stands or falls when under attack later, is not
important. And what is important is denying the King his
protective Status as a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE against you (if the
King is a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE, the Principle is that we have no
defenses to assert against him), by filing your NOTICE OF
PROTEST and related corrigendum (meaning filed in an
interlocutory state in contemplation of secondary enhancement or
error correction at a later time). But some of those arguments
we listed will survive, as the naked facts surrounding the
forceful acquisition of the King's monopoly on national currency
are quite authentic, and elements can be raised to take the
factual setting out of Contract Law and into Tort Law where, at
least as a point of beginning, those arguments then become
relevant [however, those arguments probably won't even be
addressed for other reasons]. So we are exactly on line in some
areas (assuming the Case was properly plead by referring to the
Supreme Court rulings on the declension in Status the King
experiences when the King engages in Commercial activity).40
So the final analysis is not important right now. Getting a
general Notice of Protest documenting the situational
infirmities to the other party; invoking Tort Law to govern the
factual setting surrounding your involuntary use of Federal
Reserve Notes; and stating that there has been a FAILURE OF
CONSIDERATION; as your STATE OF MIND is what is important, and
the detailed judicial affirmation or rejection of your specific
Protest reasons can occur later in adversary proceedings.
Failure to object is fatal, and failure to object timely is
equally as fatal, as you have no right to ask the Judiciary to
help you weasel out of the terms of contracts you originally
intended to benefit from (which is necessarily inferred when no
timely Objection was filed on your part). If we have corrected
our Status, we filed our Objections timely, and we still lose,
and the reasons why we lose on this issue have their seminal
point of origin in the King's police power tactics in the
1800's, then it would then be time to consider dealing with the
King on the same terms the King's Treasury Agents dealt with the
two remaining die-hard California Coin Mints: Out of the barrel
of a gun.41
With the prosecution of Individuals, whose status is near lily
white, being sandbagged at low administrative and judicial
levels, then such an aggressive retortional atmosphere of
confrontation is quite unlikely to occur. But until those
circumstances do happen, then let's not badmouth the Judiciary,
because as for the past and present, PRINCIPLES OF NATURE rule
in the corridors of the United States Supreme Court, to the
extent that they are able to apply such majestic Principles to
such pathetic factual settings they are frequently presented
with -- with petitioners and criminal Defendants who are not
entitled to prevail under any circumstances, as contracts are in
effect.
Subject to these following qualifications, the filing of this
Objection on the involuntary use of Federal Reserve Notes will
arrest the movement of the King's Agents in a civil prosecution
against you on this particular adhesive attachment of King's
Equity Jurisdiction. But the most interesting reason why you now
reluctantly use Federal Reserve Notes is yet to come; and it is
the one reason the King's Attorneys will never be able to tear
apart and get judicially annulled [it will be sandbagged before
it gets annulled]. And it is the one reason why even an
otherwise reluctant Supreme Court might just respect this
Objection, regardless of how irritating it may be for some imps
nestled in the Judiciary, since the effect of this one last
Objection automatically vitiates the most solemn written
contracts ever sealed.
Your Objection might want to contain the following:
1. An historical overview of the gun barrel and penal statute
factual setting surrounding the acquisition of a national
currency monopoly by the King, with the authorities for your
statements being cited;
2. Stating in all of your Objections and Notices of Defects,
that your occasional use of Federal Reserve Notes is
involuntary, and transpires because you are seeking to avoid
being incarcerated as an accessory to the criminal circulation
of illegal currency under Federal statutes.
That's right. That is the real reason why you now reluctantly
use Federal Reserve Notes: Not because you want to, and not
necessarily because of what some Treasury Agents did in
California in the 1800's, but because if you now started using
your own currency instruments here today in 1985, then the King
will incarcerate you for doing so; and therefore we have no
choice but to use the King's designated currency against our
Will and over our Objection.42
Your entrance into that closed, private domain of Interstate
Commerce, by the use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes
(the King's Money), is involuntary by reason of pure physical
coercion. Remember that the character of every act you do, and
every prospective act you avoid doing, depends upon the
documented background circumstances behind which the act is
either done or avoided,43 and your ability to document and prove
your STATE OF MIND is absolutely mandatory as a point of
beginning: So let's not snicker at Judges as they toss out
arguments based merely upon some recollected memory
reconstructions from out of the past. If you claim that your
involvement with the King in his closed private domain of
Interstate Commerce occurred by reason of physical coercion,
then the first question a Federal Judge will be asking himself
is:
Who coerced you, when did this coercion take place, and what
were the background circumstances surrounding the coercion?
What the Judge will then do is to make an assessment of the
overall legitimacy of your claims. Talking about the naked
aggression of Treasury Agents in California in the 1800's is one
interesting story out of the past, but talking about a direct
operation of coercion on you today in the 1980's is even better.
Remember that lightly claiming duress and coercion is one easy
thing to do, but proving such coercion is another. Absent a
presentation of the King's monopoly acquisition tactics, of his
snuffing out currency (coins, bank notes, and private paper)
competitors in the 1800's, and of his contemporary eagerness to
incarcerate competitors and private currency lone wolves, absent
such factual background material your claims of duress and
coercion to invalidate the Contract Law jurisprudential setting
of Federal Reserve Notes, as it applies to you, are possible
candidates to fall apart and collapse before the Judiciary. So
tell the Court about the currency history of the King, and his
acquisition of a currency monopoly out of a barrel of a gun, and
then cite exactly, and then quite directly, the verbatim wording
of the Federal statutes that criminalizes your acquisition and
recirculation of any other Currency Instrument other than the
King's specified Legal Tender for the extinguishment of your
private debts, in order to prove your STATE OF MIND.44
The reason why it is to your advantage to talk about these
historical aspects and give a Federal Judge a long chronicled
history of the King's gun barrel muscle tactics you are
objecting to, is because their Federal Benchbook is silent on it
(except for numerous 1800's Case quotations), and so very few
Federal Judges actually know anything about the currency history
of the United States, and when Judges have been confronted with
accurate presentations of historical facts, they can and will
rule against Government and reverse themselves publicly in
Opinions,45 and also quietly in post-Opinion regrets.46
So giving Federal Judges a more factually detailed presentation
of history, than is carefully given to them in those Government
Seminars of theirs, operates to your advantage. Your use of
Federal Reserve Notes, under objection to avoid incarceration,
is the kind of a documented coercion factual setting that is
going to give the Supreme Court something to think about, if the
grievance ever gets to them. This involuntary entrance into
King's Commerce by reason of threat of incarceration severs this
civil attachment of Equity Jurisdiction that is otherwise
airtight for those folks not Objecting substantively and timely
[because benefits were rejected and there is now a FAILURE OF
CONSIDERATION], and completes our efforts to convert the basic
Contract Law factual setting that the use of Commercial Federal
Reserve Notes necessarily mandates, somewhat over into Tort Law
(so our unfairness arguments then can become relevant).47
That documented involuntary behavior to avoid incarceration is
the one magic liability--vitiating line that Judges never
deviate from, and that incarceration threat is the kind of an
Objection that Judges want to hear, and that is the kind of an
Objection that the Supreme Court will respect. But as always, it
is the waiver and rejection of Royal benefits that is the most
important item to address; and the King's Legal Tender Statutes
have very much enhanced the market value and general Commercial
attractiveness of those Federal Reserve Notes, so as viewed from
the perspective of a Federal Judge, when you accepted and then
recirculated Federal Reserve Notes, you have accepted a Federal
benefit.48
So the King has the requisite standing jurisdiction to use his
police powers to seal up monopolies on currency and postal
services: But when he threatens to cause those penal statutes
to operate against you, the King can then forget about the
assertion of any adhesive revenue enhancement Equity
Jurisdiction on us, if you will but so much as Object
substantively and timely so as to trigger Consideration Failure.
You should remember that filing such an Objection, say next year
in 1986, will only assist you in a future prosecution. If the
IRS is going after you today for 1981 to 1985, then your failure
to Object timely was fatal on your part, as this Federal Reserve
Note Objection carries no retroactive force with it. Remember
that the King's throwing a prosecution against you is an
adversary proceeding. If the King's Attorneys make the assertion
that you had accepted and use Federal Reserve Notes (with the
long history of Consideration Law to support the King in this
area going back into English history and the Medieval Ages), and
you retort by saying that you didn't want to use Federal Reserve
Notes without being able to explain exactly how and why your use
was involuntary, then the Federal Judge has no choice but to
rule against you, as in that setting the preponderance of the
evidence favors the King. So the King wins by your own
half-baked minimum efforts and default in proving your
assertion. But if you do cite authorities, quote the King's
criminal statutes verbatim, and prove everything, then there is
not a Federal Judge in the entire United States who could
rightfully hold that your use of Federal Reserve Notes is
voluntary for Commercial gain, and that an adhesive attachment
of revenue Equity Jurisdiction attaches for this reason (and
that specifically includes the Supreme Court). The King may have
numerous other Equity hooks into you depending on your
individual circumstances, but he will be restrained from using
this one hook against you.
[As I said in the Armen Condo Letter, in a criminal prosecution
setting, it is a general policy custom that the Judiciary
requires a much higher evidentiary standard of knowledge of
wrongdoing and of Commercial enrichment experienced in the
closed private domain of King's Commerce; but as you should see
by now, through a strict technical reading of Title 26, no bank
accounts are ever needed to perfect a 7203 prosecution. By its
own statutory wording, either your documented involvement in
Interstate Commerce, over the minimum liability threshold level,
or your Citizenship Contract, attaches all civil and criminal
liability the King thinks he needs. But Federal Judges do not
necessarily think like the King thinks, and in a criminal
prosecution for Title 26 infractions, the Judiciary, by custom,
would like to see a higher level of administrative and merchant
status than the mere use and recirculation of Federal Reserve
Notes infers. That higher evidentiary standard that Federal
Judges hold was all that I meant in the Armen Condo Letter. And
since the Federal Judge had Armen Condo's bank account contracts
in front of him, the Constitution then became irrelevant in
Armen's RESTRAINING ORDER defense. So, generally, what the
Federal Bench wants to see is some type of a contract before
they will consent to a criminal prosecution for Title 26 penal
infractions. There are exceptions where such instruments of
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE like bank accounts are not pursued that
much, but those exceptions do not apply to you or me. To my
knowledge, no one in the United States has ever been
incarcerated at any time for any penal infraction of Title 26,
with the only evidence being acceptance and beneficial use of
Federal Reserve Notes in Interstate Commerce. Evidence of the
acceptance and beneficial use of Federal Reserve Notes is quite
frequently adduced into criminal prosecutions by the King's
Attorneys in the Public Show Trial, but only a collaborating
secondary evidence behind serious contracts the IRS quietly gave
the Judge in his Chambers before the prosecution even started.
This Equity hook the King has up his Royal sleeve (use of
Federal Reserve Notes) is generally applicable against you as
PRIMA FACIE primary evidence only in the lower evidentiary
standards of a free wheeling civil arena.]
So important for us is the filing of the Objection and Notice of
Protest, and filing the objections timely. And each of these
Objections should be separate and distinct from each other
(Admiralty/Birth Certificate, Equity/Social Security,
Commercial/HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE, etc.). What happens if the
Supreme Court rules some day of in the future that King's
Revenue Equity Jurisdiction still attaches to involuntary users
of Federal Reserve Notes? We will then have to acquire our
rights from our contemporary King the same way Ben Franklin and
George Washington acquired their rights: Out of the barrel of a
gun.49
We always want to take a moment and examine ourselves in known
impending grievances from the viewpoint of our adversary, in
order to see things like a judge; and when dealing with an
attack on the acceptance and recirculation of Federal Reserve
Notes, an argument will likely be advanced to try and discredit
your objection:
Your adversary will argue that Federal Law, not State Law of the
UCC governs your attack on Federal Reserve Notes. Their
arguments are based on numerous federal court rulings -- one of
which is when the Supreme Court once ruled50 that the rights,
duties, and liabilities of the United States on Commercial paper
are issues that are to be governed exclusively by federal law,
and not governed by state law. Therefore, your adversaries will
argue that your reliance on the UCC, which are a collection of
state statutes, as a source of authority, is ill-founded and
that you are not entitled to prevail. This argument does not
concern us at all, since in reading CLEARFIELD TRUST, the reason
why the Supreme Court wants federal Commercial paper to be
governed by Federal Law and not State Law is because they do not
want the Federal Government subject to 50 different rules and
restrictions proprietary to each state:
"But reasons which may make state law at times the appropriate
federal rule are singularly inappropriate here. The issuance of
Commercial paper by the United States is on a vast scale and
transactions in that paper from issuance to payout will commonly
occur in several states. The application of state law, even
without the conflict of laws rules of forum, would subject the
rights and duties of the United States to exceptional
uncertainty. It would lead to great diversity in results by
making identical transactions subject to the vagaries of the
laws of the several states."51
Since the Uniform Commercial Code is just that, i.e., UNIFORM
throughout all of the states except one (Louisiana), having the
issuance and Commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes subject to
this uniform code, in the absence of any federal law to the
contrary, is most appropriate. Subjecting the rights and duties
of the United States and it's pet corporation, the Federal
Reserve, to the uniform rules of the UCC to fill in missing gaps
in Federal Commercial Laws, offers to expose the United States
to no exception uncertainty. Although there very much is a
Federal Law Merchant,52 State Law is silent on the matter;53 and
so now that leaves Federal Judges making the law.54
Remember that the PRINCIPLES OF NATURE the UCC codifies into
sequential statutes is merely the old Law Merchant of our
Fathers, and that our Fathers merely codified reason, logic, and
common sense; and the Uniform Commercial Code, even though it is
state law, is merely cited to both fill pronouncement voids in
the Federal Law Merchant, and as simply the best pronouncement
of PRINCIPLES OF NATURE denominated to apply to Commercial
factual settings.
The Principle we invoke when coming to grips with these Federal
Reserve Notes is merely common sense: That a person we are
trying to avoid doing business with (the King) loses his
expectation of our conformance to his statutes, when we place
him on our PRIOR NOTICE that Defects are present in the paper he
is circulating, and that we are not accepting the benefits
otherwise inuring to the Holders and Recirculators of his
Federal Reserve Notes, by reason of involuntary use. Everything
in this Letter is all inter-related to some extent; earlier, I
discussed the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, by which Judges hold that
silence on your part, in the context of an assertion being made
against you, constitutes your acceptance of the proposition that
you are silent on (and for good reasons: Because benefits are
being accepted by you). This Notice of Defect reverses that
state of silence, and the King is forced to experience a
declension in his coveted status of expecting a perfect
non-defense case against you, based on your terminating the
acceptance of the benefits of the use and recirculation of
Federal Reserve Notes. The UCC largely codified all of this
since merchants have it out with each other all the time on this
very question with Negotiable Instruments, and as such the UCC
gave every possible thing and every party nice proprietary names
and labels so that attorneys and judges can all deal with these
factual settings with everyone speaking the same vocabulary. So,
if the UCC is technically non-applicable to Federal Reserve
Notes, then we don't really care, as the UCC is no more than
codifying Nature, as Principles operate transparent to changes
in factual settings. If we are Objecting to a thing, like a
Note, then the Maker has lost his expectation of not having any
grievances to deal with on that thing (Note); and that is only
common sense. And we cite the UCC as the best codified
pronouncement of that Doctrine, and we encourage our adversaries
to find any federal statute inconsistent with the UCC's
pronouncements.55
As you well know, Mr. May, it is a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that an
ounce of prevention is worth ten tons of labor exerted later on
in patching up. And merely preparing your multiple objections
now, in writing, will spare a person from substantial expenses
in depositions and the like later, as the collection of
evidence, is, generally speaking, an expensive and
time-consuming process. With rare exception, all of the Patriot
lawsuits I have examined never involved any form of Depositions
or Interrogatories being take on the Defendant (and the Patriot
wonders why he loses). All of that is neatly avoided by a few
preventative steps.
1 If there are HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE, are there also HOLDERS NOT
IN DUE COURSE? Certainly there are. The volume of Contract Law
in this area is quite extensive, and in this brief Letter, only
a brief profiling synopsis is appropriate.
2 Federal Reserve Notes are debt obligations of the United
States Government. See Title 12, Section 411.
3 "United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and
national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges,
taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal
tender for debts."
- Title 31, Section 5103 (September, 1982).
4 So looking inversely at the entire King's Equity pie of taxing
hooks that he has got into you, only a totally pure
decontamination of yourself away from that multiplicitious array
of political and Commercial benefits the King is offering, of
all benefits up and down the entire adhesive line of largely
invisible juristic contracts, will properly sever yourself away
from the adhesive administrative mandates of Title 26.
5 PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE is moderately good and acceptable
evidence, although not air tight, and stands as valid unless
countermanded. On the other hand, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is strong
and very difficult to challenge, and is incontrovertible.
6 Remember that Consideration is a benefit you enjoy. This PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE DOCTRINE is replicated over and over again in
numerous books on Contract Law and Commercial Law. Our King did
not invent this PRIMA FACIE Consideration Doctrine, as its
seminal point of origin goes back into the Middle Ages in
England, which is before our King even existed. [Citations
deleted].
7 Yes, the benefits that were accepted by you carried with them
invisible hooks of reciprocity, so now, as uncomfortable as the
hooks are, contracts are in effect, and Patriot arguments
sounding in the Tort of unfairness are not relevant.
8 For a discussion on how the right of a first debtor to come
and operate a liability against a second ripple debtor, back to
the first debtor's creditor, see Rabbi Isaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi
of Israel, in the Second Volume of MAIN INSTITUTES OF JEWISH
LAW, entitled "The Law of Obligations" (1967).
9 Starting with the LEGAL TENDER Laws in 1862, then the NATIONAL
BANKING ACT in 1864, then the previously mentioned acts
outlawing private coin circulation, then an act in 1865 imposed
a 10% tax on state bank note issues. In VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO
[75 U.S. 533 (1869)], the Supreme Court ruled that a tax of 10%
on state bank notes in circulation was held to be
Constitutional, not only because it was a means of raising
money, but that such a tax was an instrument to put out of
business such a competitive circulation of those private notes,
against notes issued by the King. The combined effect of those
Civil War era penal statutes collectively was to monopolize the
entire American currency supply under Federal jurisdiction
(which is exactly what the King wanted). By these penal
statutes, both privately circulated coins and paper notes were
outlawed, and die hard private mints were later purchased by the
King, and otherwise put out of business, permanently. And in the
1900's, under an administrative regulation promulgated by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, the issuance,
if even for brief promotional purposes, of publicly circulating
private bank notes by member banks, is forbidden.
10 The Private Express Statutes remain today as Title 38,
Sections 601 to 608; and Title 18, Sections 1693 to 1699.
11 Exemplary would be Fred Ferretti in "Private Mail Delivery
vs. The Letter of the Law," NEW YORK TIMES, September 25, 1976.
12 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE VS. BRENNAN, 574 F.2nd 712
(1978). There were no non-Commercial Status arguments made by
the Brennans.
13 See RATIFICATION BY AN UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL by Edwin Goddard
in 2 Michigan Law Review 25 (1903).
14 See Notes, AGENCY -- RATIFICATION in 1 Michigan Law Review
140 (1902).
15 See THE EFFECT OF RATIFICATION AS BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLE AND
THE OTHER PARTY by Floyd Mechem in 4 Michigan Law Review 269
(1905).
16 "Where a contract has been made by one person in the name of
another, of a kind that the latter might lawfully make himself,
and the only defect is the lack of authority on the part of the
person acting, the subsequent ratification of that contract,
while still in that condition, by the person on whose behalf it
was made and who is fully appraised of the facts, operates to
cure the defect and to establish the contract as his contract as
though he had authorized it in the first instance. From this
time on, he is subject to all the obligations that pertain to
the transaction in the same manner and to the same extent that
he would be had the contract been made originally by him in
person, or by his express authority. The other party may demand
and enforce on the part of the principle the full performance of
the contract entered into by his agent."
- Floyd Mechem in THE EFFECT OF RATIFICATION AS BETWEEN THE
PRINCIPLE AND THE OTHER PARTY in 4 Michigan Law Review 269, at
269 (1905).
17 The Law of Contracts requires MUTUAL ASSENT to be an element
present between the parties when contracts are entered into.
However, MUTUAL assent is quite different from MENTAL assent:
"In the field of contracts, as generally elsewhere, `We must
look to the outward expression of a person as manifesting his
intention rather than to his secret and unexpressed intention.
The law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the
reasonable meaning of his words and acts."
- LUCY AND LUCY VS. ZEHMER, 84 S.E.2nd 516, at 521 [Supreme
Court of Appeals of Virginia (1954)].
Folks who believe that MENTAL (INTELLECTUAL) ASSENT is a
necessary ingredient to the formation of contracts are in error.
A person can internally frown and repel a contract in the back
of his mind, but still be held to be bound by the contract due
to his exterior movements in accepting benefits. And as we shift
over to discuss a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE regulating the
commencement of invisible contracts thrown at folks by Juristic
Institutions, nothing changes there, either. Protestors claiming
to be exempt from being attached to expectations of taxation
reciprocity by reason of no MENTAL ASSENT being present, are in
error: Because your exterior manifestations -- your failure to
explicitly and bluntly reject juristic benefits -- overrules
whatever quiet reservations you may have about the reciprocity
expectations contained in the contract. The other party to the
contract (here, the other party is a Juristic Institution) has
absolutely no reasonable basis to consider the applicability of
its contract with you by probing into the corners of your mind
and uncovering any latent reservations that may be there.
Therefore, only the act of coming out into the open and filing a
blunt and explicit NOTICE OF REJECTION OF BENEFITS, has any
reasonable meaning; and Protestors claiming unfairness because
MENTAL ASSENT is tossed aside and ignored are not addressing the
full spectrum of factual elements that judges consider when
presented with a contract enforcement prosecution.
18 Variations on this RATIFICATION DOCTRINE surface all
throughout the Law. It surfaces in criminal prosecutions as an
evidentiary law requiring that circumstances be awarded priority
over verbal communication or non-communication in proving
conspiracies (meaning that what you say or don't say is not
important as what you do). In Commercial contracts, PAROLE
EVIDENCE is oral or verbal evidence, and the PAROLE EVIDENCE
RULE restrains a party to a contract from using expectations and
declarations from toning down the meat of a contract. (See UCC
2-202), since the lesser oral expectations were MERGED into the
greater written expectations. In the Uniform Commercial Code,
the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE appears in Section 2-610, which states
that the repudiation of a contract must be positive and
unequivocal; and it appears again in 2-606(b), which states that
failure to make an effective (strong) rejection constitutes
acceptance.
19 The underlying Principles associated with the RATIFICATION
DOCTRINE surface in criminal prosecutions, as it is often very
reasonable for Juries, too, to take special Notice and freely
draw inferences and conclusions from the Defendant's silence. In
some Trials, Judges have characterized that the effect of the
Defendant remaining silent would be like:
"... the sun... shining with full blaze on the open eye."
- STATE VS. CLEAVES, 59 Main 298, at 301 (1871).
20 For a recent discussion on the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE in
operation, see COMMONWEALTH EDISON VS. DECKER COAL, 612 F.Supp.
978 (1985).
21 I have seen lower State Courts apply the Principle of
RATIFICATION under Tort Law factual settings. See PAGE VS.
KEEVES [199 N.E. 131 (1935)], which held that a person assisting
another in the commission of a wrongful Tort act against
another, or with knowledge approving of such act after it is
done, is liable in some manner as if he had committed the same
wrongful act, if done for his benefit [that's right BENEFITS
ACCEPTED] and he avails himself of its fruits. The word
RATIFICATION does not appear anywhere in the Case Opinion, but
the Principle does at page 135.
"The doctrine of liability by RATIFICATION in Tort Cases is
abundantly established. Indeed, this seems to have been the
earliest form of it. By whatever methods the act be adopted and
approved, the principal becomes liable for the Tort as though he
had previously directed it. And it is not always necessary that
the approval shall look to the particular act. In the case of
master and servant, for example, if the approval establishes the
relation, the master becomes responsible for any Torts committed
within its scope or which he would have been responsible had the
relation been regularly created...
"RATIFICATION in Tort Cases is a distinct gain to the other
party, giving him a remedy against the principal while not
depriving him of its remedy against the wrong-doer himself."
- THE EFFECT OF RATIFICATION AS BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLE AND THE
OTHER PARTY by Floyd Mechem in 4 Michigan Law Review 269, at 270
(1905).
22 "The fact that Congress has remained silent..."
- JAMES VS. UNITED STATES, 366 U.S. 213, at 220 (1961).
The Supreme Court has ruled that when the Congress remains
silent on something, then the Judiciary sets the limits -- as
silence by the Congress is very significant and presumptuous.
Speaking about the INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAXATION IMMUNITY DOCTRINE
binding on both Federal and State Juristic Institutions [that I
mentioned at the end of CITIZENSHIP]:
"Congress may curtail an immunity which might otherwise be
implied... or enlarge it beyond the point where, Congress being
silent, the Court would set its limits."
- HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 [footnote #1]
(1937).
Yes, even the Congress of the United States is held to be
accountable for its silence. In footnote number 1 to GRAVES VS.
NEW YORK [306 U.S. 466 (1939)], the Supreme Court holds the
silence of the Congress in areas of regulating Commerce as
determinative of federal policy. In WESTERN LIVE STOCK VS.
BUREAU OF REVENUE [303 U.S. 250 (1937)], the Supreme Court
discusses the implications of Congressional silence in the field
of state taxation of Interstate Commerce and its
instrumentalities. Yes, SILENCE is suggestive of intentions in
some instances, and everyone without exception (even the
Congress of the United States) is held accountable and
responsible, at one time or another, for inferences drawn from
their silence.
.. Even Heavenly Father uses this PRINCIPLE OF NATURE in the
continuation of benefits and duties originating under Celestial
Covenants by Saints, as silence by Saints individually is deemed
to be an automatic extension of the Covenant (only the explicit
disavowal of the Covenant can terminate the Covenant, while
silencer retains the operation of the Covenant in effect).
23 See Roscoe Pound in READINGS IN ROMAN LAW, Second Edition, at
pages 25 to 26.
24 "The orthodox doctrine of the law of contracts, particularly
the OFFER and ACCEPTANCE machinery, could not be more familiar
to most lawyers. We are long indebted to Professor Hohfeld, who
has enabled us to express the legal effect of an Offer as
creating a power of acceptance [see W. Hohfeld in FUNDAMENTAL
LEGAL CONCEPTIONS (1923); and also Corbin in LEGAL ANALYSIS AND
TERMINOLOGY, 29 Yale Law Journal 163 (1919)]. Where an Offer is
extended by an Offeror, he permits the Offeree to exercise a
power of acceptance that subjects the Offeror to the legal
relation called contract. The Offeror is said to be under a
correlative liability, because exercise of the power of
acceptance by the Offeree creates a right-duty relationship.
"After discussing the anatomy of Offers, the first year law
student is concerned with the exercise of the power of
acceptance. At once he is confronted with learning how the power
may be exercised:
"... almost the first question to ask about an offer is: What
particular kind of acceptance did this Offer call for; and
especially: Was it for a promise or was it for an act."
- Llewellyn in OUR CASE LAW OF CONTRACT: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
- PART II, in 48 Yale Law Journal 779, at 780 (1939).
"Understanding his exploration in this fundamental area is the
principle that the Offeror is master of his Offer. He creates
the Offer and may require the power of acceptance to be
exercised in any manner he deems necessary or desirable. To
emphasize this principle, students are typically confronted with
a hypothetical Offer that requires the Offeree to don an UNCLE
SAM costume, climb a greased flagpole, and, upon reaching the
gold dome at the top, whistle Yankee Doodle twice. The effect on
the impressionable first year student is significant. He will
never forget that the Offeror is master of his Offer, and he
will often justify his position through the use of even more
outlandish hypotheticals. Of course, he is obliged to use
hypotheticals, just as his teacher was, since no recorded case
makes the point so clearly."
- John Murray in CONTRACTS: NEW DESIGN FOR THE AGREEMENT
PROCESS, 53 Cornell Law Review 785, at 785 (1968).
Mr. Murray is correct, there is no RECORDED CASE that makes the
point so clearly, but by the time you have finished this Letter,
you will see numerous UNRECORDED CASES of contract Offers by the
King that are very structurally similar to climbing a greased
flagpole by the magnitude of the King's leverage involved, since
the game starts out with the cards being so heavily stacked
against us, as our own ignorance and silence work against us
greatly.
25 The problems associated with RATIFICATION have been the
subject of controversy by commentators.
"If a person whom I have not authorized to act as my agent has
made in my name with a third person a contract composed of
mutual promises, and if the third person, who originally
believed in the authority of the assumed agent, has withdrawn
from the transaction and has communicated his withdrawal to the
assumed agent or to me, can I, nevertheless, thereafter,
promptly upon learning of the contract, ratify the contract and
hold the third person? In short, by ratifying an unauthorized
bilateral contract can I hold the adverse party, although he has
already withdrawn from the contract? ... The questions
underlying the problem go to the very foundation of the DOCTRINE
OF RATIFICATION."
- Eugene Wambaugh in A PROBLEM AS TO RATIFICATION in 9 Harvard
Law Review 60, at 60 (1895).
26 For commentary, see Notes, SILENCE AS ACCEPTANCE IN THE
FORMATION OF CONTRACTS, 33 Harvard Law Review 595 (1919). The
many commercial contract cases cited and quoted therein should
be distinguished from juristic contracts.
27 One should not necessarily feel too depressed over having
failed to perform a positive act at some point in the past; a
correct understanding of handling factual settings is acquired
experientially, and so although knowledge frequently does come
too late...
"Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject
it merely because it comes too late."
- ROSE VS. MITCHELL, 443 U.S. 545, at 575 (1978).
28 Mere declarations by the Congress that their creation of a
uniform national benefit constitutes a benefit, does not in fact
reverse facts that the damages associated with Congressionally
originated money exceed the benefits. The Congress once declared
their attitude that their currency monopoly is a benefit for us
out here in the Countryside:
"In order to provide for the safer and more effective operation
of a National Banking System and the Federal Reserve System, to
preserve for the people the full benefits of the currency
provided for by the Congress through the National Banking System
and the Federal Reserve System..."
- Title 12, Section 95 (March, 19833).
Federal Judges are cognizant of the declaration of Congress that
the issuance of a currency by the Congress is considered to be a
benefit; but declarations do not change previous factual
experiences.
29 In VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533 (1869), the Supreme
Court ruled that it was the Constitutional right of Congress to
provide a currency for the whole Country; that this might be
done by coin, United States notes, or notes of national banks;
and that it cannot be questioned that Congress may
Constitutionally secure the BENEFIT of such a currency to the
people by appropriate legislation.
30 "Quiescent" means that the environment is at rest, but only
for a certain amount of time.
31 "Governments descent to the level of a mere private
corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen
[where commercial instruments are concerned]." - BANK OF U.S.
VS. PLANTERS BANK, 22 U.S. 904 (1829).
"When governments enter the world of commerce, it is subject to
the same burdens as any private firm." - UNITED STATES VS. BURR,
309 U.S. 242 (1939).
And the King is very much into Commerce when his Legal Tender
Statutes and equity co-endorser statutes [Title 12, Section 411]
enhance the value of those negotiable Federal Reserve Notes.
32 Exemplary would be, perhaps, the three volume set of TREATISE
ON RECESSION OF CONTRACTS AND CANCELLATION OF WRITTEN
INSTRUMENTS by Henry Black (Vernon Law Book Company, Kansas
City, Missouri);
And the huge voluminous set of CORBIN ON CONTRACTS by Arthur
Corbin, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota;
Another is the 18 volume set of writings of Sam Williston
entitled A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS, published by Baker,
Voorhis & Company, Mount Kisco, New York (1961).
33 Real defenses include those defenses that arise out of the
fact that no liability was created in the first place by your
involuntary use of Federal Reserve Notes.
34 Personal defenses are those defenses which arise out of the
relationship of the parties to each other.
35 Undue influence is generally understood to be the power which
one person wrongfully exercises over another in attempting to
control and influence the action of such other person. Both
CIRCUMSTANTIAL as well as DIRECT EVIDENCE is acceptable for
proving undue influence (which, like all other defenses are
affirmative defenses, and the burden falls on you to assert your
position well).
36 Remember that Consideration is a benefit, and mere issuance
of the Note itself has always been PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that
Consideration (a benefit) was accepted by the Holder (you). Your
placing the King on "Prior Notice" that benefits are being
declined and waived, and that infirmities are present, is your
attack on
Consideration.
37 Either fraud PER SE or in the alternative, FRAUD IN THE
FACTUM can be either Personal or a Real Defense, depending upon
the factual setting (which we will now alter to favor
ourselves). Law books are generally reluctant to define the
contours of just what fraud is, since no sooner do the contours
of fraud get settled, then some scheming crook stretches those
contours by figuring out new ways to pull something off. But if
you can get a recognizance of fraud, then what is absolutely
certain is the consequence of such fraud: As it vitiates
anything and everything that it enters into. But fraud is an
affirmative defense, and properly so, and the burden is on you
to prove that such fraud exists.
38 Commercial bargains made by people are generally deemed to be
null and void if made in conflict of Public Policy, i.e.,
prostitution, gambling, usury, etc. The King's monopoly grab on
a single national currency is very much contemporary national
Public Policy, so arguing this line in a Contract Law
Jurisprudential setting is going to be difficult, unless the
correct pleading of the Money Issue is presented.
39 Duress does not need to be directly experienced by the party
claiming it as a defense, as duress used by one of the Holders,
with the secondary effect of the duress operating only
indirectly against you, is quite sufficient as a defense.
40 "When governments enter the world of commerce, it is subject
to the same burdens as any private firm."
- UNITED STATES VS. BURR, 309 U.S. 242 (1939).
41 "And honest Men would be expos'd a ready Prey to Villains, if
they were never allow'd to make use of Violence in Resisting
their Attacks."
- THE LAW OF NATURE AND OF NATIONS, by Samuel de Puffendorf
[Translated from the French by Basil Kennett (1729)].
42 Is the King really interested in using penal statutes to
enforce a currency monopoly, down to the present day? Yes, he
very much is, and those who deal in that currency which the King
has seen fit to declare illegal in his kingdom will find
themselves dealing with the King's Agents at gun point.
..Being in the United States felt good to the Braselton Family,
who came over here from Manchester, England in the 1880's. They
settled down in rural Georgia, a remote 52 miles northeast of
Atlanta. This was 52 miles from nowhere, in the middle of
nowhere. This was an enterprising family with commercial
enrichment being a natural family attribute. The elder Mr.
Braselton borrowed $2,000 and started in business with his
brother at the age of 8 [a great deal of money for those days
when SILVER DOLLARS circulated and $1,500 bought a nice house].
Soon, a farming supply store opened up, followed by a succession
of other stores and business interests. What was first a single
building was now a row of buildings lining both sides of a
street, and surrounded by neighborhoods of residents. House of
Braselton essentially grew into a town unto itself. Today, among
the visible merchant establishments, there are the BRASELTON
BANKING COMPANY, the BRASELTON SUPER MARKET, the BRASELTON FLEA
MARKET, the BRASELTON FURNITURE AND APPLIANCE STORE, the
BRASELTON MONUMENT COMPANY, and the BRASELTON SERVICE STATION.
The State of Georgia granted their hamlet political status as a
town, and named it the TOWN OF BRASELTON. After building up a
bank and virtually all of the supply stores in town, the
Braselton Family then built a high school for the town's
residents. There is no police department in Braselton, there is
no fire department and no social services -- and, not
surprisingly, being no benefits, there are no taxes to be
concerned with. No, looters and Tory Aristocrats never did
succeed in gaining a foothold in Braselton. Over the years from
1880 down to the present day, the Braselton stores have had
their trials and reversals: They have had an intermittent fire,
and in 1920 a tornado leveled many buildings, but the family
always rebuilt. The Mayor of Braselton has always been a
Braselton, and the family enterprises are managed by a family
triumvirate, affectionately called THE 3-B's [see the ATLANTA
CONSTITUTION ("Three Braseltons of Braselton Business Partners
Over 50 Years"), (May 31, 1939)].
Today, when I visited Braselton, only a handful of coins and
coupons ["Coupon Check"] mounted on a picture frame remain as
reminiscent icons of the grand days of the 1800's, when anyone
could issue their own currency without fear of being
incarcerated. The history and lore of Braselton, Georgia is
written and mounted on several walls in the BRASELTON BROTHERS
HARDWARE STORE. Walking into that store, one gets a feeling of
power relationships, as photographs from Presidents, Governors,
and Senators, and other Braselton Family Members hang in open
view. With such a display of high powered acquaintances, I
almost felt as if I was in David Rockefeller's office in the
Chase Manhattan Bank -- but there the feeling of similarity
stops. In the BRASELTON HARDWARE STORE, one feels a sweet and
pleasant spirit permeating the store, as if one great American
family resides here. In David Rockefeller's office, also adorned
with photographs of powerful acquaintances, the spirit in the
air is one of an icy demon chill. Once while travelling up in an
elevator in the Chase Manhattan Bank, my knees started to rattle
when passing the 17th Floor, where His Excellency used to
maintain his nest. The idea came to me, as I tried to stop the
shivers, that the Astral High Command was holding an important
conference, and that the demons were planning to pull off
something grand. Being primarily in the farming supply business,
the Braselton Family developed a Credit System based on TRADE
CERTIFICATES to handle the seasonal nature of surrounding
farmers coming in to trade crops for supplies. For store
employees and local residents, the Braseltons had their own
coins minted, and dollar equivalency coupons printed to be used
as currency. Copper and nickel based coins were minted in
numerous equivalency denominations under $1.00; the paper
coupons ["Coupon Checks"] were similar to those coupon issued by
movie theaters and carnivals, and were available in coupon
books. The issuance and circulation of coins and currency by THE
3-B's was not only illegal, it was criminal, but in a friendly
small town in Georgia composed of class people, who concerned
themselves with technical banking statutes in Washington?
Over the years since the 1880's, while foreign wars came and
went, the Braselton Family enterprises prospered and grew
independent of the King -- but eventually the party would be
over. As is always the case, one little goof messes up the soup
for everyone else, and the Braselton's turn came in the early
1950's.
..One day in the early 1950's, a Braselton minted coin found
its way into a gas station in Atlanta. In turn it was passed on
to a bank, who could not redeem it into currency they are
comfortable with. So the bank called the United States Secret
Service to report this heinous criminal outrage being
commercially orchestrated right up State Highway 53 in
Braselton. From out of their offices in the Atlanta Federal
Building descended a troop of Federal Agents on Braselton [they
always like to put on a big show], and THE 3-B's surrendered
immediately. THE 3-B's would have surrendered on a phone call,
but agents for the King earn their pay IN TERROREM, and like to
use a show force to make a STATEMENT. The King's Agents brought
with them guns and a slice of LEX from Title 18 ["Crimes"], so
now the private minting of Braselton coins and currency coupons
was over with. In time, the Braseltons also disbanded the
farmer's TRADE CERTIFICATES for other reasons.
QUESTION: Will the King use his guns to prevent you from
circulating your own currency? Yes, he will.
43 "The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in
which it is done."
- UNITED STATES VS. SCHENCK, 249 U.S. 47, at 52 (1918).
44 One of the statutory devices used by the King to grab for
himself the currency circulating around the United States was to
make it a criminal act for someone to countersign or deliver to
any association, company, or person, any circulating notes not
expressly allowed by the King:
"...That it shall be unlawful for any officer acting under the
provisions of this act to countersign or deliver to any
association, or to any other company or person, any circulating
notes contemplated by this act, except as herein before
provided, and in accordance with the true intent and meaning of
this act. Any officer who shall violate the provisions of this
section shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on
conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding
double the amount so countersigned and delivered, and
imprisonment not less than one year and not exceeding fifteen
years, at the discretion of this court in which he shall be
tried."
- 13 UNITED STATES STATUTES AT LARGE 107, Chapter 106, Section
27 ["National Banking Act"], 38th Congress, First Session (1864).
Introduced into the Senate by John Sherman and the House by
Samuel Hooper, the Rothschild Gremlins had done their payoffs
very well, as both this NATIONAL BANKING ACT and the COINAGE ACT
OF 1873 were the products of intrigue by Gremlins that
originated in Europe.
By the time the 1940's came around, 13 U.S. STATUTES AT LARGE
had been changed slightly and placed into Title 12, Section 581
["Unauthorized Issue of Circulating Notes"], with the threatened
incarceration retained. In June of 1948, the Congress repealed
Title 12, Section 581, and so today the King retains his
monopoly on circulating instruments by a combination of
administrative LEX prohibiting banking associations from issuing
currency, and also by prohibiting anyone anywhere from
circulating their own coins:
"Whoever makes, issues, circulates, or pays out any note,
check, memorandum, token, or other obligation for a less sum
than $1.00, intended to circulate as money or be received or
used in lieu of lawful money of the United States, shall be
fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both."
- Title 18, Section 336 ["Issuance of Circulating Obligations
of less than $1".]
Since all transactions subject to sales taxes in the United
States are denominated in cents (even the purchase of jet
aircraft), restraining a discharge in part prevents the
discharge in whole. A person precluded from discharging his
debts, except by overpayment, is a person experiencing a hard
juristic Tort created by the King.
45 Such as happened with OWEN VS. THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE [445
U.S. 622 (1979)], which correctly reversed 500 years of Common
Law policy that favored municipal Tort immunization.
46 When the manuscript to Paul Blakewell's book entitled WHAT
ARE WE USING FOR MONEY? [New York: Van Nostrand, 1952] was sent
to retired Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts (who had voted
with the majority in the Gold Clause Cases [NORMAN VS. BALTIMORE
and three other Cases starting at 294 U.S. 240 (1934)]), Judge
Roberts sent a letter back to Paul Blakewell stating:
"Of course, I ought not to be quoted concerning a decision of
the Court when I was a member of it, but I am inclined to think
that had I known the history you describe, I would have been of
a different opinion than the one expressed."
- Quoted from David Fargo in WILL GOLD CLAUSES RETURN?, in 8
Reason Magazine 72, at 103 (June, 1976).
47 Even though Judges may deal with tax enforcement proceedings
whose only evidence is the acceptance and recirculation of
Federal Reserve Notes on the civil side of their courtroom, you
are not free of incarceration by merely getting rid of your
Enfranchisements, licenses, and bank accounts that evidences the
acceptance of Federal benefits -- benefit acceptance that
creates invisible contracts. The IRS specializes in 2039 Summons
and DISCOVERY enforcement moves to perfect incarceration through
civil contempt proceedings, and the mere absence of a bank
account will not protect you from being cited for Contempt of
Court and the encagement that follows.
48 Yes, benefits accepted are also the invisible contract into
state tax courts:
"The simple but controlling question is whether the state has
given anything [some type of a juristic benefit] for which it
can ask return."
- STATE OF WISCONSIN VS. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, 311 U.S. 435, at
444 (1940).
49 Writing to the French inhabitants of Louisiana, after the
American War of Independence was over with, Thomas Paine made
the following observation on the sometimes necessary use of
aggression to obtain rights:
"We obtained our rights by calmly understanding principles, and
by the successful event of a long, obstinate, and expensive war.
But it is not incumbent on us to fight the battles of the world
for the world's profit."
- THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE, by David Wheeler, Page
173 [Vincent Parke & Company, New York City (1908)]
50 CLEARFIELD TRUST VS. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363 (1942).
51 CLEARFIELD TRUST, id., 318 U.S. at 367.
52 "... the federal law merchant, developed for about a century
under the regime of SWIFT VS. TYSON, 16 Peter 1, represented
general commercial law rather than a choice of a federal rule
designed to protect a federal right..."
- CLEARFIELD TRUST, id., 318 U.S. at 367.
53 In explaining why state law governed a federal commercial
paper question:
"While [the] New York statute... is not controlling... [there
is] no conflict with any state or federal policy..."
- ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY VS. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 289, at
297 (1940).
54 "In the absence of an applicable Act of Congress, it is for
the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law,
according to their own standards..."
- CLEARFIELD TRUST, id., 318 U.S. at 367.
55 Nowhere in Federal statutes does there exist specific
language to the effect that INDIVIDUALS using Federal Reserve
Notes are PERSONS attached to the administrative mandates of
Title 26. The reason why we concern ourselves with this state of
affairs is largely of a judicial origin, as Federal Judges are
free to take Judicial Notice of such Supreme Court Cases like
EMILY DE GANAY VS. LEDERER, [250 U.S. 376 (1919)], which held
that French Citizens and residents are liable to pay American
Income Taxes by reason of their Commercial activities taking
place over here. However, when we probe for the real bottom line
at a deeper level, the real reason liability exists lies in an
operation of contract. In 1925, the Supreme Court declared that
there are two different types of invisible contracts ("implied
contracts"). [The Supreme Court did not CREATE something new
here, as they merely declared in writing what had always been
the structure of Nature in this area of contracts.] One type of
contract recognized exists because of the practical factual
elements that arise between two parties, and there is a
structure in the factual background where there has been an
exchange of Consideration. Another type are implied contracts
that exist as a matter of express declared Law [see HENRY
MERRITT VS. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 338, at 341 (1925)].
"It is important to remain aware of the distinctions between
contracts implied in fact and contracts implied in law. In the
former, the Court determines from the circumstances that the
parties have indicated their assent to the contract. In the
latter, however, the law creates an obligation "for reasons of
justice, without any expression of assent and sometimes even
against a clear expression of dissent."
- FREEDMAN VS. BENEFICIAL CORPORATION, 406 F.Supp. 917, at 923
[Footnote #10] (1975); quoting from 1 CORBIN ON CONTRACTS,
Section 18 and 19 (1963).
Since no explicit statutes exist to adhesively bind
recirculators of Federal Reserve Notes to Title 26, this USE OF
FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES contract is a contract arising from the
factual elements of a commercial relational nature existing
between the two parties (as Federal benefits were accepted in
the context of some Judicially declared Commercial reciprocity
being expected back in return). Contracts to pay Federal Income
Taxes as a matter of pronounced Law are contracts like
Citizenship, where some junior LEX statutes do exist that
explicitly spell out Title 26 liability to such identified
PERSONS in no uncertain terms.
