George Mercier's Invisible Contracts

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

I N V I S I B L E   C O N T R A C T S

George Mercier



[Pages 89-130]


[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE CONTRACTS

to an electronic medium.  For an explanation of the conventions used,

please download the file INCONHLP.ZIP for further illumination.  Other

background information as well is contained in INCONHLP.ZIP.  It is

advisable to EXIT this file right now and read the contents of

INCONHLP.ZIP before proceeding with your study of this file.]


In a Contract Law Judgment setting, questions sounding in the Tort of

unfairness regarding the interference of a person not a party to a

contract in causing a person who is a party to a contract not to honor

his contract is irrelevant, as I will explain later on; and so when

cries of unfairness wallow up at the Judgment Day, as claims of

unfairness will be heard in having had Lucifer's low key assistants

hacking away at us down here, those cries will then be in vain, as the

unfairness in Contract Law of outside interference in contract

administration is irrelevant in measuring contract performance itself.

For example, the fact that an Employer terminated your livelihood, and

you subsequently experienced a cessation of money coming in, and so that

now you are unable to pay your apartment lease payments, is irrelevant

in an Tenant Eviction Proceeding.  Either you have paid your rent as the

Lease Contract calls for, or you haven't. Even though the secondary

effect of your livelihood being terminated directly restrained you from

honoring your Lease Contract due to a lack of money, your Employer is

not a party to that apartment Lease Contract, so what your Employer did

or did not do is not relevant in a leasehold Eviction Proceeding.  That

is Contract Law Jurisprudence; its cold, mean, and it isn't really very

"fair" -- so now addressing that face on, we should start to negotiate

our personal business contracts on terms we can live with, rather than

snicker at Judges when we are in default later on. Remember the reason

why "fairness" is not relevant in a contract grievance:  Because if

judges allowed "fairness," so called, to enter into one side of the

grievance and benefit one party, the effect of the entrance of such

"fairness" into the evidentiary setting presented to the Judge for a

ruling, will always work a Tort on the other party. What is the correct

solution?  Ignore all claims for "fairness" and just enforce the

contract.  Cold, brutal, mean, harsh?  Yes... but proper.  Rather than

snicker at Judges at that late date well after you are in default, you

might want to address the origin of your problem: You entered into a

contract you could not handle under a worst case scenario (worst case

meaning loss of livelihood).


And those are the kinds of very narrow and precise lines that we need

to think in, in understanding Contract Law. You may very well have

legitimate mitigating circumstances to justify why you could not honor

a contract -- but is an ELECTION OF REMEDIES for the Party that you are

in default to, to decide what he intends to do with you, and it is not

anything for an enforcement judge to take notice of.


But contrary to the SUB ROSA silence of Lucifer on the existence of any

Contracts in effect with Father, Father is in fact operating on

Contracts and under Contract Law Jurisprudence with all of us down here,

and not on the principles, fairness, equality, and justice of pure

natural moral Tort Law.  So only the content of our Contracts will be

of concern to Father at the Last Day. Under the justice of natural Tort

Law, the equality of judgment fairness requires that a person be

adjudged on the basis of how other similar people are being adjudged;

but this is not relevant to Father for our purposes at our Final

Judgment.  [118]


[118]============================================================= There

are many people who take the view, seemingly very reasonably that, since

they have accepted Jesus Christ into their lives, and since they are

just as good and moral as anyone else they know (and a lot more moral

than many other people), then it is quite reasonable that they will be

going to Heaven.  This view is very widespread today, and it is also

quite defective.  First, the fact that you are just as good and moral

as anyone else is irrelevant to Father in our impending Judgment Day to

be held under a Contract Law jurisprudential setting. Father has no

interest in any relative or collectively weighed anything.  You,

individually and personally, have either progressed under your Contract,

or you haven't; and what some guy down the street does or avoids is not

relevant to you and your Contract.  The unfairness of possibly being

treated worse than someone else in a grievance is a Tort Law argument.

Second, the fact that you have accepted Jesus Christ into your life is

very significant -- but only as a point of beginning, and not as a

terminating wrap up to anything.  The error made by many Christian folks

-- that their acceptance of Jesus Christ completes their forward motions

on Heavenly matters -- is the same error that many other folks make by

assigning either a terminating or concluding attribute to the execution

of contracts [like walking out of an automobile dealership with a sigh

of relief that since you've the contract and the car is your's, well,

that ends the matter; sorry, but that PURCHASE AND SALE CONTRACT only

started the matter].  Entering into a contract -- whether with Heavenly

Father or anyone else -- is always just a point of beginning, a fact

that sharp Gremlins have taken very astute notice of.  While taking

about a Diplomatic Treaty that was just signed (and Treaties between

Governments are contracts):   "It is a fundamental mistake to assume

that the treaty ends where it really begins. The signing of the

document on June 28, 1919 at Versailles did not complete its history;





Brothers, New York (1920)].  (The italics formation of the last sentence

was that way in the original, so it represents an idea Bernard Baruch

deemed important). Here is a Gremlin -- Bernard Baruch --telling us that

when he participated in partially negotiating the Treaty of Versailles

in 1919, he knew that many folks commonly view the execution of Treaties

to be the end of the matter; but sharp Gremlins know that contracts only

start the action in motion; so we too should be cognizant of this

attribute in Nature.



Those Torts that are committed by us and those great things that are

done by us outside of our Contracts are irrelevant to Father (and to

ourselves at the Judgment Day); also irrelevant will be those factors

of natural Tort Law, such as fairness, rights, equality, and justice.

So the Illuminatti, going into the Judgment Day with their pure natural

moral Tort Law excuses all very neatly lined up to justify, vitiate, and

excuse their incredible abominations under Lucifer's brilliant

counselling, will be just like a Constitutionalist, so called, going

into a 7203 prosecution judgment with a bank account contract and

arguing principles of natural and moral Tort Law (want of a MENS REA,

morality, rights, basic justice, privacy rights, no CORPUS DELECTI

damages, unfairness, excessive Eighth Amendment punishment for a mere

omission, Common Law says..., etc.) and then demanding justice, and all

of these elements of Tort Law pronounced very well through numerous

Supreme Court rulings and Constitutional clauses; but they are not

applicable to the merits of a Contract Law Judgment setting.  Both the

pseudo-clever Illuminatti Gremlin and well-meaning Constitutionalist who

still needs intellectual development on Contract Law Jurisprudence, are

both totally convinced that they are absolutely correct -- but the

unknown reality is that they are both just plain wrong, and for the

identical same reason:  Their arguments, reasoning, and justifications,

although absolutely correct in another judgment setting of pure natural

moral Tort Law, are off-point by a wide variance: Because in both of

those Judgment Day and 7203 judgment settings that the Illuminatti

Gremlin and well-meaning Constitutionalist are being adjudged by, are

under invisible Contract Jurisprudence and Contract Law, not Tort Law.



[119]============================================================= As

a concluding by-line to this digressionary discussion here on Father and

Contracts, if you'll but give it a few moments thought and imagination,

it is interesting to note that this impending Judgment Day arrangement

that Father designed, gives a generous built in structural edge to those

persons who are trying to become the Sons of Eloha, and the procedure

itself also creates obstacles for those who have no interest in such a

Celestial Objective (as if the operation of the Judgment Day mechanical

procedure itself assists in separating embryonic Eloha from their

ministrants).  So now we need to ask ourselves a question:  Does that

structural arrangement sound like it comes from someone who knows what

he is doing?  Yes, it sounds like Father knows exactly what he is doing;

and if that is true, then we should listen very carefully to anything

Father has to say and would like us to do.  And consistent with Father's

intentions to give his Sons the edge whenever possible, while exposing

them to the same environment and standards as everyone else, comes the

following arrangement:  That after we enter into Father's Advanced

Contracts down here there are some other circumstances we can go through

down here to accelerate the Judgment Day to the present time (but that

is another Letter).  I am only making the comparative point here that

the lack of national collective interest on the extreme significance of

that Judgment Day accelerant statement replicates the lack of national

collective interest on the extreme significance of bank accounts and

other high-powered contracts as those Equity instruments define our sub-

parity relationship with the King.  In both cases, this information is

freely floating around the countryside, but one first has to define

objectives, ask questions, and then exert efforts in order to get to and

then understand answers to questions.  (And it is the discipline and

serious attitude such a procedure requires which largely explains why

there are so few people around who possess such important knowledge; not

that there are few knowledgeable persons that is an inverse indicia to

gauge the importance of the knowledge).



Knowing what you do now about Tort Law rationale and our First Estate

Contracts with Father, let us examine, just for the moment, the Old

Testament's account of Sodom.  There was a city, we are told, full of

licentiousness and whoremongering, and although that behavior doesn't

sound too attractive to most folks, let us consider the fact that in

such behavior there are no damages being experienced by anyone, there

is no MENS REA, and that all of the persons who participate in those

orgies have consented -- and furthermore, biological benefits are

present.  (When criminals are about to work a crime on someone else,

that advance planning in their minds is called the MENS REA.  The reason

why their mind is evil is because they were about to try and damage

either another person, or someone else's property). [120]



Furthermore, just to make things seem psychologically interesting back

then, I am sure that Lucifer blended in some ceremonial flair into those

orgies, by conveying the image that orgies were officially sanctioned,

somehow.  Like contemporary Witches emulating their mentors in Sodom by

performing Fertility Rites on the Witches' Sabbath, an interesting

sounding excuse will satisfy most folks.  When Witches are not otherwise

busy PULLING DOWN THE MOON, almost all of their rites involving licking

down some slice of meat [see Raymond Buckland's THE TREE, THE COMPLETE

BOOK OF SAXON WITCHCRAFT, from Seax-Wica Voys, Box 5149, Virginia Beach,

Virginia 23455].



So if everyone is consenting, and there are no damages, and there is no

MENS REA, then there is nothing to remedy, and there is no cause of

action to effect a "retort," and there is no retortional corrective

justice to apply, since nothing went amiss in the first place.  General

reasoning in this area is very prevalent today (meaning that many folks

today have no concern for the inappropriate use of those ecstatic

circumstances which initiate mammalian reproduction). Heathens don't

like to hear this kind of talk, but Father actually operates in an

unchanging straight doctrinal line, without any skew to accommodate the

pleasing intellectual music devils propagate that are sounding in the

justifying Tort of liability mitigation, that now, just somehow,

enhanced relative levels of technical knowledge ["this is the

Information Age"] or that self-perceived aggrandizement of intellectual

sophistication, relegates such anachronistic Stone Age bugaboo standards

to a classification status demeaning to your enlightened standing.



[121]============================================================= "We

do not believe in situation-itis; we do not go with the people who think

that there is a different age, that this is a different time, that these

people are more enlightened, or that [this standard] was for old times.

Always the Lord will hold to his statements that he has given through

the ages, and he will expect men to respect themselves, to respect their

wives, and the wives to respect their husbands." -    Spencer W.

Kimball in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["God The Same Today"], page 162 (April,




What then gives Father the right to expect technical compliance with

such ecstatic extracurricular circumstances that every person knows

Father does not approve the inappropriate use of? What gives Father the

right to penalize us for engaging in circumstances that not only damage

no one, but are actually biologically beneficial -- circumstances which

when administered clinically during the formative years under a

therapeutic factual setting will actually correct impending deviancy

inclinations?  The answers lies in Contracts, for where there lies a

Contract, a regulatory jurisdiction is in effect and there doesn't have

to be any damages experienced for someone to be penalized for technical

Contract violations; and furthermore, your excuses for non-compliance

are irrelevant should a grievance ever come to pass.  That is where

Father got the right to turn Sodom upside down and terminate all people

living therein, and Father did so without any nymph in Sodom being

damaged, everyone consenting to that behavior, and the residents of

Sodom never manifesting an evil state of mind towards other residents,

as pure, raw fleshy Hedonism was practiced without let up.  [122]


[122]============================================================= "As

a young man David demonstrated a courage and a strength and a power that

likely has not been equaled in all of the great characters of the

scriptures.  He fought with wild beasts and overcame them, defeated the

giant Goliath virtually with his hands, and then served through many

years as the leader of Israel and demonstrated in the process tremendous

control, tremendous discipline.  The greatest enemy he had, perhaps,

through most of these years -- at least the greatest threat to his

existence -- was the man Saul.  Yet on several occasions when David

could have removed this threat by taking the life of Saul, who was in

his hands, [David] withheld [himself] and controlled those impulses.

That demonstrated tremendous power and control. Then later in life, as

a mature man with all the strength that kind of life had brought him,

David was unwise.  It was not because David was weak that he fell.  He

was unwise.  I suspect that David had reached the point where he felt

he was strong enough to indulge the entertainment of some enticing

possibilities.  On the day he stood on his rooftop and observed the wife

of one of his officers, instead of taking himself by the nape of the

neck, so to speak, and saying 'David, get out of here!' David remained.

David thought about the possibilities [of getting involved with this

slice of meat], and those thoughts overcame David and eventually

controlled him.  One of the saddest entries in all the scriptures, I

think, is that which the Lord gave the Prophet Joseph Smith in Section

132 of the DOCTRINES AND COVENANTS.  Speaking of David's situation

today, he said, 'For he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received

his portion.' (D&C 132:39). "...David, King David, one of the greatest

and powerful men of the Old Testament times, could have been today among

the Gods if he had controlled his thoughts."      -    Dean L. Larsen

in 1976 SPEECHES OF THE YEAR, at 121 [Brigham Young University Press,

Provo, Utah (1976)]. The chronicles of David's life are presented in

FIRST and SECOND SAMUEL.  Notice how there was never any unjust damages

created by David in his life down here; David did not lose his

exaltation because he carefully avoided damaging others, as a lot of

folks in Christiandom incorrectly believe is important, but actually

David lost his Celestial Status in the impending Heavenly realms that

lie ahead because of an infracted Contract under circumstances that

created no damages whatsoever [David mentions that he entered into

Father's EVERLASTING COVENANT in II SAMUEL 23:5], the content of which

prohibits promiscuous masculine excursions into the interior contours

of feminine musculature, under certain circumstances.  The defense

argument that such ecstatic circumstances create a wide ranging array

of beneficial biological and psychological side effects (which is

factually correct) is not going to be relevant at the Last Day -- just

like Tax Protesting arguments sounding in the Tort of Constitutional

unfairness are not relevant when Federal Judges are enforcing express

Commercial contracts (even though the Protestor is also factually

correct as well in his Constitutional research). And Protestors

continue to lose today on the same grounds and for the same reasons that

good Christian folks will lose the Celestial Kingdom and take an

honorable second place as an Angel:  Because of failure to identify and

come to grips with a series of invisible Contracts, and for failing to

appreciate the extent to which contracts are elevated in Nature to an

overruling dominate position in settling Judgments. Father's Covenants

were deliberately designed to provide PERSONS operating under its

jurisdictional penumbra with a confluence of contrasting incentives to

exercise judgment on, and it is the outcome of those decisions which

Covenant operants make for themselves -- that is what Father wants to

see.  Yet David, while he was still alive down here, knew that he had

blown it but good:  "[Jesus Christ told me that] he that ruleth over men

must be just, ruling in the fear of God [and this is important to Father

because impending Gods will themselves be ruling over angels and the

like in the realms to come].  [...These just persons, who are potential

Gods], shall be as light in the morning, when the sun riseth, even a

morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the Earth

by clear shining after rain." After describing such a potential

Celestial person in those terms, David admitted that he did not qualify:

     "...although my house be not so with God."

     - II SAMUEL 23:3 et seq.



The questions of damages, of the presence of a MENS REA, and of consent

are Tort Law arguments, and are not relevant when contracts are in

effect.  But wait,


     "I was never baptized, I never entered me into no Contracts with

Father.  My parents never got me involved with no church.  I don't have

me no baptism certificate in my closet."


Yes, even you have invisible Contracts now in effect with Father.  We

all have Contracts in effect, and we all took out these contracts, all

of us without any exceptions did this, back in the First Estate as

Spirits.  And it was then and there that we were on our knees before

Father taking out Contracts in the angelic language we were then

speaking, back before our memories were temporarily abated down here,

that's when.


This then is the Grand Key towards understanding why people want

contracts out of you:  Because that contract you gave them gives them

the right to deal with you effectively at a later time.  In the case of

Heavenly Father, those previous existing First Estate Contracts give

Father the right to deal effectively with us at a later time, both

individually and collectively down here, should our degenerate Contract

wickedness exceed his patience and threshold level of tolerance (as the

Old Testament documents over and over again), as well as providing a

Contract Law Jurisprudential judgment setting at the Last Day where Tort


ignored.  In the case of the King, he too wants contracts out of us to

accomplish his revenue raising objectives, and then later enforceable

against us under threat of incarceration otherwise not permissible

absent a Commercial contract.  In the case of Lucifer and certain Mafia

Families, they too deal in contracts to deal effectively at a later time

with a dissenter who leaves their ranks and starts to talk or otherwise

creates troubles:  By having the dissenter killed.  In a contemporary

Commercial setting, merchants, lending institutions, landlords, etc. all

want recourse contracts out of you so they can deal effectively with you

at a later time in Summary Judgment proceedings should there be a

default.  And on and on.  [123]



Illuminatti Gremlins, vipers, Bolsheviks, witches and other associated

imps who circulate in that genre are not the only ones to be fooled and

taken in on Tort Law reasoning down here.  Certain eremitical monks are

another prime example of well meaning people arranging their acts and

behavior down here to take maximum advantage of the "avoidance of

damages" question that haunts so many people.  Of the numerous orders

of monks around, such as the Trappists, the Carthusians, and the

Benedictines, perhaps it is several of the Black Monk abbeys in Europe

that are exemplary in their zeal not to damage anything, anyone, or any

property, at any time.  These particular Black Monks are doctrinaire

Benedictine Monks.  But unique to their own monastery sect, they walk

through the air slowly and lead isolated and inactive lives.  On their

minds, they are taught not to influence the direction of anything else

(i.e., avoid potential damages there).  In Saint Benedictine's Rules

[E.C. Butler, BENEDICTINE MONACHISM (1924)], chapters 23 to 30 talk

about the relationship in effect between fault for damages and

punishments to be expected.  The head monk, the Abbott, is taught that

he will be held accountable to answer for the souls of all of his monks

before the judgment seat of God (chapters 2, 3, 27 and 64).  Both the

willful avoidance of damaging anything, and the doctrine that the Abbott

is responsible before Father for the acts of others are Tort Law

arguments, and are defective.  Heavenly Father is dealing in Contracts;

and expecting yourself to be magnified in stature before Father at the

Last Day due to the mere absence of not having caused any damages down

here or assuming responsibility for what a third person does or does not

do, is absolutely incorrect.  The only third party line of liability

down here that we need to be concerned originates with Contracts, such

as one that deems parents to be responsible for the acts of their

offspring, if the child goes off on a negative tangent.



Those who want to go forth and FILL THE MEASURE OF THEIR CREATION, just

like Prophets and Patriarchs, need to go out and get some replacement

Contracts with Father; [124]


[124]============================================================= Our

old Patriarch Jeremiah once had a few words to say about the Principle

of Nature that provides for a superseding layer of Covenants replacing

a previous layer of Covenants that have fulfilled their purpose.  While

quoting Jesus Christ, Jeremiah said that: "Behold, the days come,

saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the House of

Israel, and with the House of Judah; Not according to the Covenant that

I made with their fathers in that day [when] I took them by the hand to

bring them out of Egypt; which my Covenant they [broke], although I was

a husbandman to them; but this shall be the Covenant that I will make

with the House of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put

my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be

their God, and they shall be my people." -    JEREMIAH 31:31 et seq.

Here we are being told that the terms of Covenants that were once

structured for folks in another area are going to be replaced with terms

of a NEW COVENANT for us; indirectly referring to the modifications made

in the LAW OF MOSES relating to blood sacrifice rites that were deemed

unnecessary after the Crucifixion perfected that phase of ATONEMENT.

This passage in JEREMIAH does not talk about our own specific individual

First Estate Contracts being replaced with another layer of NEW

COVENANTS in this Second Estate, but the Principle that is being spoken

here, of an organic growth in Covenants by reason of superseding

replacement, applies to us all individually, just as Jeremiah is telling

us that it applies to the House of Israel collectively.  The operation

of this Principle of Nature, whether applied to us individually COVENANT

BY SUCCESSIVE COVENANT or collectively as a nation by a change in the

terms of those COVENANTS EN MASSE, is well known in Law and is called

the MERGER DOCTRINE by American lawyers, which I will discuss later.

Jeremiah was a marvelous fellow, and I will have more to say about him

personally near the end of this Letter.



the status of a person being a Prophet or Apostle down here does not

exalt them or confer upon them any special entitlement, as everyone is

exalted by reason of their Covenants with Father, and their status as

Prophets are actually an administrative work assignment for them.  [125]


[125]============================================================= Your

ability to be exalted is neither diminished nor exalted because you are

not a Prophet or an Apostle.  "Here [we Apostles and Prophets are], who

[like common Saints], are destined to be exalted with the Gods, to

become rulers in the Kingdoms of our Father, to become equal with the

Father and the Son..."   -    Brigham Young, in a discourse delivered

in the Bowery, Salt Lake City, June 15, 1856; 3 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES

354, at 360 [London (1856)].



You don't need to be a Prophet, or raise people from the dead, or be

endowed with Celestial magic to snap your fingers and heal people of

cancer, in order to go forth and FILL THE MEASURE OF YOUR CREATION, but

you do need to fulfill difficult Contracts. [126]


[126]============================================================= "We

are a Covenant-making and a Covenant-taking people. We have the Gospel,

which is the NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT: NEW in that the Lord has

revealed it anew in our day; EVERLASTING in that its principles are

eternal, have existed with God from all eternity, and are the same

unchangeable laws by which all men in all ages may be Saved.  The Gospel

is the Covenant which God makes with his children here on Earth that he

will return them to His presence and give them Eternal Life, if they

will walk the paths of truth and righteousness while here. "We are the

children of the Covenant which God made with Abraham, or father.  To

Abraham, God promised Salvation and Exaltation if he would walk as the

Lord taught him to walk.  Further, the Lord Covenanted with Abraham that

he would restore to Abraham's seed the same laws and ordinances, in all

their beauty and perfection, which that ancient patriarch had received.

'For as many as receive that Gospel,' the Lord said to him, 'shall be

called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise

up and bless thee, as their father.'  (Abraham 2:10). "Now we have this

same EVERLASTING COVENANT.  We have the restored Gospel, and every

person who belongs to the Church, who has passed through the waters of

Baptism, has had the inestimatable privilege of making a personal

Covenant with the Lord that will save him provided he does the things

he agrees to do when he enters into that Covenant with God."     -

Bruce R. McConkie in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["A Covenant People"], at page

13 (October, 1950). "The Latter-day Saints are the people of God, a

chosen people, a royal priesthood, a covenant people, and a covenant-

making people.  The greatest and most important blessings our Heavenly

Father has for his faithful sons and daughters are received by

covenant."     - George F. Richards, in CONFERENCE REPORTS, page 129

(April, 1945).



...Which leads us to the conclusory observation regarding the overall

wisdom of ignoring the terms and conditions of contracts we sometimes

improvidently get ourselves into:  That people who are well seasoned

experientially realize that although ignorance may very well be bliss

in the dreamy ALICE IN WONDERLAND emotional aura it psychologically

creates, this line on Contract Law Jurisprudence is exemplary as to why

ignorance is also highly self-damaging in the practical setting.  [127]


[127]============================================================= "The

first objective of our existence is to know and understand the

principles of life, to know good from evil, to understand light from

darkness, to have the ability to choose between that which gives and

perpetuates life and that which would take it away. The volition of the

creature to choose is free; we have this power given to us."     -

     Brigham Young, President of the Mormon Church, speaking in the Old

Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, December 8, 1867; 12 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES

111, at 111 [London (1869)].



Yes, the benefits inuring to persons entering into and honoring Father's

New and Everlasting Covenant are so great that the judgment of folks

trying to search for ways to work around it (by either adapting Tort Law

reasoning ["I don't need me none of that -- it's all the same God"] or

by adapting a posture of avoiding responsibility through claims of

factual ignorance), really looks pathetic by comparison.  [128]


[128]============================================================= "We

can not receive, while in the flesh, the keys [of Celestial

Jurisdiction] to form and fashion kingdoms and to organize matter, for

they are beyond our [limited] capacity and calling [down here], [they

are] beyond this world.  In the resurrection, men who have been faithful

and diligent in all things in the flesh, [who] have kept their First and

Second Estate, [will] be crowned Gods, even the Sons of God, [and] will

be ordained to organize matter [and then go off and create and people

their own planets]."     -    Brigham Young, in a discourse delivered

in Farmington, Utah, August 24, 1872; 15 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 135, at

137 [London (1873)].



And speaking of ignorance (and of staying in ignorance by choice):  An

interesting secondary element surfaces in the Restraining Order and the

chronologically correlative criminal prosecution of Armen Condo.  Not

only did Armen Condo not honor his contracts with the King, he did not

even know of their existence.  [129]


[129]============================================================= A

necessarily difficult position to be in.  However, since ignorance,

whether real or pretended, of the contract's existence does not vitiate

one's liability, then restraining one's self to remain within the

contours of such intellectual containment, in such a state of ignorance

is self-damaging, and is to be discouraged. And as for the Law of

Contracts, whether known or unknown:    "A contract is an agreement in

which a party undertakes to do, or not to do, a particular thing.  The

law binds him to perform his undertaking, and this is, of course, the

obligation of the contract."  -    STURGES VS. CROWNINSHIELD, 17 U.S.

122, at 197 (1819).



This state of affairs of throwing criminal prosecutions against people

who do not even know of the evidentiary existence of a contract the King

is operating on, has been under consideration and review by the King's

Agents in Washington.  Staff members in the Treasury Department have

been analyzing the possible benefits and consequences to the King if,

in the justification of the Income Tax, the IRS were to shift over to

a correct presentation of the Law, in the context of proper and natural

morality and ethics, based on a voluntary attachment of Equity

Jurisdiction, and applicable only to a special class of people.  At the

present time, the IRS presentation of the Law, in explaining why an

Income Tax is to be paid, continuously shifts attention over to the 16th

Amendment, and kind of winds up by saying that:


     "...well, we collect the tax from every one because the 16th

Amendment tells us we need to."


You may be surprised to hear this somewhat pleasant note, but there is

internal disagreement within the Treasury Department on the long term

wisdom of such an erroneous presentation of the Law. And both Armen

Condo and Irwin Schiff are prime exemplary models to explain this

interesting change in viewpoint now in intellectual gestation within the

senior administrative rank and file of the King's own tax collectors.

In Treasury staff meetings ever since the early 1970's, there has been

concern expressed regarding the growing Tax Resistance Movement, so

called.  [130]


[130]============================================================= "A

growing number of taxpayers are developing negative perceptions of the

Federal Income Tax.  For example, surveys conducted by the ADVISORY


the Federal Income Tax as the worst tax imposed on them and the least

fair.  Further, tax evasion appears on the rise -- paralleling the

increase in negative perception."  -    Steven Kaplan and Phillip

Reckers in A STUDY OF TAX EVASION JUDGMENTS in 38 National Tax Journal

97, at 97 (March, 1985); citing in turn the research of Myers and


Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D.C.




Senior staff members have known about this Movement well in advance,

back to the early 1950's, and it was very clear to them at that time in

the 1950's what we now are seeing all around us: Open and growing

resistance and defiance to the assertion of tax collection authority by

the King.  [131]


[131]============================================================= Sharp

Congressmen themselves knew of this impending state of defiance back in

the 1800's, before the original version of our present Income Tax was

created:  "The imposition of the [income] tax will corrupt the people.

It will bring in its train the spy and the informer. It will

necessitate a swarm of officials with inquisitorial powers.  It will be

a step towards centralization...  It breaks another canon of taxation

in that it is expensive in its collection [a condition since remedied

by the clever use of administrative contracts to force people into a

taxable status they would not otherwise be in]..."     -   

Representative Robert Adams, speaking in opposition to the proposed

Income Tax Act of 1894, on the floor of the House of Representatives,

January 26, 1894 [as quoted by Frank Chodorov in THE INCOME TAX, page

63 (Devin-Adair, 1954)]. [But as usual in Congress, cries and pleas for

the continuance of the quiescent STATUS QUO of the 1800's fell on deaf




Back in the 1950's, statisticians in the Treasury Department, in their

long range (10, 20 and 30 year) revenue/budget projection plots, saw

that the combination of both inflation and the percentage progressive

Income Tax would, in just a few decades, be pushing just the average

worker into highly aggressive tax levels of up to 50%.  [132]



Throughout the years, numerous Hearings have been held and Bills

introduced into the Congress proposing a FLAT RATE TAX, but they have

never gotten anywhere.  See such Senate Hearing s in THE FLAT TAX RATE

["Hearings Before the Committee on Finance of the United States

Senate"], 79th Congress, 2nd Session (September 28 and 19, 1982) [GPO,

Washington (1983)]. Many of the persons presenting evidence in that

Hearing expressed knowledge on the enscrewment orientation of

progressive taxation, through their own words.  When such widely held

knowledge jells into something tangible in the corridors of Congress is

largely a function of overcoming the Gremlins who now control the




In the 1950's, those workers had then been paying just a small

percentage.  [133]


[133]============================================================= As

recently as the early 1930's, a mere 5% was the maximum graduated

federal income tax due, but in time Bolshevik Gremlins changed that, by

escalating taxing percentage grabs to enscrewment levels more

satisfactory to them.  The schedule was, at that time:      1-1/2% on

the first $4,000

     3% on the next $4,000

     5% on the balance.

     - WALL STREET JOURNAL, February 8, 1929 ["Income Tax in a

Nutshell"], page 4.



It was known at that time that there would be public concern of the

growth from those low taxation rates in practical effect then, to the

substantially higher tax rates expected in the future, and that this

public concern would grow increasingly with each passing year.  [134]


[134]============================================================= This

idea has also been a dominate and recurring theme in research and

literature in this area of studying tax revolts. See generally:      -

     Lee Sigelman and David Lowery in THE TAX REVOLT: A COMPARATIVE

STATE ANALYSIS, 36 Western Political Science Quarterly, at 30 (March,

1983); This paper explains eight different possible explanations of tax

revolt success in the 18 states where such revolts have surfaced as of

1983;     - Geoffrey Brennan and James Buchanan in THE LOGIC OF TAX


National Tax Journal, at 11 (1977);     -    James Buchanan in WHY DOES

GOVERNMENT GROW (an article appearing in BUDGETS AND BUREAUCRATS, edited

by Thomas Borcherding [Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina

(1977)];  - James Buchanan in THE POTENTIAL FOR TAXPAYER REVOLT IN

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, 59 Social Science Quarterly, at 691 (1979);  -   

James Buchanan and Richard Wagner in DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT: THE POLITICAL

LEGACY OF LORD KEYNES [Academic Press, New York (1977)].



And it was expected that the thrust of the public concern that was out

in the open, would be of the basic legitimacy of the Income Tax itself,

and that such concern would have a strong current under it due to its

percentage progressive nature that would accelerate into such noticeable

levels when inflation was strong for several years in a row; so much so

that even ordinarily blind, disinterested, naive and politically benign

people would then perk up and take interest; and even businessmen would

start to slough off, rather than give away their hard earned income

stream to termites.  With the annual increment in Inflation, the

public's questioning of the general illegitimacy of the Income Tax would

be incremented with each passing year, as it was expected that the

public would notice that although greater taxes are being paid, no

additional benefits or commensurate services were being experienced or

being returned by the King in one year to the next. This illegitimacy

angle was expected to be a "center of gravity" in the public's view,

since the general public is unaware of the ethical and moral basis of

the Excise Income Tax, and of an attachment of Equity Jurisdiction

involved (in other words, the King can demand and get anything from 0%

to 100% in Equity and be morally correct, because your participation

with him in accepting his benefits in Commercial Equity is purely

voluntary, and so any amount of gain you acquired in King's Commerce is

gain that you would not otherwise have). That attachment of King's

Equity Jurisdiction always precedes the liability for the tax.  And so

it has been expected for some time that the United States would one day

experience the most extreme and intolerable levels of income

confiscation ever known to Americans:  Without any reciprocity by the

King, without any apparent QUID PRO QUO [135]


[135]============================================================= The

phrase QUID PRO QUO means that there has been an exchange of "something

for something."  It has a Roman origin to it, and is a term that appears

in old medieval English Crown cases I have read, and now carries on down

to the present time with Federal Judges.  See IN RE LUEDER'S ESTATE, 164

F.2nd 128, at 135 (1947).



of incremental increase in benefits to be experienced from one year to

the next, and without any justification at all for the annual percentage

incrementation in tax extraction.  These projection plots were not

deemed to be of very high priority at that time back in the 1950's, but

the results and findings were circulated among some administrative

personnel and they eventually made it over to two Congressional



Under the Treasury Department's projection models and plots, it was

predicted that open defiance would come some day as such expected

aggressive tax levels are simply not bearable by average folks,

previously quiescent, who would then start to question the legitimacy

of the tax itself.  [136]


[136]============================================================= And

other top tax bureaucrats have repeated the warnings initially contained

in that Treasury Department report of the 1950's. At the close of the

Johnson Administration in 1969, Secretary of the Treasury Joseph W. Barr

warned of a growing resentment against higher taxes. [See the Foreword


Enterprise Institute, featuring cross discussions on the question of

progressivity with Charles Galvin and Boris Bittker (AEI, Washington,




The catalytic effect of such aggressive tax levels would be the

deprivation of the ability of such average folks to provide minimum

necessities for themselves, such as housing and food. [137]


[137]============================================================= This

is a conclusion also reached by the Fund for Public Policy Research, in


AN AGGREGATE SIMULATION by Aaron, Russek, and Singer.  The study was

conducted to inform the Joint Congressional Committee on Internal

Revenue Taxation as to the impact of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 on

investments in housing.  [Washington, D.C. (1969)].  Some of the data

used in this report was obtained from the Federal Reserve Board, who

researches its own macro-economic taxation models isochronously

(ISOCHRONOUS means at regularly occurring intervals of time).



One of the questions that was hypothetically addressed in the

accompanying report is the concern the Treasury had of the general

institutionalized acceptance of "Tax Protesting" by the public.  Like

the widespread flaunting of the assertion of the King's law during

Prohibition, a little resistance and a few flare-ups can be managed well

in the early stages with some well publicized spankings, [138]



"...there is one way by which the Government could avoid almost all

resource costs in enforcing the tax code: Penalize only a few

taxpayers, but with inordinately high fines or other punishments.  Given

that taxpayers are risk adverse, such a strategy has a minimal resource

cost while serving as an effective deterrent to tax evasion."    -

     Jonathan Skinner and Joel Slemrod in ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES ON TAX

EVASION, 38 National Tax Journal 345, at 346 (September, 1985). Notice

why this IN TERROREM method of collecting taxes would succeed:  Because

the Taxpayers are deemed to be milktoast RISK ADVERSE persons [meaning

that unlike Patriots, Taxpayers would rather pay than put up a good

fight].  The authors then discuss and cite in turn two books that

discuss ways on how the Government can magnify the important image of

such tax spankings administered to potential tax evaders in the public's

eye; see:      -    Thomas McCaleb in TAX EVASION AND THE DIFFERENTIAL

TAXATION OF LABOR AND CAPITAL INCOME, 31 Public Finance Magazine 287

(1976);   - Nicholas Stern in ON THE ECONOMIC THEORY OF POLICY

TOWARDS CRIME, appearing in "Economic Models of Criminal Behavior" by

Heineke, Editor [North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam (1978)].



but a lot of resistance later on produces Jury Nullification, widespread

administrative non-cooperation, secondary disrespect for the Law in

general, a growing underground economy, as well as numerous other

technical problems.  In the present discussions that are now going on

in Washington, there is a minority viewpoint being developed that

suggests the possibility that it might be worthwhile for the United

States to consider exploring the feasibility of heading off the

impending blossoming Resistance by preventative means, and one possible

way to do that would be by having the IRS justify the tax along

ethically specific and morally correct reasons, and on grounds

harmonious with Natural Law, involving citing just the Commerce Clause,

equity benefits and contracts (bank accounts, direct beneficial

interest, adhesion, equity, employment, political, and state Juristic

Personalities), and to emphasize that only special individuals in these

classes who want these special juristic benefits have any liability at

all for the King's Equity participation tax on incomes.  Such an

officially sanctioned justification would strip away the veil of

illegitimacy that now permeates the Income Tax among many people, and

would show to all the immoral position of Armen Condo and Irwin Schiff,

as those two were caught defiling themselves by dishonoring contracts

they had with the King.  The consequences of this reversal of IRS public

justification would be manifold:


     1. First, it would discredit people like Irwin Schiff and Armen

Condo, who have propagated legally defective tax related information

around the countryside.  Appearing on television and selling large

numbers of books, these people develop a cult following [if CULT is the

word] and contribute to the institutionalization of public acceptance

of defying the King, and their cult continues to grow even though the

information they propagate is misleading and technically defective, and

will collapse in front of a Federal Judge.


     2. Tax revenues would decrease a bit in the near term as some

people shift their Status around to avoid being a Taxpayer; [139]


[139]============================================================= An

adjustment in status from Taxpayer to non-Taxpayer is a behavioral

modification designed to experience relief from a taxation load; if

invisible juristic taxation contracts remain in effect after the

transition in status adjustment was believed to have been completed,

then what could be the provident saving of resources then degenerates

into TAX EVASION.  Tax evaders have been thoroughly studied, examined,

and restudied over and over again [for the fabulous amount of money at

stake in this Gremlin enrichment game, we really do not need

collaborating documentation on what is merely COMMON SENSE, but termites

do].  For the behavioral aspects of tax evasion, see:  -    M.W. Spicer


Ohio State University (1974)];     -    Michael Allingham and Agnew


Public Economics 323 (1972) [discusses the utility maximizing behavior

of Taxpayers who are subject to detection and penalties, as viewed this

way, these twin researchers modelled the tax evader as persons who thus

DEMAND the level of evasion given the PRICES for evasion as set by the

Government.  In the context of constructing a supply and demand model,

these two authors concluded that the evading Taxpayer takes in factual

information (like the structure, enforcement effect, and punishments

specified in the tax code) as GIVEN criteria the Taxpayer cannot

control, an then the Taxpayer makes an assessment as to the most

preferred dollar level that the tax evasion is worth to him.]    -


INDIVIDUAL RETURNS in 65 Review of Economic and Statistics 363 (1983)

[discusses direct measure of tax compliance based on 1969 IRS data

called TCMP (Tax Compliance Measurement Program), to examine the

sensitivity of tax compliance to the marginal tax rate (that mouthful

means that Charles Clotfelter did some statistical work and determined

on his own that the lower tax rate a Taxpayer is in, then the more

compliance a Taxpayer would give back to the Government [which is only

common sense]).];   -    Nathan Boidman in A SUMMARY OF WHAT CAN BE


an article contained in a publication called "Income Tax Compliance:

A Report of the ABA Section of Taxation Invitational Conference on

Income Tax Compliance," at page 149 [American Bar Association,

Washington (1983)];      -    Age, income, moral beliefs and other

economic factors have been found to influence the tax evasion question.


Magazine, page 245 (1979); and Y.D. Song and T.E. Yarbough in TAX ETHICS

AND TAXPAYER'S ATTITUDES in Public Administration Review Magazine, page

442 (1978);    -    Based on sample data containing these five main

demographic variables suggestive of tax evaders: Age, Income by

Category, Belief that tax evasion is morally wrong, belief that the

Federal Income Tax is fair, and economic factors, Researcher A. Lewis

generates a pretty accurate larger estimate of the percentage of non-

complying Taxpayers who exhibit tax evasion behavior, by multiplying his

sample data to the known entire national population that conforms to

each variable classification [see A. Lewis in THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TAXATION

[Saint Martin's Press, New York (1982)].



     3. Tax revenues would increase a bit as the immoral and unethical

position of Tax Protestors is frowned on, rather than cheered on by

courtroom supporters; and the resentment against paying a high

percentage tax would cease; [140]


[140]============================================================= When

Tax Protestors are parties to invisible juristic contracts, they are in

fact tax evaders, because they do in fact owe the tax, regardless of

their political philosophy justification sounding in the Tort of

unfairness [even though many Protestors do not want to admit it].  In

Nature, whenever contracts are in effect when a grievance is up for

settlement, then the contract comes first, and Tort arguments of

unfairness come second; and nothing will change at the Last Day.  The

economic perspective on tax evasion [meaning the effect of tax evasion

on tax receipts] has been frequently commented upon. For recent

technical examples see:  -    Vidar Christianson in TWO COMMENTS ON TAX

EVASION, 13 Journal of Public Economics 389 (1980); -    Jonathan


National Tax Journal 345 (September, 1985); discusses horizontal

fairness [HORIZONTAL means analyzed among Taxpayers of equal income]

with vertical fairness [VERTICAL means analyzed among Taxpayers of

different income], in an on-going practice of tax evasion:  "Public

Policy towards tax evasion reflects complex and often competing goals

of collecting taxes efficiently and treating Taxpayers equitably.  Since

Adam Smith, economists have been aware of the conflict between the

comprehensive collection of Government revenue and the costly and unfair

or "odious" method necessary to enforce these comprehensive collection

rules."   - Skinner and Slemrod, id., at 345

     That reference to Adam Smith is:

     "A major source of Government revenue in Adam Smith's day was

duties, which 'by subjecting at least the dealers in the taxed

commodities to the frequent visits and odious examination of the tax

gatherers, expose them sometimes, no doubt to some degree of oppression;

and always to trouble and vexation; and although vexation... is not

strictly speaking expense, it is certainly equivalent to the experience

at which every man would be willing to redeem from it'."    - Adam

Smith in II WEALTH OF NATIONS, at 430 [University of Chicago Press,

Chicago (1976)]. As can been seen from the days of Adam Smith, tax

collection is very much a continuing source of frictional confrontation

between the Crown and the Countryside, and under such an inherently

tortional factual setting, tax evasion will remain alive.  Even though

there is nothing immoral or improper about the use of implied invisible

contracts by Juristic Institutions to raise revenue, tax evasion will

so remain on the scene until such time as Juristic Institutions are

barred from raising revenue under these implied contracts [as I will

discuss later] (IMPLIED meaning invisible mass contracts that are not

individually negotiated with each Person); so Juristic Institutions

would then be required to rely on either express negotiated contracts

(meaning contracts negotiated with every Person individually), or

restricting the manipulative use of implied contracts to only those

factual settings where special optional benefits are being offered.  In

both instances, you can forget about either of these contractual

restrainments ever surfacing in Constitutions.



     4. The underground economy, so called, would partially disappear,

as black markets in any commodity can only exist to escape the forced

intervention of Government that creates unnatural pricing. [141]



Concern for the so called UNDERGROUND ECONOMY has been a recurring theme

within the corridors of Government.  By calling it the UNDERGROUND

ECONOMY, the King's Agents are trying to color an illicit and tainted

image in such activities; but the King is in no position to do so.

     [Later I will talk about the use of guns, literally, by Treasury

agents in the 1800's, to seal up a national monopoly on circulating

Currency; in the old days, private mints and businesses freely issued

out their own circulating coins and script, and so back then there was

a real question as to whether or not common folks were involved with

what is called INTERSTATE COMMERCE; but today everyone is automatically

"in" this invisible INTERSTATE COMMERCE by the use and recirculation of

Federal Reserve Notes, because the King once used his guns and bouncers

to accomplish by hard physical duress what natural competitive economic

attraction and good common sense could not bring about: A tight

national Government monopoly on circulating Currency instruments,

enforced by penal statutes.  Should we be surprised that today, the

King's Agents are now trying to twist things around enough so that those

same common folks who simply do not want to use the King's money are now

colored as being illicit participants in that vile, illegitimate

"Underground Economy" -- but in fact the King should be the VERY LAST

ONE to talk about what is illicit, vile, tainted, and unsavory[]. For

recent recurring Government concerns echoed on that heinous and obscene

UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, see:     1.   The Congressional testimony of IRS

Commissioner Jerome Kurtz, and two Treasury termites Richard Fogel and

Robert Mason in Hearings entitled SUBTERRANEAN OR UNDERGROUND ECONOMY,

held by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumers, and Monetary Affairs

of the Committee on Governmental Operation; House of Representatives,

96th Congress, First Session (September, 1979). 2.   The Congressional

testimony of Commissioner Roscoe Egger and termite David Glickman

(Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy) in DISCLOSURE OF


Subcommittee on Oversight of the IRS, Senate Finance Committee, 97th

Congress, First Session (November, 1981); Committee Serial No. 97-58.

Commission Egger starts letting the UNDERGROUND ECONOMY have it at page

63.  3. See also Congressional Hearings entitled THE UNDERGROUND

ECONOMY, held by the Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Ways and

Means, House of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session, Serial

No. 96-70 (July, September, October, 1979). Various different

mathematical models have been developed on the UNDERGROUND ECONOMY.  One

method developed initially in the United States involves the use of

making inferences about the underground economy on the basis of changes

in money holdings over a period of time; see: -    P.M. Guttman in

THE SUBTERRANEAN ECONOMY, 33 Financial Analysts Journal 26

(November/December, 1979);    -    E.L. Feige in HOW BIG IS THE

IRREGULAR ECONOMY?, 5 CHALLENGE 22 MAGAZINE, at page 5 (1979);   -   

B.S. Frey and W.W. Pommerehne in an article entitled MEASURING THE



ABROAD, edited by Vito Tanzi [Lexington Books, Toronto (1983)]. A

British researcher developed an UNDERGROUND ECONOMY model using

differences between estimates of reported income on tax returns and

other estimates of income based on household and industrial surveys of

spending as an indicator of the percentage slice of the economy going

underground [see K. MacAfee in A GLIMPSE OF THE HIDDEN ECONOMY, 316

Economic Trends Magazine, at 81 (February, 1980)]. Another researcher

based in Italy used data from the relative level of public participation

in what is called the OFFICIAL LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE to arrive at his

conclusions as to the number and magnitude of which Italians are

declining their Government's invitation to deprive themselves of daily

necessities so their Government can engage in conquests [see B. Contini

in an article entitled THE SECOND ECONOMY OF ITALY, in Vito Tanzi's

UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, id. Here in the United Stats, one of the ways

Government researchers probe for areas of "illicit" subterranean

activity is to examine what each American spends per year for food and

other retail purchases, and then figure up a national per person

average.  Based on that information, a reasonable figure can be

estimated that each typical American would spend each year on, for

example, food.  Then checking each city in the United States against

that national average, they look for food stores that are selling food

to a known population area at a rate far in excess of the national per

person average -- then obviously there are more people in that city than

official census tracts are reporting.  One such representative

metropolitan area of a city swirling in such an illicit vortex of

unreported income and officially nonexistent people, not surprisingly,

is Las Vegas, Nevada.



(Bolshevik planners who have reasoned that the underground economy will

disappear altogether with their planned cashless society, with all

financial transactions reported to the IRS, are in error);


     5. Tax revenues would increase in the long run, as most of those

folks who suddenly got rid of their bank accounts and other attachments

of King's Equity to save money found out that the loss of income,

benefits, cutoff from Commerce, deprivation of mortgage and loan

availability, and other adverse secondary effects just wasn't worth it.

This is now happening on a small scale with some commercially oriented

enterprising type Patriots [142]


[142]============================================================= I

feel uncomfortable with the use of the word PATRIOT, but it does

describe a characteristic worthy of admiration, even though the majority

of Patriots I will be referring to in this letter have been engaged in

highly immoral activity, by dishonoring invisible contracts they have

no knowledge of.



who are re-entering the highways of Commerce and signing up with the

King again (but this time under careful circumstances).  [143]


[143]============================================================= A

British researcher argues that the hard suppression of tax evasion by

the Government is actually self-defeating, since such a

characteristically GESTAPO suppression of evaders produces the secondary

effect of reducing aggregate tax receipts by having discouraged economic

activity; which if, in contrast, would have surpassed those taxes that

were evaded [see B. Bracewell-Milnes in THE FISC AND THE FUGITIVE:

EXPLOITING THE QUARRY appearing in "The State of Taxation," The

Institute of Economic Affairs, London (1977)]. Many other parallels

exist all throughout the very wide ranging field of interpersonal

relations that suggest that the relaxed quiescent atmosphere generated

by nice guys always yields the most fruit; but Bolshevik Gremlins

believe that they are on an important mission and that terror is an

important accessory instrument available to help them accomplish their

objectives, and so nice guys are in their way, and Gremlins have no room

for people that are in their way.



     6. Near term revenues would increase as Taxpayers who now view

the tax as either wrong, immoral, or illegitimate and then claim

excessive deductions would be hesitant to do so when the moral position

is shifted around and now it's their failure to pay their full share

that is a serious act of self-defilement on their part.  [144]


[144]============================================================= But

the realization will never be universal:

     "The problem [of both tax avoidance and evasion] is an ancient one.

The natural desire of the Citizen to pay as small a tax as possible is

doubtless as old as taxation.  It would be difficult, indeed, to devise

a system of taxation under which it would not rear its head.  In this

day of manifold Governmental activities with the consequent need for

constant and fixed revenues, it is of paramount importance that the

revenue laws be so drawn and so administered that the taxes imposed do

not depend for their collection upon the whim, caprice, or astuteness

of Taxpayers and their counsels.  An added consideration is the

equitable rights of Taxpayers themselves.  It is of abiding importance

to Taxpayers as a class that each Taxpayer pay his proportion of the tax

burden, that each Citizen share the cost of Government in accordance

with his ability to pay.  Hence, in combating both evasion and

avoidance, the Government is protecting itself and the equitable rights

of all Taxpayers.  The problem is one in which small Taxpayers, in

particular, have a very definite interest.  John Doe has a taxable net

income of one thousand dollars.  Generally, John Doe pays his tax

thereon.  If he tries to avoid he usually evades, because he is unable

to employ skilled advisors, and many of the methods by which he might

avoid are not available to him.  On the other hand, Henry Doe has a

taxable net income of three thousand dollars. He has skilled

accountants and advisors to reduce this net income and thereby minimize

his tax liability.  His business and investments are, generally, of such

a nature as to render available to him many tax saving schemes.  Hence,

the ability to pay frequently carries with it the ability to avoid.

After all, tax avoidance cannot be had at the dollar book counter."   -


CONSIDERATIONS, 26 Georgetown Law Review 863, at 863 (1937).



It is the opinion of staff members that although this is an interesting

model to consider, its revenue generating strength for the King lies in

the correction of wholesale public perception of the King being wrong

and working immoral acts on the countryside. Since a majority of

Americans still do not perceive of things being this way at the present

time, this revenue enhancement and Tax Resistance termination model is

best kept on the back shelf, for a while. [145]


[145]============================================================= At

the present time, while a majority of Americans still do not perceive

of things as being structurally wrong, however, there are many other

folks who do possess inclinations of irritation: "In an era of heavy

taxation, many taxpayers, not merely "tax protestors," feel intense

irritation at the federal tax authorities..." -    CAMERON VS.

I.R.S., 773 F.2nd 126, at 129 (1985).



The value in this story is the knowledge that the King's Tax Collectors

in Washington are not the intellectually lethargic and dim-witted

bureaucrats some people make them out to be.  [146]


[146]============================================================= Tax

bureaucrats conduct extensive continuous statistical research on various

different methodologies of conducting the best CRACKING that can be had

for the tax collection dollar spent.  Based on technical information

derived from sources within the IRS, researcher Ann Witte, et al.,

developed an economic model of tax compliance by Americans.  She came

to the same conclusions that IRS statistical termites had already

arrived at long ago:     1.   That the decline in tax audit rates during

the 1970's may have accounted for a substantial portion of the decline

in compliance during that period.  2.   That increases in probability

of tax audit and such things as information reporting and tax

withholding are likely devices to increase tax code compliance [not very

difficult to figure out, but bureaucrats need to have it all handed to

them].    3. That increases in moral ambivalence towards tax

compliance will increase tax non-compliance [not very difficult to

figure out]. The IRS divides Taxpayers into different strata of audit

classes since it believes that compliance behavior differs significantly

on the basis of level and type of income.  Ann Witte constructed a

statistical analysis for homogeneity of coefficients across the seven

audit classes that her sources in the IRS would admit existed; she used

LEAST SQUARES and a generalization of the CHOW TEST as statistical tools

to come to a conclusion.  That yes, Taxpayers situated within the seven

different strata of audit classes developed by professional termites in

the IRS do in fact exhibit an amazingly similar MODUS VIVENDI to other

Taxpayers in the same class [MODUS VIVENDI means mode of living in the

sense that it is a temporary arrangement pending settlement of some

grievance].  Yes, those termites are quite proficient unknowing

Bolshevik instrumentalities at their juristic tasks of eating out our



38 National Tax Journal 1 (March, 1985)].



They are constantly polling public opinion and testing for factual

knowledge, to see what they can get away with. [147]


[147]============================================================= The

assessments and JUDGMENT CALLS that our King goes through in determining

how much money should stay on the farm, what minimum amount is needed

by the farmer for survival, and then how much should be turned over to

the State for his own Royal purposes, is the same JUDGMENT CALL that

Gremlins nestled in Juristic Institutions made world wide:  "We were

back to food requisitioning, only now it was called a tax.  Then there

was something called 'overfilling the quota.' What did that mean?  It

meant that a Party secretary would go to a collective farm and determine

how much grain the collective farmers would need for their own purposes

and how much [grain] they had to turn over the State. Often, not even

the local Party committee would determine procurements; the State itself

would set a quota for the whole district.  As a result, all too

frequently, the peasants would have to turn everything over they

produced -- literally everything!  Naturally, since they received no

compensation whatsoever for their work, they lost interest in the

collective farm and concentrated instead on their private plots to feed

their families."    -    Nikita Khrushchev in his memoirs KHRUSHCHEV

REMEMBERS: THE LAST TESTAMENT, page 108 [Little Brown, Boston (1974);

translated by Strobe Talbott]. The reason why Gremlins world wide are

continually confronted with the same nagging taxation question over and

over again, is because they are dealing with DIRECT taxes operating

largely on Citizenship Contracts, and so there is inherently always

going to be tension, friction, and confrontations, as DIRECT TAXES by

their nature require strict administrative compliance, which is

fundamentally out of harmony with the HAPPY GO LUCKY nonchalant

ambivalence many folks manifest.  And there will also be correlative

factual assessments being made by Government as to just what the

permissible levels of tolerable enscrewment are, that can be sustained

by the peasantry before EN MASSE rejection gets out of hand.  By the

nature of DIRECT taxes, for the reciprocal compensation demanded, there

never is any relationship to juristic benefits offered, nor any

relationship between income extracted from people and Governmental needs

-- and so what we are left with is just an extraction formula designed

to maximize Crown enrichment.



They are brilliant and they know exactly what they are doing at all

times.  [148]


[148]============================================================= And

they also know exactly what they are doing when the go around the

countryside looking for some Tax Protesting giblets to crack:   

"SENATOR SMOOTHERS:  I have been concerned, Mr. Alexander, [Director of

the IRS in the mid 1970's], and the committee has received information

regarding how the IRS deals with its enemies, if you will, particularly

the tax protestor groups.  We have information indicating that there has

been an effort made to infiltrate these groups, if you will, primarily

based on their anti-IRS activities, including such things as [their]

efforts at physical destruction [in] your [IRS offices and the filing

of reams of blank returns.  Is it your view that IRS investigators

should be used in this capacity, or is this a matter better handled by

other investigative agencies, like the FBI? "MR. ALEXANDER:  Mr.

Smoothers, there have been instances where the use of the techniques

that you described would be necessary.  Those instances are few indeed.

I think that the IRS has a responsibility to see to it that those who

attempt to defeat tax administration and tax enforcement do not succeed.

And, accordingly, as to tax resisters, we have an interest, and shall,

I think, maintain an interest in making their efforts fail.  But we also

have a duty in the fulfillment of this limited goal to live up to

constitutional principles and the law, because we cannot enforce the law

properly by violating the law [a lie, but a CRACKER is not about to tell

the Congress anything else].  ...Tax protestors are indirectly related

to tax administration, in that those who preach resistance to tax laws

are likely to practice resistance as well." -    HEARINGS TO STUDY


Congress, First Session, Volume 3 ["Internal Revenue Service"], page 7;

United States Senate (October 2, 1975). A Gremlin once had a few words

to say about EXECUTIVE POWER, such as that power wielded by Presidents

and his administrative assistants: "Executive power combines

policy-making with the direction of policy execution. It is this

combination that endows the executive organ in the governmental

structure with its crucial functional importance and vests it, or rather

the persons who symbolize or control it, with the mystique normally

surrounding a head of State or a monarch.  In the minds of the people,

a president, a king, or even a premier... plays the role of leader, much

in the tradition of the family head, the village elder, or the tribal

chief.    "Through the ages, society has depended on the chief

executives for a sense of direction, and they have stood at the apex of

the social and political hierarchy whenever necessity has forced men to

band together.  Executive power may, in fact, be the oldest and the most

necessary social institution in the world.  It has taken many forms, has

been established through diverse channels ranging from birth to

purposely perpetrated death, and has been invested with different ranges

of authority at various places and times and in response to varying

requirements...     "The [bureaucratic] executive... is relatively

unhindered in the exercise of [this] power... Formal restraints, such

as legal injunctions, are also either absent or circumvented, while

informal restraints [such as the press] are somewhat more elastic in the

assertion of their claims against the executive."      -    Zbigniew

Brzezinski in IDEOLOGY AND POWER IN SOVIET POLITICS, at 13 [Fredrick

Praeger Publisher, New York (1962)]. Gremlins know that folks will go

right ahead and improvidently place an aura of mystique about the

nominees they sponsor into visible executive positions in Juristic

Institutions, such as Presidents and Members of his Cabinet -- while the

real action [the level where the bureaucracy is interfacing with the

public, the level where damages are being created), is taking place at

a lower level -- an invisible bureaucratic level. And Gremlins are also

cognizant of the fact that formal legal restraints, such as those

residing in the Constitution, are in fact circumvented, as Mr. Alexander

admitted; and third parties the public seems to trust, like the Press,

are noted for their acquiescence of mischief through their silence.

Always remember that Gremlins merely take advantage of what is handed

to them, and will back off when the knife encounters a bone instead of

more flesh; this is a Principle pronounced over and over again in

ecclesiastical settings, as Lucifer is identified as a clever adversary

specializing in taking prime advantages of weaknesses. Patriots

assigning a degree of trust in the Constitutional compliance

inclinations of lower strata bureaucratic underlings, by virtue of the

stature possessed by a President sponsored by Gremlins, are in error;

as Gremlin Brzezinski pointed out, when the house is under Gremlin

management, such as the United States is today, the policy maker is

largely aloof from the administrative termite.



So too, the IRS knows exactly what it is doing, just like the King.  And

its present policy of justifying the tax based on a phony hybrid

composite blend of top-down universal Civil Law and 16th Amendment

grounds is in place for just one reason: Because at the present time

it is to the King's financial advantage to do so, due to baneful public

IGNORANTIA JURIS.  (But remember the King propagates this erroneous

justification because of the institutionalized political banality of

most Americans.  Reverse the banality and the King will very likely

reverse himself).  I have a hunch that the King's reversal will be

virtually automatic when the time is right.  He closely monitors public

opinion, and he is careful in his public pronouncements.  [149]


[149]============================================================= It

is my hunch that a contributing inducement element to the King's

deceptive deflection of the justification for the Income Tax, away from

our Father's Common Law on Contracts and towards the phony 16th

Amendment, is likely to also indicate the presence of a morbid

intellectual disorder within the King's Senior Tax Collectors in

Washington:  A disorder of deception.  Consider the composite

conclusions that the psychological fantasy lie, of which Senior Tax

Collectors manifest with the deception, is a sign of intellectual

morbidity when strongly developed, and additionally, is a symptom of

severe pathology [see Helene Deustch and Paul Roazen, ON THE

PATHOLOGICAL LIE, in the Journal of the American Academy of

Psychoanalysis, July, 1982, pages 369 to 386].  Another article which

explores the clinical need for the operant reconditioning of lie

therapies to correct structural deception disorders in the MODUS

OPERANDI of people is by Robert Langs, [writing in the INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOTHERAPY, at pages 3 to 341 (1980-1981)],

where he discusses psychotherapeutic treatment modalities on the

treatment of deception disorders, especially psychoanalysis and

psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy.  Boy, that sounds like just

the right medicine for the King's Senior Tax Collectors.



So all factors considered, it is unlikely that the King would not switch

public tax justification positions where it is to his own self-

enrichment financial advantage to do so.  [150]



American Jurisprudence, like Nature and society, is stratified into

different statuses.  And people and objects situated within those

different strata (statuses) have different rights, motivations, and

objectives.  I am not convinced that there are not other secondary

elements coming into focus when coming to grips with this psychological

analysis of the King's Tax Collectors and their deception regarding the

legal validity and general tax relevancy of the 16th Amendment.  For an

interesting discussion on the intricacies of deviant behavior manifested

in people by virtue of the elevated status they hold, see SOCIAL

STRATIFICATION AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR by John Hewitt [published by Random

House (1970)].  Mr. Hewitt talks about the empirical connections between

deviancy in MODUS OPERANDI and self-perceived elevated status, when he

discusses the "Analytical Models of Social Stratification and Deviant




Just as there is deception and lies in the conveyance justification

being offered to Americans for an unreasonably sized chunk of their

wealth, month in and month out, year in and year out without any let up

in sight, so too was the Income Tax justified on fraudulent terms by

Congressmen who, just like the King's Senior Tax Collectors today, had

a pure and perfect picture of their MAGNUM Torts of deception and lies.

Yes, if you were to believe Congressmen trying to push the 1913 INCOME

TAX ACT through Congress, the world was simply crying out, insisting,

and even strongly demanding that they be taxed, fleeced, and thoroughly

looted.  [151]



"During recent years there has been a general agitation and demand in

almost every state in the union and in almost every country in the world

for intelligent, fair, and practical reforms and readjustments of their

tax systems to the end that every citizen may be required to contribute

to the wants of the Government in proportion to the revenue he enjoys

under its protection.  To this end the doctrine of equality of sacrifice

or ability to pay is being universally invoked."  -    Representative

George Hull, on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1913; as

quoted by Thomas Lyons in INCOME TAXES ["Modern American Law Lecture"],

page 14 (The Blackstone Institute, Chicago, 1920).



But if that statement from George Hull is not enough to turn your

stomach, then perhaps some other previous statements, emanating from the

floor of the Congress in support of the WILSON TARIFF ACT OF 1894 [which

contained an Income Tax rider (the Income Tax bill would not pass the

Congress by itself)], which present a flowery wonderland promised to us

all, if only we were just taxed more heavily, just damaged more

intensely, and deprived of just more wealth through one more turn of the

screws, is just strong enough to make someone choke. [152]



Speaking of the Income Tax provision of the WILSON TARIFF BILL, a

Congressman once had a few flowery words to say: "The passage of the

[Wilson] bill will mark the dawn of a brighter day, with more sunshine,

more of the songs of birds, more of that sweetest music, the laughter

of children, well fed, well clothed, well housed. Can we doubt that in

the bright, happier days to come, good, even-handed Democracy shall be

triumphant?  God hasten the era of equality in taxation and in

opportunity.  And God prosper the Wilson bill, first leaf in the book

of reform in taxation, the promise of a brightening future for those

whose genius and labor create the wealth of the land, and whose courage

and patriotism are the only sure bulwark and defense of the Republic."

     - Representative David DeArmond, of Missouri (1894); [as quoted

by Frank Chodorov in THE INCOME TAX, page 41 (Devin-Adair, New York

1954)]. Always remember that David DeArmond was sent to Washington from

country folks in Missouri -- ordinary Citizens just like us all, so to

a large extent, he merely replicated the indifferent will of his

Constituents who actually admired a man of his pathetic calibre; so

before snickering at the clever Rothschilds, we need to realize that we

did this to ourselves.  Although it is popular to snicker at

Congressmen, Congressmen reflect somewhat fairly the judgment calibre

of their Constituents, and so now the correct remedy lies not by

slothing off responsibility by pointing to someone else and blaming

them, and not by the selective political criticism of the world's

Gremlins (exemplary of Birchers and LaRouchies), but rather by a

national internal self-examination that originates, like everything

else, individually:      "When politicians discover that the people will

turn out in mass to the primaries, their hope of controlling delegates

in their own interest will disappear; and whenever political conventions

discover that the people will carefully discriminate in the selection

of officers, choosing only those who live within the Law and who are

pledged to support it -- those whose lives and characters are above

reproach -- then will political parties fear to put up for election men

who are unworthy.  If the people will only exercise their privileges as

American Citizens, they will find in their own hands the power to

correct our present evils."   -    Melvin J. Ballard in IMPROVEMENT ERA

["The Political Responsibility of Latter-day Saints"], at 464 [Desert

Book, Salt Lake City (1954)].



The King's policy of keeping the ratio between the Income Tax bracket

and the percentage tax demanded where it is, is because it lies just

below the threshold toleration level, although not precisely so.  The

King's Agents are constantly surveying us folks out here in the

countryside to see how many of us are in what tax bracket, so the King

can reassess how much more tax confiscation can be extracted from us

without an unmanageable revolt.  [153]


[153]============================================================= A

Gremlin once made a Statement that is a good representation as to how

Gremlins think in taxation areas:  "The problem of the Government is to

fix rates which will bring in a maximum amount of revenue to the

Treasury and at the same time bear not too heavily on the taxpayer or

on business enterprises.  A sound tax policy must take into

consideration three factors.  It must produce sufficient revenue for the

Government; it must lessen, so far as possible, the burden of taxation

on those least able to bear it; and it must also remove those influences

which might retard the continued steady development of business and

industry on which, in the last analysis, so much of our prosperity

depends."      - Gremlin Andrew Mellon in TAXATION: THE PEOPLE'S

BUSINESS, at 9 [MacMillian Company, New York (1924)]. Notice what is

important to Gremlins:  Maximum revenue generation for the Government;

and maximum taxation from the public that can be tolerated, individually

and commercially.  Gremlins do not concern themselves with such pesky

little nuisance questions as to whether the Government really has any

good cause to spend the money on in the first place; Gremlins do not

concern themselves with the correlative damages experienced by folks as

important resources are preemptively grabbed from them resulting in a

deprivation of minimal material needs to support a family. Gremlins do

not want you and I to have prosperity, they want the Government to have

the prosperity, so that once Government has got the money, then they can

spend it.



It is the possible likelihood that this threshold toleration level would

be overpassed and broken that concerns certain senior bureaucrats in

Washington, who are wise to the practical secondary consequences such

a passing of the threshold limit would create. The meaning of this

concern is perhaps best understood by the 1979 analogy of the oil

pricing decisions made by Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister, Sheik Admed

Yamani.  The Sheik's adamant refusal to raise Saudi crude oil prices

above the $40 per barrel limit in the face of such rare and unusually

strong world wide petroleum demand puzzled many observers.  [154]


[154]============================================================= Saudi

Arabia accomplished its objective of restraining other oil producers by

increasing their oil production to maximum capacity, while refusing to

raise its own price.  See numerous articles in the WALL STREET JOURNAL

discussing the Saudi Arabian crude oil pricing freeze while maximizing

their own oil production to physical limits: -    July 3, 1979

["Saudi Arabia Is Said To Plan An Increase In Its Oil Production"], page

3;   - July 10, 1979 ["President Confirms Saudi Move To Boost Oil

Output Sharply"], page 2 ("...Saudi production should have a moderating

influence on world oil prices...", id., at page 2);    -    September

27, 1979 ["Saudis Allowing Higher Oil Level To Remain In '79"], page 3;

     - November 29, 1979 ["Collection of Confusions" poorly written

Editorial], page 2 (Saudi perspective on oil pricing); -   

December 6, 1979 ["Saudi Arabia Probably Couldn't Bail Out Oil Consumers

If Output In Iran Collapsed"], page 2 (Saudi at maximum oil capacity);

     - December 13, 1979 ["Saudi Arabia Oil-Producing Capacity Is Up

To Almost 11 Million Barrels a Day"], page 3;     -    October 27, 1980

["How Energy Boss Met Secretly With Yamani On Untimely Oil Deal"], page

1 (Saudi oil output raised, id., at page 23).



From the viewpoint of some folks, the Sheik was passing up on a golden

opportunity to cream in some extra bucks while the oil boom lasted

across those several months.  To other observers of the passing scene,

the Sheik was a friend of the United States, and was just a good, kind,

caring, public welfare oriented person who simply had the world's best

interests in his heart as he refused to raise prices any higher.  But

the real reason why Sheik Yamani was trying to keep the oil prices

artificially low is the same reason why the Congress has fixed the

Income Bracket/Percentage Tax ratios for the Income Tax at their present

levels:  Because raising oil prices to levels above a threshold

toleration level then equal to higher priced alcohol would cause the

universal shift to alcohol and other non-crude oil based substitutes,

and so oil would then not be purchased at all in the future; just like

more aggressive Income Tax levels would cause folks to simply abandon

taxes altogether, thus leaving the King with nothing from these folks

(as I mentioned that some Tax Collectors have been concerned about since

the 1950's).  And that is the great art of pricing in business:  Keeping

prices competitively high, but just below the threshold level of

rejection.  [155]


[155]============================================================= For

recent commentary of this idea expressing similar conclusions in

different words, and based on different reasoning, see:     1.   Jon


Macroeconomics at 567 (Fall, 1985); the author discusses a simple two

nation macromodel with OPEC exploiting the vertical total supply curve

of an open economy.  Has interesting theories intellectuals would like.

     2. Marie Paule Donsimoni in STABLE HETEROGENEOUS CARTELS, 3

International Journal of Industrial Organizations, at 451 (December,

1985); originates from the Netherlands.  The author discusses how

cartels constrict and enlarge their supply of product as demand changes,

in order to maintain high prices and prevent cartel members from having

an incentive to leave the cartel.  Under this model assumption, cartels

composed of multiple types of firms can prosper and enhance revenue with

greater efficiency than firms can individually outside of the cartel.

Once established, cartels act like price leaders in an industry, with

the uniqueness, size, and composition of cartels changing according to

market demand.      3.   M.A. Adelman in WESTERN HEMISPHERE

PERSPECTIVES: OIL AND NATURAL GAS, 3 Contemporary Policy Issues, at 3

(Summer, 1985).  The author discusses several competing and conflicting

incentives to change pricing on oil, as they continuously seek to shift

that elusive equilibrium to favor themselves. The individual market

roles and shared concerns of Argentina, Canada, Ecuador and Mexico are

discussed.     4. Claudio Loderer in A TEST OF THE OPEC CARTEL

HYPOTHESIS: 1974-1983 in 40 Journal of Finance, at 991 (July, 1985).

Discusses oil pricing over the last ten years, and addresses the

hypothetical question as to whether or not the collusive policies of

OPEC really had that much of an effect on oil prices.  Very scholarly,

with daily spot oil prices from 1973 to 1983, equations, tables and

other instruments for intellectuals to exercise with.  5.   Frank Bass


AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION, 22 Journal of Marketing Research, at 283

(August, 1985).  Discusses the pricing impacts of new competition on

industries dominated not by cartels, but by oligopolies. The authors

develop a model reflecting some sensitivity resulting from demand

diffusion, saturation, and cost reductions through growth in market

share and accumulated experience.  Price and market share dynamics are

examined for the presence of a possibly competitive oligopoly; the

authors analyze the pricing geometries of semiconductor manufacturing

companies and conclude that the growth rate of the demand pricing

elasticity in integrated circuits and correlated semiconductor products

contributes significantly to pricing geometries (called PATHS by the

authors) across different products.  With graphs and equations, this is

an intellectual's delight.    6.   K. Sridhar Moorthy in USING GAME

THEORY TO MODEL COMPETITION, 22 Journal of Marketing Research, at 262

(August, 1985).  The author presents the idea that competition springs

from interdependence in effect between competitors, such that actions

taken by one firm will have impact and create both opportunities and

impediments on its competitors.  The author creates a GAME THEORY,

whereby decision makers can model prospective reactions by competitors

on what it does.  Applications are made into:               (a)  Product

and price competition;

               (b)  Price wars;

               (c)  The product quality/price relationship

               (d)  Competitive bidding competition.



of Marketing Research, at 237 (August, 1985). The author uses

oligopolies to discuss how marketing managers are increasingly realizing

the need to analyze competition in formulating strategic marketing

plans.  New market entrants and product line/distribution decisions are

discussed in this fellow's pricing models. 8.   Robert T. Mason and

David Easley in PREYING FOR TIME, 33 Journal of Industrial Economics,

at 445 (June, 1985).  In an interesting article, the authors discuss the

use of predatory pricing models as a common everyday tool of business

conquest.  The authors state that contrary to common view, such

predatory practices do not necessarily require the elimination of new

competitors [something that John Rockefeller would have accomplished

back in the 1800's out of the barrel of a gun and with the assistance

of some dynamite]; but that other business behavior often largely

accomplishes the same thing.  With charts and equations.    9.   P.A.


DEVELOPMENTS, 33 Journal of Industrial Economics, at page 369 (June,

1985); journal originates out of the United Kingdom. The authors review

recent literature on oligopolies; they err slightly when trying to

define just what creates monopolies, but are correct when they take the

obvious position that some monopolies have a protracted life about them

over long periods of time.    10.  Daniel Seligman in OPEC DISCOVERS THE

PERILS OF PRICE FIXING, 112 Fortune Magazine, at 51 (July 22, 1985).

The author views OPEC as collapsing in ways predicted by classical

theorems of the cartel theory of economics, for many different reasons.

Factually defective in some aspects, but it is interesting light

reading.  11. John Picinich in WHY OPEC IS STILL THE KEY TO LONG TERM

OIL PRICES, 14 Futures; The Magazine of Commodities & Options, at 52

(May, 1985).  This author argues that OPEC is not on the threshold of

collapse, and that with time and huge oil reserves on its side, OPEC

will likely dominate oil markets again within a decade.  Presents a good

summary history of OPEC pricing in general, and of the reduction in

crude oil demand that gained momentum in 1983; here in 1985 OPEC is

alive but has lost the standing ability to call the shots like they used

to.  12. William H. Miller in NO DEATHWATCH FOR OPEC, 225 Industry

Week, at 40 (May 27, 1985).  Openly discusses the view of others that

OPEC will collapse, and then offers his own views that OPEC is likely

to get stronger in the future, due to a combination of listed reasons.

He cites the opinions of oil analysts that United States oil production

will fall synchronous with a rise in demand, and the result will be that

OPEC will hold the upper hand once again. Those 12 articles are a

representative profiling sample of the multiplicity of recently

appearing divergent views floating around on just one subject matter

(business cartels and their functional similitudes, and pricing), that

are the opinions of INTELLECTUALS -- as they go about their work

reading, contemplating, writing their own opinions, putting in an honest

day's work generating new theorems like they do. Sometimes they are

correct, sometimes they are in error, but the one denominator threading

its way through all 12 articles was an omission of some additional

factual information here and there -- the effect of which would have

been to both support and to countermand and negate the theorems

presented.  And as we change settings over to where the imps in the

major media make their statements on television and in newspapers, they

too are in error as frequently as INTELLECTUALS are, as a composite

blend of lack of factual knowledge commingled with recurring overtones

of philosophical bias and Gremlin sponsored malice.



No relationship to cost, no relationship to benefits received, no

relationship to hard intrinsic value.  Just pricing based on Enscrewment

(a similar conclusion reached by others just cited in the footnote, but

they use their own proprietary language that removes identification of

the moral orientation (for good or evil) in the actors.  As for pricing

within the interior of shared monopoly cartels -- this is why

sophisticated pricing strategists know that charging the highest

momentary price the market will support is not necessarily the best

thing to do for yourself:  You may win that battle under unusual

circumstances, but loose the long term war for several different

secondary reasons.  And our King, with his monopoly, is no different in

either motivation or strategy.  And that concern about likely rejection

by ex-Taxpayers is also the same reason why sophisticated attorneys who

work for the King know that it is often best to drop a prosecution, SANS

GENE, in a low level Administrative or Trial setting, rather than raise

the presentation threshold level of the grievance to senior judicial

appellate forums and risk an adverse appellate opinion on appeal that

might benefit others, even if unreported. [156]


[156]============================================================= The

decision on whether or not to continue a prosecution at the appellate

level is the same exercise of discretion that prosecutors exercise when

the criminal defendant is initially charged with his crimes:     "The

discretionary power... in determining whether a prosecution shall be

commenced or maintained [on Appeal] may well depend upon matters of

policy wholly apart from any question of PROBABLE CAUSE."   - UNITED

STATES VS. COX, 342 F.2nd 167, at 171 (1965).

Private commentators as well have written on the discretion given to

prosecuting attorneys on the decision when to drop a case in whole or

in part, although they do not have the judgment to see what a marvelous

administrative toll PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION is to keep potentially

irritating cases out of appellate forums, where even unreported Opinions

might spell trouble for the King in the future: "Many persons who are

in fact guilty of a crime and who could be convicted are either not

charged at all, are charged with a less serious offense or a smaller

number of offenses than the evidence would support, or are subjected to

informal control processes which do not require formal accusation.

Although some decisions not to charge or not to charge fully for reasons

unconnected with probability of guilt are made by the police, the

primary concern here is with those [decisions that are] made by the

prosecutor.  With rare exceptions, legislatures and appellate judges

officially approve of this allocation of power to prosecutors, but the

precise issue is infrequently confronted in appellate litigation and is

only occasionally dealt with specifically in statutes."     - Frank


Discretion"], page 154 [Little Brown, Boston (1969)]. For commentary on



32 Los Angeles Bar Bulletin 323, at 327 (1957); -    Kaplan in THE

PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION -- A COMMENT, 60 Northwestern University Law

Review 174 (1965);  -    Baker in THE PROSECUTOR -- INITIATION OF

PROSECUTION, 23 Journal of Criminal Law 770 (1933); -    Jackson in

THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, 24 Journal of the American Judicature Society

18 (1940);     -    Cates in CAN WE IGNORE LAWS? -- DISCRETION NOT TO

PROSECUTE, 14 Alabama Law Review 1, at 7 (1962); -    Silbert in THE


Bar Association Journal 1717 (1977).



Like the Sub-Threshold Pricing Enscrewment Model in Commerce, there is

also a Sub-Threshold Prosecution Enscrewment Model in effect in the

corridors of Government as well, as the Judiciary is used latently by

prosecutors in ways to help enrich the King.  [157]


[157]============================================================= Even

something as seemingly removed from the fine art of sequestering common

public knowledge of taxation by contract away from people, a field of

law enforcement seemingly aloof from the high stakes game of tax

collection -- Federal Anti-Trust Enforcement -- is actually swirling in

the same vortex of manipulative selective prosecution by use of strategy

sessions held by United States Deputy Attorneys General in Washington,

as they go about their work trying to make sure that only those cases

conforming to a certain profile of criteria within their classification

are eventually sent to the Judiciary for CRACKING, and one of those

criteria is trying to identify, before prosecution is initiated, which

cases the Government is likely to prevail on during appeal (see Suzanne


ANTI-TRUST DIVISION, [MIT Press, Cambridge (1978); 2nd Edition]).  So

never assume what the Law is by the mere silence of Judges, as a clever

King has selectively withheld cases potentially adverse to his position.



[Incidentally, the Rothschilds and their ideological mentor, Karl Marx,

have planned this impending state of affairs since the Paris Communes

of the 1800's, but their SUB ROSA political involvement and quiet

intellectual sponsorship required our national consent through acts of

own American legislatures, which they got. (So we really did this to

ourselves).  And so I am only interested in now addressing things as

presently fabricated under American Law; and since the King is now

collecting Income Taxes exclusively by contract [numerous layers of

invisible contracts difficult to see], only the content of the contract

is relevant to discuss, when a grievance under the contract later comes

up for judicial review and enforcement.  And so questions, sounding in

the Tort of unfairness, as to just who ultimately sponsored this grand

scenario become largely irrelevant, when contracts are in effect.  The

facts are that the Income Tax has been around in the United States for

a long time.  The American colonists had such a tax imposed on them,




"[Income Taxes] were imposed by several of the states at or shortly

after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, New York Laws 1778,

chap. 17; Report of Oliver Wolcott, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, to

the 4th Congress, 2nd Session (1796), concerning direct taxes; AMERICAN

STATE PAPERS, 1 Finance 423, 427, 429, 437, 439."      -    SHAFFER VS.

CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 51 (1919).



and there was also one imposed during the Civil War under Abraham

Lincoln.  [159]


[159]============================================================= Acts

of August 5, 1861 (Chapter 45, Section 49, 12 UNITED STATES STATUTES AT

LARGE 292, 309) -- confined the Income Tax then to PERSONS residing

within the United States (meaning PERSONS accepting the benefits of the

protection of the United States) and United States Citizens residing

abroad (meaning PERSONS operating under the invisible Citizenship

Contract).  Yes, well before the 14th or 16th Amendments, before Gremlin

EXTRAORDINAIRE Karl Marx made his appearance on the scene, Income Taxes

were both laid on and successfully collected from, American Citizens.

I will discuss both the 14th and 16th Amendments later on, but you

should be aware that numerous people are arguing that you are not liable

for the present Income Tax of Title 26, based on infirmities and

defenses centered around the 14th or 16th Amendments; the information

being disseminated by these people is both erroneous at Law and

factually defective (defective by omission).



But the distinction between those prior belief and transient AD HOC

taxing occurrences and the present permanent Income Tax is that our

contemporary Income Tax has an underlying political objective as its

primary goal:  It was originally designed and is now intended to

forcibly screw, harm and damage people, first, and then to raise revenue

as a wealth transfer instrument, second. [160]


[160]============================================================= I

once had a conversation with a Bolshevik Gremlin who works for the

Brookings Institution in Washington.  There was an aura permeating the

atmosphere around him that was different, as if there was a demon chill

in the air.  Sensing this introduction to Hell, I almost felt as if I

was in Tubingen University in Germany, swirling in the midst of the

ghostly political tempest of devilish intrigue that has been going on

there since the days of Fredrich Schiller and George Hegel

institutionalized the kinky intellectual which that University

generates, and which ideological flotsam and doctrinal mischief

continues on without abatement down to the present day with Hans Kung

and the Green Party.  But when this conversation drifted over towards

the Income Tax, all of a sudden he sparkled up a bit, and with a

devilishly sneaky cackle and a crooked grin that stretched fully from

one ear over to the other, this little Bolshevik Gremlin then

immediately blurted out his high approval of the Income Tax by saying

that "...Oh, we don't want to enrich them too quickly."  He seemed

excessively concerned, even fixated, on their objective that the

countryside be allowed only minimum subsistence income levels.  I really

got the message from him, loud and clear, that they deem our deprivation

of wealth to be of maximum importance to them and their damages

enscrewment objectives.



Creating damages through such devices as a national Tax on Incomes, as

a tool for conquest, is very important to international Bolsheviks,

particularly since they thrive in an atmosphere where the true seminal

point of beginning of national destruction is obscure and difficult to

see; and very few folks see the Income Tax as the great tool of

destruction that it is.  [161]


[161]============================================================= For

a highly detailed, thorough, and technical discussion on the damaging

relationship in effect between Income Taxation and economic growth, see


INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON [John Hopkins Press (1969); revised and redated

in 1980].  There is also a damages relationship in effect between

inflation and the Income Tax -- see Vito Tanzi in his book entitled


for the International Monetary Fund [Cambridge University Press (1981)].

Yes, progressive taxation on net profits is the very element itself that

causes civilizations to fall -- a fact that Gremlins do not want us to

take cognizance of, or otherwise give much thought to. ...When acquiring

new information (or enlarging the factual basis one has to exercise

judgment on), one sometimes looks back and realizes that the behavior

once deemed acceptable in another era is now unacceptable; so too will

Tax Protestors take upon themselves knowledge of invisible juristic

contracts and then when looking back realize the possibility, however

remote, that the actual tax protestings once exhibited in another era

may have been technically improvident for any one of several reasons

unknown at an earlier time.  This practice of acquiring more knowledge,

and then discarding some outmoded behavior of a previous era, is a

recognized sign of organic intellectual enlightenment by the Judiciary.

In 1970, the Alaska Supreme Court once ruled that regardless of past

thinking and past expectations surrounding criminal proceedings, things

were now going to different:  "We reach a point when the crudities of

an earlier age must be abandoned." -    BAKER VS. CITY OF

FAIRBANKS, 471 P.2nd 386, at 403 (1970). And that therefore, TRIAL BY

JURY is now required in all Alaskan State criminal prosecutions

[overruling the previous common practice of making Trial by Jury

requisite only when the prospective duration of incarceration exceeded

six months.]  Just as Judges publicly express regrets over their

previous judgment -- exercised in an era when they thought they were

doing the right thing by coming down hard on criminals clear across the

board, so too should Tax Protestors take qualified cognizance of the

possibility that latent error might also be present in their judgments

as well.



For example, The World Bank in Washington will not make a loan to any

political jurisdiction in the world, unless that country has enacted a

national income tax at rates high enough to satisfy the Bolsheviks.

Nations rise and fall on Income Taxes.  [162]


[162]============================================================= For

a discussion of decline in Holland from 1583 to 1674, for reasons

relating to the enactment of an income tax, as a war measure, to finance

a war against Spain and then continued after the war, on justification

grounds to suppress domestic Dutch insurrections, see LA RICHESSE DE LA

HOLLANDE, by Monsieur A. de Serionne, published in London in 1778 [cited

by Sir Inglis Palgrave, in a speech at the Inaugural Meeting of the

Institute of Bankers in Ireland on November 4, 1909]; as reprinted in

the English periodical entitled BANKER'S MAGAZINE for December, 1909 and

February, 1910 [London:  Waterton and Sons (1910)].



And here in the United States, the State of New York, under the evil

genius of Nelson Rockefeller, enacted the highest corporate and personal

income taxes in effect, of any state, during the 1960's and 1970's,

driving a large number of businesses and literally millions of people,

to emigrate from New York.  [163]


[163]============================================================= When

discussing corporate departures from New York, starting in the mid 60's

and continuing on into the 70's, the NEW YORK TIMES would always talk

about the allure of "the Sun Belt," and of the temperature in Houston,

and of other environmental inducements, but never at any time was there

any discussion as to the incredible State Income Taxes that Nelson

Rockefeller was demanding, and getting, out of the Legislature.  But the

TIMES was lying, as it is very good at, as the Editors knew then that

the attraction of the Southern Sun Belt did not explain why a large

volume of the corporate exodus out of New York City went north into

states like Connecticut (which had no state personal or corporate taxes

in the 1960's), New Hampshire and Vermont. Business managers were also

lying in their public explanations of corporate exodus, as I mentioned

earlier in the context of deception in Commercial dynasties, as they

deflected attention away from Nelson's State Income Tax, into such nice

soft areas of "employee preferences" and the like.  The closest point

the NEW YORK TIMES came to in hitting the nail right on the head (in

this area of corporate geographical exodus to avoid unreasonable

taxation), came during the reign of Governor Hugh Carey in 1977, when

the New York State Senate Labor Committee under Chairman Norman Levy,

out from underneath the thumb of Nelson Rockefeller, held Hearings on

this question, and found that of 111 corporate executives interviewed

in New York City, 76 reluctantly admitted that State income taxes were

the propulsion force driving their relocation plans [see the NEW YORK

TIMES ["Corporations Fret About New York Tax"], Section 1, page 28

(April 3, 1977)].  So much for the nice temperature of Houston.



Income Taxes have a history of being used to accomplish special

objectives which, by their nature, require the creation of some

incidental damages, and so Gremlins trying hard to run a country into

the ground, need generally look no farther than simply initiating a

Taxing grab on Incomes.  [164]



Although the income tax on profits is the true source of economic

stagnation, as Gremlins strive to run one civilization into the ground

after another -- here their MODUS OPERANDI of deception surfaces again,

because when Gremlins and their INTELLIGENTSIA imps try to explain away

the true source of a long term declension in national economic

prosperity, they will invariably turn around and point attention over

to their irritant:  INDIVIDUALS:   "The nineteenth century had accepted

as one of its basic faiths the theory of 'the harmony of interests.'

This held that what was good for the individual was good for the society

as a whole and that the general advancement of society could be achieved

best if individuals were left free to seek their own individual

advantages.  This harmony was assumed to exist between one individual

and another, between the individual and the group, and between the short

run and the long run.  In the nineteenth century, such a theory was

perfectly tenable, but in the twentieth century it could only be

accepted with considerable modification [that's right -- remember,

folks, this is the MODERN era, and you just don't need to concern

yourself with the past].  As a result of persons seeking their

individual advantages, the economic organization of society was so

modified that the actions of one such person were very likely to injure

his fellows, the society as a whole, and his own long-range advantage

[just somehow].  This situation led to such a conflict between theory

and practice, between aims and accomplishments, between individuals and

groups, that a return to fundamentals in economics became necessary

[meaning total top-down Gremlin control of the economy]."   -    Imp

Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at page 497 [MacMillian Company,

New York (1966)]. Notice what really irritates Gremlins and the imps

they hire:  INDIVIDUALS, and everything else Noble and Great their

impending Celestial Status represents.  Here we have a sponsored

Professor Carroll Quigley, trying to pass himself off as a history

professor, and while using an opportunity to come down on free

competitive enterprise, he starts throwing invectives interstitially at

those annoying INDIVIDUALS.  And INDIVIDUALS, exercising their own

judgment, managing their own affairs, and trying to be responsible for

themselves as the embryo Eloheim that they are, have long been a

recurring source of irritation to Gremlins [see INDIVIDUALISM AND

SOCIALISM by Kirby Page [Farrar & Rhinehart, New York (1933)]; Socialist

Kirby Page equates that heinous cult of INDIVIDUALISM with so called

Capitalism, and predicts that both will soon be crushed by National

Socialism.  Lucifer has a few surprises to throw at both Carroll Quigley

and Kirby Page at the Last Day, synchronous with Page and Quigley

momentarily OPENING THEIR EYES once again, too late, to realize that

they had repeated the same doctrinal error here in the Second Estate

over a protracted period of time that they previously committed once

before in the First Estate, and also over a protracted period of time.

And there are several very good reasons why INDIVIDUALS are so

irritating to Gremlins, one of which is: "The most basic,

fundamental Principle of truth, that upon which the entire plan of God

is founded, is free agency.  As an Individual, you have the right to

govern yourself.  It is divinely given to you to think and act as you

wish.  It is your decision.   "It must be pointed out, however, that

although you have the free agency to choose for yourself, you do not

have the right to choose what will be the result of your decision.  The

results of what you think and do are governed by law. Good returns

good.  Evil returns evil [throughout this Letter, I will cite examples

on how the violation of Principles will always generate latent secondary

adverse circumstances out in the future, with the seminal point of

origin of those secondary adverse circumstances being latent [invisible]

and difficult to see].  You govern yourself by subjecting yourself to

the discipline of the law.  If you are obedient to God's law, you remain

free.  You progress and are perfected.  If you are disobedient to God's

law, you bind yourself to that which restricts your progress.  You

become defiled and unworthy to be an associate with those who are more

clean and pure."    -    William R. Bradford in CONFERENCE REPORTS, at

53 (October, 1979).



Although making life difficult for INDIVIDUALS is important for Gremlins

as a source of damages, creating military engagements and wars can be

another such source of damages, [165]


[165]============================================================= For

a discussion on the relationship in effect between the enactment of

American Income Taxes and war, going back to the American Civil War; and

of the second administration of President Cleveland who wanted to

reinstate the Income Tax to give away massive financial aid and quash

an impending rebellion by Western farmers, see a chapter entitled "What

Rip Van Winkle Woke Up To" in a book entitled THE COLD WAR AND THE

INCOME TAX by Edward Wilson [Farrar, Strauss & Company, New York, 1963].



and quiet national economic enscrewment still another.  [166]


[166]============================================================= "The

real effect of a tax on profits is to make the country possess at any

given period, a smaller capital and smaller aggregate production, and

to make the stationary state be attained earlier, and with a smaller sum

of national wealth [yes, the Gremlins know exactly what they are doing].

It is possible that a tax on profits might even diminish the existing

capital of the country.  If the rate of profit is already at the

practical minimum, that is, at the point at which all that portion of

the annual increment which would tend to reduce profits is carried off

either by exportation or by speculation; then if a tax is imposed which

reduces profits still lower, the same causes which previously carried

off the increase would probably carry off a portion of the existing

capital.  A tax on profits is thus, in a state of capital and

accumulation like that in England, extremely detrimental to the national

wealth.  And this effect is not confined to the case of a peculiar, and

therefore intrinsically unjust, tax on profits. The mere fact that

profits have to bear their share of a heavy general taxation, tends, in

the same manner as a peculiar tax, to drive capital abroad, to stimulate

imprudent speculations by diminishing safe gains, to discourage further

accumulation, and to accelerate the attainment of the stationary state

[this STATIONARY STATE is the great Gremlin objective where trade

atrophies, business dies from strangulation, and commerce stops

altogether, as they run one civilization into the ground after another].

This is thought to have been the principal cause of the decline of

Holland, or rather of her having ceased to make progress [and until the

United States gets rid of the Gremlins that are now running the show,

then we are next]."      -    John S. Mill, III, PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL

ECONOMY, Book V, Chapter 3, Section 3 ["Of Direct Taxes"], at page 827

[University of Toronto Press, Toronto (1965)]. Born in London, John

Stuart Mill lived from 1806 to 1873; once elected to the British

Parliament, he wrote a considerable volume of books and articles on

economics and philosophy.  PRINCIPLES ON POLITICAL ECONOMY was written

in the 1850's, and grew in size as it appeared in several versions.  His

philosophical orientation was that of statist and socialist.



Today, in the United States, law school students are taught the

Bolshevik line that Income Taxes are good for the country because of the

social engineering that can then be performed with the confiscated

money.  [167]



"Progressive taxation is now regarded as one of the central ideas of

modern democratic capitalism and is widely accepted as a secure policy

commitment which does not require serious examination."     -    Blum


of Chicago Law Review 417, at 417 (1952)]. See also INCOME


Professor Barbara Brudno [West Publishing, Saint Paul, Minnesota

(1977)]; as she talks about Guaranteed Annual Income, Income Maintenance

Programs, and the Negative Income Tax Proposals.



Having been contaminated with clever lies originating from a devilish

source far beyond their minimal factual level of comprehension to

understand, and also requiring a level of judgment operating on a

repository of knowledge in excess of their limited capacity, some

sympathetic little Gremlin lawyers are now trying to twist basic

property rights around to have the mere omission of an Income Tax be

construed as a Tort on impoverished people, arguing that poor folks now

have some type of a social right to your money. [168]



", we see poverty as the consequence of large impersonal forces

in a complex industrial society -- forces like automation, lack of jobs

and changing technologies that are beyond the control of the


LEGAL ISSUES, 74 Yale Law Journal 1245, at 1255 (1965).



The bottom line is that the Income Tax continues to roll on; opposition

is minimal; Tax Protestors are being frowned upon by the general public

at large, viewed as cheaters making Government only more expensive for

themselves; and so the Income Tax is now accomplishing its Bolshevik

political mission in the philosophically divided House of the United

States, with flying colors.  [169]



Accomplishing countermanding objectives in this area is the art of

constructing cogent arguments -- arguments in legal briefs in your tax

cases; arguments to others to catalytically trigger another supporting

view; and arguments to taxing legislative jurisdictions.  As it pertains

to the presentation of arguments to legislative (as they largely freely

pick and choose the reciprocity demands of contracts they have folks

locked into by having first thrown an array of benefits at them),

argument making itself is an art:  "The purpose of arguments is to

persuade the policy maker that the public interest would be promoted by

the adoption of a tax proposal which would financially benefit its

advocates.  Regarding some proposals, the direct financial interest of

a great majority of people may be quiet clear. Such proposals rarely

create active tax issues.  Regarding other proposals, the public

interest may be difficult to ascertain.  The amount of direct cost or

benefit involved to each member of the public may be so small and

uncertain that other tests of the public interest takes on great

importance.  It is to these indirect and somewhat subtle interest

objectives that arguments are commonly addressed. The nature of the

arguments will appear from an example.  When the witness for a taxpayer

interest group appears at hearings before the Congressional taxing

committee, he does not merely say, and often does not say at all:

"Please adopt our proposal because it would benefit us."  It is always

assumed that each witness thinks his group would be benefited by the

action he proposes.  The argument [presented] is usually on a high plane

of public welfare.  The witness may indeed point out that his industry

is subject to an unusual hardship, but even in this case the testimony

usually goes beyond the private benefit to consider the public

interest."     [A rare exception to this rule happened when, for

example, a Congressman once snorted a statement to a representative of


lobbying for a repeal of some excise taxes they didn't feel like

paying]:       "Why don't they get together and tell us how repeal would

benefit the country, instead of each trying to tell us how it would

benefit his own industry?" -    NEW YORK TIMES, Section 3,

page 4 (June 19, 1949)."      -    Roy Blough in THE ARGUMENT PHASE OF

TAXPAYER POLITICS, 17 University of Chicago Law Review 604, at 605

(1950). Other than for that lone wolf exception, witnesses do not

normally argue that their proposals would benefit themselves, but

generally deflect attention of to some high and noble national welfare

objective.  This is an idea Patriots might take time to think about

because one of the reasons Federal Judges come down so hard on Tax

Protestors is because the judge views the Protestor as being a self-

centered cheap person immorally pursuing his own self-enrichment; the

background factual information possessed by the Protestor (of his

knowledge of that tax, if surrendered over to the Bolsheviks in

Washington, would only accelerate the destruction of his own Country)

is factual knowledge on conspiracy and Gremlin intrigue largely unknown,

unappreciated, and unseen by Judges.  The presentation of these

historical background arguments to the Judge are arguments that are

sounding in the Tort of unfairness, and cannot be considered on their

merits whenever contracts are in effect; only the Patriot's total and

thorough decontamination of himself, away from the adhesive juristic

environment that characterizes the King's Equity Jurisdiction, has any

hope of allowing the DE MINIMIS entrance into your arguments of evidence

countermanding the Judge's quiet assumption of your cheapness as a

person, by talking about the illicit legislative motives that were very

much present when those taxation statutes were either enacted (or

alleged to have been enacted).  But important for the moment is the

general lack of concern by Patriots in the quality of the arguments and

the flow of the logical continuity presented therein, but in order to

see our own error, we must develop the ability to see and evaluate these

arguments from the Judge's perspective; not an easy thing to do, as

Judges are approaching the issue totally different from us.  For an

abstract theoretical model in how to do so, see Wayne Grennan in

ARGUMENT EVALUATION [University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland



NOTICE: George Mercier is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generaly presented as "" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of used throughout.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commecial enterprise and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct; use the service in a way that harms us or anyone connected with or whose work is presented; damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site) or interfere with anyone's use and enjoyment of the website.
All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the site or material contained within.

Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2009
All Rights Reserved