Back
I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
George Mercier
THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
[Pages 229-299]
1.
Through the beneficial use of a taxable franchise like Social
Security. A lot of folks don't realize it, but the presentation
of a Social Security Number to your Employer is a contract with
the King to pay taxes, and an acknowledgement of personal Status
as a Taxpayer.
QUESTION: How do you get out of this?
ANSWER: This is not an easy thing to do; clever administrative
rule making forced on Employers has tightened Employers up -- and
they have the money we want. In an Employee/Employer
relationship factual setting as a first step, it is first
necessary to terminate all written attachments of King's Equity
Jurisdiction you previously initiated with the King. Some of the
steps taken now in this section will not be appreciated until all
of the invisible juristic contracts that the King is operating on
have been correctively severed -- so one has to read the entire
Letter first, and then come back to this section. But as for
written attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction relevant in an
Employment factual setting, for most folks, this act transpired
when they were a teenager and they signed a form and mailed it to
Washington, and requested a Social Security Number. Pursuant to
your administrative request, the King issued out a Number, and so
now the contemporary beneficial use of that Social Security
Number by you in an Employment setting creates a taxing
liability; as the Federal judiciary considers participation in
Social Security to be a taxable franchise, among other things.
But that is only a small part of the story, and this rescission
is only a point of beginning. Second, terminate the acceptance
and receipt of all benefits that otherwise inure to Social
Security beneficiaries, because under Nature remember that no
written contract is now necessary, or has ever been necessary, to
extract money out of Social Security participants (unless the
King in his statutes has explicitly limited himself to collect
money only under written contracts for some reason). And in
terms of attaching one's liability to contributing premium
reciprocity to the King's Social Security handout LARGESSE, the
mere rescission of the written Social Security contract, as is
now prevalent among Patriots trying to get to the bottom of
things is, of and by itself, irrelevant, and does not terminate
any taxing liability (as I will explain later).
The fundamental reason why EMPLOYEES are viewed universally by
State and Federal judges as being taxable objects is because the
EMPLOYEE is clothed with multiple layers of juristic contracts
separate and apart from Social Security, by reason of the large
array of juristic benefits the EMPLOYEE has accepted by his
silence. Therefore, EMPLOYEES are in a commercial enrichment
setting, EMPLOYEES are in business, and the gain experienced by
EMPLOYEES is very much taxable, since the King participated in
creating the financial gain the EMPLOYEE is experiencing. But
now that you have been placed on Notice that a rightful moral
liability does attach on your acceptance of the King's Employment
scenario intervention by throwing invisible juristic benefits at
Employees, when you first get hired on again with someone else,
as another point of beginning, now let's change the factual
setting a bit, and refuse to provide a Social Security Number.
[298]
[298]=============================================================
The reason why you can't provide a Social Security Number, of
course, is because you do not have one. So although your written
rescission filed earlier with the Social Security Administration
is, of and by itself, meaningless for taxing liability reasons,
it remains a necessary accessory evidentiary element of the total
factual setting your new LIBERATED Status lies in, as will be
seen later. The presentation of a Social Security Number to
others is, under some circumstances, a Federal crime, and
properly so -- as a MENS REA is present in the mind of the actor,
and CORPUS DELECTI damages are experienced by others. If some
playful circumstances ever make their appearance in your life
where the dissemination of someone else's Social Security Number
would be innocuous, consider giving them Richard M. Nixon's
Social Security Number:
567-68-0515.
=============================================================[298]
After they threaten you with termination, as they eventually will
do, then provide a number under your objection and over your
protest, and notice of waiving and rejecting all benefits
otherwise available to you as an Employee; not just retirement
benefits, but the immediate environmental protection benefits all
Employees experience (by the end of this section, you will see
what the immediate benefits are that I am referring to). The
objective behind this OBJECTION is to make a STATEMENT. That
Objection should cite the King's forced third party relationship
to the arrangements, and your Objection to his intervention
against your will; his forcing you to accept his benefits that
you now hereby waive, refuse, forfeit and forego; and then also
claim that such an unwanted and forced relationship with the King
violates relational PRINCIPLES OF NATURE not permissible absent
the existence of some other invisible contract you may not be
aware of; and interferes with your RIGHT TO WORK under the Fifth
Amendment. [299]
[299]=============================================================
If you are involved with an invisible contract, i.e., no Social
Security Number in effect, but accepting the King's intervention
and benefits, then the Constitution does not apply, as the
Constitution does not operate to restrain or interfere with the
operation of Commercial contracts. Several other important
benefits need to be rejected timely and appropriately before
triggering sympathy from Judges; and those benefits will be
discussed later. Acting like a Tax Protestor by claiming
fairness rights found in the BILL OF RIGHTS applicable to factual
settings sounding in Tort, while accepting the King's important
Commercial benefits inuring to EMPLOYEES, will get you absolutely
nowhere in front of a Federal Judge. So this Objection must
waive, reject, forfeit, and forego through explicit disavowal,
all such Commercial benefits normally deemed to be in effect
through silence [and I will explain SILENCE later on, as SILENCE
is often high-powered].
=============================================================[299]
These OBJECTION presentations are necessarily status oriented, as
they define your non-involvement with trade, commerce, business,
and industry -- an involvement which if left uncountermanded,
automatically infers a Contract Law factual setting in effect
between your EMPLOYER, yourself and the King. But if your new
Status falls outside the boundary lines of King's Commerce [where
all those who enter therein experience enrichment, created in
part by the King's benefit], then there is an inherent RIGHT TO
WORK interest in the 14th Amendment as well [TRAUX VS. RAICH, 229
U.S. 33 (1915)]. [300]
[300]============================================================
Claiming the 14th Amendment as a source of rights (by claiming
yourself to be a beneficiary party to the 14th Amendment) will
carry the secondary effect of diminishing your Status if not
handled properly, since the 14th Amendment is also a source of
invisible Admiralty like benefits that create taxation contracts.
Arguing 14th Amendment rights [RIGHTS meaning really: 14th
Amendment restrainment of Government Tortfeasance] should
generally be avoided absent a good knowledge on what adhesive
tentacles of King's Equity the 14th Amendment creates for
American Citizens. Here, in an EMPLOYMENT setting, first we
argue that there are contracts in effect [by reason of no
juristic benefits accepted], and then after we correctly get rid
of invisible juristic benefits that in turn create invisible
expectations of taxation reciprocity -- then, and only then, can
we now argue the Tort of fairness in obstructing RIGHT TO WORK
restrainments on Government. Tax Protestors experiencing
setbacks and hard rebuffments in Courtrooms all across the United
States as they argued for rights and quoted the Founding Fathers
and all that, never attempted to first get rid of the King's
contracts, so automatically from the scratch, Tax Protestors are
not entitled to prevail under any circumstances. Once the
invisible contract of EMPLOYMENT [and the taxation expectation
stigma it creates in the minds of Judges], has been gotten rid
of, then unfairness defenses sounding in Tort are entertainable.
For example, other Government restrainments lie in areas like
INTERNATIONAL LAW, which is in effect by Treaties executed
defining minimum Human Rights, etc. The United States State
Department has defined the RIGHT TO TRAVEL and the RIGHT TO WORK
as being among the multiple ENTENTE meanings of "Human Rights" in
those treaties. The very idea that INTERNATIONAL LAW can operate
to obstruct domestic tax collection, however correct a force of
Law under some limited factual settings, is an idea that Federal
Judges will view as being particularly irritating. The United
States has many Tax Treaties in effect with foreign
jurisdictions, and some of those Treaties contain covenants that
very much intervene into domestic tax collection by reason of
prohibiting multiple taxation events like DOUBLE TAXATION on
various combinations of specialty assets or income streams. If
you do not look forward to playfully tussling with Judges, then
the exclusion of this argument might be appropriate. In any
event, be mindful that INTERNATIONAL LAW is binding only on
Juristic Institutions and not on any other PERSON, yet the
interposition of INTERNATIONAL LAW is still relevant ere since
your Objection is centered in part around clever administrative
rule making originating from a juristic source.
"...Treaties have the effect of overruling state and Federal
laws. ... This is not generally well known."
-
Chief Justice Warren Burger, in the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE,
September 22, 1985.
What Warren Burger is referring to is known as the interposition
of INTERNATIONAL LAW. This INTERNATIONAL LAW is generally
binding only on Juristic Institutions themselves -- but for
purposes of Gremlin conquest, that's enough. Article VI of the
Constitution declares that both the [statutory] laws of Congress
and foreign Treaties shall be "...the supreme law of the land,"
which is a catalytic source of snickering by Patriots to throw
invectives at Federal Judges. However, Federal statutes are
actually on Status parity with Treaties so that:
"...a treaty may supersede a prior Act of Congress and an Act of
Congress may supersede a prior treaty."
-
REID VS. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1, at 18 (1956)
This superseding priority of Treaties over Statutes over Treaties
over Statutes based on recency of Time is another restated
operation of the PRINCIPLE OF NATURE I mentioned in the Armen
Condo Letter that contracts we enter into today overrule
contracts we entered into yesterday; a Principle which also
surfaces as an important structural element in the MERGER
DOCTRINE, as lawyers call it, and which surfaces again anywhere
and anytime when on replacement contract is entered into
overruling a previous contract, just as our Covenants with Father
now in this Second Estate overrule and supersede our First Estate
Covenants, which in turn fade away into insignificance.
=============================================================[300]
Some ideas to consider and think about while creating your
OBJECTION, might be to state perhaps that the Social Security
Number you are giving him is being done solely for the purpose of
deflecting the otherwise imminent termination of your livelihood,
and that the Social Security Number you are giving him was
previously rescinded [301]
[301]=============================================================
In a Federal criminal prosecution of an acquaintance of mine,
where the defense was Status oriented (however improvident a
Defense Line since contracts were in effect), the local United
States Attorney objected to the validity of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE
RESCISSION because under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
designated agent to accept legal service for the United States is
the Attorney General, and the Defendant had only noticed out the
rescission to the Secretary of Commerce. Now, whether or not
those Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which regulate the
exchange of procedure between adversaries in the heat of a
judicial battle, are applicable to an administrative IN REM
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT, is disputed. But that is not important.
What is important is the knowledge that when the King's Attorneys
see their criminal prosecution start to fall apart and collapse
in front of them, they will then pick apart and cite any
off-point anything -- just trying to get your facial RESCISSION
declared void. In that particular prosecution, the RESCISSION
was FEDERAL EXPRESSED to the Attorney General in Washington as
soon as the United States Attorney's Motion to Strike brief was
received by the Defendant. So by the time the Trial Magistrate
heard the oral arguments, the improper service question was moot,
and the Judge offered no validity opinion on that procedural
question. So even though the statutory necessity of service on
the Attorney General for these administrative rescissions is
disputed, for the minimum incremental cost serving such an
additional rescission party burdens you, omitting to serve the
Attorney General in all Federal administrative RESCISSIONS,
NOTICES OF BENEFIT REJECTION, and OBJECTIONS, might be
discouraged.
=============================================================[301]
and is presently null and void (and that re-presentation of the
number under PROTEST, OBJECTION and REJECTION OF BENEFITS after
its prior nullification does not reactivate it); and that you
hereby waive, forfeit, forego, and will return where possible,
any and all benefits that would otherwise inure to you as an
Employee and as a participant in the Social Security retirement
program, and that this Objection you are filing is a continuous
one, and that any qualified acceptance of bank drafts taken in
contemplation of exchange into hard currency is accepted for the
administrative convenience of your Employer, and will be endorsed
under protest, at law and not in equity, in the future; etc.,
does not change, alter, or diminish anything relative to your
Status or the life of that Objection. Also noticed out should be
statements concerning your non-involvement with Commerce; Status
as Non-Taxpayer; [302]
[302]=============================================================
The mere unilateral Status declaration by you, that you are not a
Taxpayer is, of and by itself, meaningless; however, adducing
collateral evidence showing that terminating contract rescissions
were effectuated timely is very significant. By the end of this
Letter, you will know what contracts are deemed very important by
both State and Federal Judges, and just what RESCISSION means
something.
=============================================================[302]
rescission of the attachment of a special King's Equity
Jurisdiction that uncontested Birth Certificates create under
some limited circumstances; and Notice of prior Objections having
been filed, objecting to the attachment of Equity Jurisdiction
that otherwise lie to Holders in Due Course of circulating
Federal Reserve equitable instruments that the King's Legal
Tender Statutes [303]
[303]============================================================
Title 31, Section 5103 ["Legal Tender"]:
"United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve
Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and national
banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and
dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for
debts."
-
96 US STATUTES AT LARGE 980 (September 13, 1982).
=============================================================[303]
have enhanced the value of, etc. This Objection, along with your
Employer's threats, must all be in writing as a confrontation
with the King is coming. (Your Employer will forward the Social
Security Number to the IRS, who then in turn will simply assume
that you are a Taxpayer, and reasonably so, based upon what
little information they have). Since the IRS has some evidence
that you are a Taxpayer, the burden then shifts to you to prove
that yes, although the IRS does have my number, these are the
reasons as to why I am not a Taxpayer. In such a confrontational
setting, it ranges from possible to likely that your Employer
will lie, have a convenient loss of memory, and otherwise not
stick up for you when push accelerates to shove. Since the
burden of proof to prove non-Taxpayer and non-Commercial Status
now falls on you, depositions which would ordinarily be necessary
from your Employer to prove that your Objections were made timely
(with the questioning contained therein discussing the
circumstances surrounding the surrendering of that Social
Security Number to him), now becomes unnecessary. If the
Employer's threats to terminate you, and your Objections and
Rescissions are all down tight in writing, the factual setting is
now undisputed, and depositions are unnecessary; so a little
prevention here is important. [304]
[304]=============================================================
When your Employer terminates you, what is being displayed to you
is the exterior manifestation of a deeper tremor originating with
a contract they have with the King, that a regulatory
jurisdiction created. Trying to earn a livelihood in such an
Employment setting is not the only place where there is tension
in effect between the beneficiaries of regulatory programs (such
as participants in King's Commerce), and your private and
personal rights as an INDIVIDUAL. For commentary on parallel
friction in effect and damages that are created whenever a
Juristic Institution erects the barriers of a regulatory
jurisdiction -- either for their own enrichment or some other
Special Interest, see Richard Stewart and Cass Sunstein in PUBLIC
PROGRAMS AND PRIVATE RIGHTS, 95 Harvard Law Review 1193 (1982)
[not on point to the Patriot perspective, but accurate in
itself].
=============================================================[304]
As for the IRS, the only information they have is a name and your
Social Security Number, so as a point of beginning, it is
reasonable for them to simply proceed against you as if you are a
Taxpayer; and agents trying to collect money for the King should
not be viewed as some type of an enemy to kill (they are
transient AD HOC adversaries, not enemies). Under normal
circumstances, your Case can be won at the administrative level
by requesting an Administrative Hearing and using Title 5 and the
Code of Federal Regulations with SAVOIR FAIRE, and then taking
your Case up the grievance ladder, one step at a time. [305]
[305]=============================================================
"Most important, if administrative remedies are pursued, the
citizen may win complete relief without needlessly invoking
judicial process... We ought not to encourage litigants to
bypass simple, inexpensive, and expeditious remedies available at
their doorstep in order to invoke expensive judicial machinery on
matters capable of being resolved at local levels."
-
Warren Burger in MOORE VS. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494, at 525
(1976).
=============================================================[305]
But just in case, get ready to speak your mind in front of the
Supreme Court, if necessary. If physically flying yourself to
Washington does not intrigue you, then you might consider paying
the requested tax, as you have already lost. [306]
[306]=============================================================
The idea that many folks have in their minds, that their Case is
just too petty for the Supreme Court to concern themselves with,
is the contemporary resurrection of the ancient Roman maxim of
law called DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX, which means the Law does not
concern itself with, or take notice of, very small or trifling
matters. The United States Supreme Court does not adapt such a
snooty posture.
"It is said that counsel once attempted to argue before Chief
Justice Marshall that in the particular instance before the court
the invasion of constitutional rights was slight, but he was
sternly reminded that the case involved the Constitution of the
United States, and that the degree or extent of the invasion had
no bearing upon the point."
-
William Gutherie in THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, at 39 [University Press, Cambridge (1898)].
Some of these cases are:
1.
In 1867, the Supreme Court once gave careful consideration to a
Case where the amount of money was only $1. In overruling the
State of Nevada and the assertion of what essentially amounted to
a State egress tax collected at the borders, the Supreme Court
cited as annulment justification the overriding interests
inherent in a national RIGHT TO TRAVEL, which consisted of a
composite blend of factors, such as the potential interference
with the smooth administration with the WAR POWERS, possible
friction with the CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT, and obstruction with
restrainments inherent in the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE [See
CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 73 U.S. 35 (1967)].
2.
In SENTRELL VS. NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD, the question addressed
turned upon the Constitutionality of a state law enacted by
Louisiana that required dogs to be placed on the assessment
rolls. A claim arose out of the killing of a dog, and the
Supreme Court adjudged the validity of an Act under the 14th
Amendment that provided that no owner could recover for the
killing of a dog unless the dog had been placed on the tax
assessment rolls, and then the amount of recovery would be
limited to the amount so assessed. [166 U.S. 698 (1896)].
3.
Here today in the 1970's and 1980's, the Supreme Court continues
on issuing out WRITS OF CERTIORARI with petty Cases. The El Paso
Police Department once arrested a fellow who was walking down
their streets; claiming that the suspect "looked suspicious" in a
seedy neighborhood characterized by drug trafficking. Zackary
Brown refused to identify himself and then angrily asserted that
the officers had no right to stop him. Hearing such retortional
defiance, the police dragged him down to their station and then
threw a criminal prosecution at Brown, citing some slice of LEX
that purportedly made it a heinous criminal act for a person to
refuse to give his name and address to any statute enforcement
officer "... who has lawfully stopped him and requested the
information." On the floor of the municipal Courtroom, Brown's
Defense centered around claims of Constitutional disabilities,
but the inconsiderate little Star Chamber political hack Judge
tossed his arguments aside; Brown was found guilty and fined $45.
The Texas appellate courts refused to hear the appeal since
another little slice of LEX barred appeals on cases with fines
under $100. Having first exhausted all potential state remedies,
the Supreme Court granted CERTIORARI and annulled his conviction.
[See BROWN VS. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1978)].
4.
Criminal Defendant William Lawson began building up his rap sheet
with the heinous act of walking down San Diego sidewalks,
carrying such criminally suspicious items as television sets.
Between March 1975 and January of 1977, William Lawson was either
detained or arrested 15 times; he had two prosecutions thrown at
him and was convicted once; he obtained his favorable hearing in
the Supreme Court. [See LAWSON VS. KOLANDER, 461 U.S. 352
(1982)].
In these Cases, the factual setting presented to the Supreme
Court favored the Individuals involved, a situation that is not
replicated today with Patriots throwing Highway and Tax
Protesting actions of all types at Judges -- reason: Invisible
contracts are in effect on the factual settings selected for
defiance by the Protestor, and so now the Protestors are not
entitled to prevail under any circumstances. My contention with
the Supreme Court lies with their reluctance to see the geometry
of this growing PRO SE movement, and grant CERTIORARI to
correctively explain error, a philosophically difficult position
for them because while explaining error to the sharp and hot
issues Patriots argue on Tax Cases, the inferential effect would
be to show the Protestor how to correctly get out from underneath
the reciprocity expectations of taxation liability -- and that
would be letting the cat out of the bag. In so refusing to rule
and explain, the Supreme Court is actually taking an inconsistent
POLITICAL POSITION on the Case -- which if you or I argued some
illegitimate Ratification attribute of a Constitutional
Amendment, we would be told that THAT'S A POLITICAL QUESTION for
the Congress to deal with. But as for pettiness, the decision on
granting CERTIORARI is not related to the size of the money
involved, or the extent of the seriousness of the Constitutional
violation involved. The old Roman maxim of law called DE MINIMIS
NON CURAT LEX does not intervene in American Jurisprudence:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form;
but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first
footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight
deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be
obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions
for the security of person and property should be liberally
construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of
half their efficacy, and leads to gradual deprecation of the
right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is
the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional
rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments
thereon. Their motto should be OBSTA PRINCIPIIS."
-
Justice Bradley in BOYD VS. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, at 635
(1885).
[The Latin phrase, OBSTA PRINCIPIIS, means to resist the first
approaches or encroachments; and the first encroachments are
always small and seemingly insignificant]. And in a similar way,
looking for a technically close and literal construction of your
Celestial Contracts as a way to minimize your involvement with
them, deprives them of half of their efficacy, as well, and leads
to a gradual depreciation of your Standing before Father. [The
reason is because your Contracts with Father are not static
(fixed); several of the addendums to your Celestial Contracts
contain organic Covenants that self enlarge over time, and so
slight deviations by indifference creates an invisible
encroachment on those Celestial Contracts; and as the potential
attachment of additional Covenants is then deflected away from
the corpus of your Contracts, with that follows the deflections
of commensurate benefits].
=============================================================[306]
Now that this discussion has shifted over to the administrative
adjudication of grievances with the King, I need to digress just
a bit and discuss Principles relating to Demands for an
Administrative Hearing. [307]
[307]=============================================================
Correct procedure is necessary to achieve the desired end result;
when the objective is freedom, the instrumentality necessary to
achieve freedom is procedure itself:
"The history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the
history of procedure."
-
Justice Frankfurter in MORRIS MALINSKI VS. NEW YORK, 324 U.S.
401, at 414 [dissenting] (1945).
=============================================================[307]
In an administrative adjudication, numerous people I know of have
requested administrative hearings to discuss the want of
jurisdiction that the King or a Prince was asserting generally in
many different settings. As part of the strategy involved,
failure by the state administrators to grant a hearing would
later bar civil tax liability and even a criminal prosecution for
the same ACTUS REUS later under the COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE,
which is an unwritten Common Law Principle. [308]
[308]=============================================================
UNWRITTEN meaning not explicitly written in statutes.
=============================================================[308]
The PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL has many closely related sister
Principles of Estoppel; there are PRINCIPLES OF PRECLUSION, [309]
[309]=============================================================
PRINCIPLES OF PRECLUSION can prevent a question once argued,
litigated, and adjudged in state courts from being re-argued,
re-litigated, and re-adjudged all over again in a Federal Forum,
under some conditions. See Footnote #1 to MIGRA VS. WARREN
SCHOOL DISTRICT, 465 U.S. 75 (1984). This PRINCIPLE OF
PRECLUSION is nothing more than Estoppel Doctrine applied to
accelerate judicial economy; like all correct Principles, they
can and will intervene and operate across all factual settings.
=============================================================[309]
and Estoppels themselves can be either DIRECT or COLLATERAL.
There is also a parallel Doctrine called JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL.
[310]
[310]=============================================================
The DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL prevents a party from asserting
any type of a sworn testimonial position in one proceeding that
is contrary to a position previously taken by that party in some
earlier proceeding. Originally written down [that I could find]
by the Tennessee Supreme Court in HAMILTON VS. ZIMMERMAN [37
Tennessee 39 (1857)], this doctrine carries on in all
jurisdictions down to the present day. A contemporary
prototypical example of JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL is found in FINLEY VS.
KESLING [105 Illinois App. 3d 1 (1982)] where lovers once
contemplating nuptials are now found passionately enraptured in
the heat of vindictive divorce. In his 1974 divorce settlement
action, Charles O. Finley once testified under Oath that he owned
31% of the corporate stock of the OAKLAND ATHLETICS BASEBALL
TEAM, and that his wife owned 29%, and that his children owned
40%. The Indiana Court involved at that time in 1974 accepted
his presentation of the facts, and properly so under those
circumstances, with the result being that the 40% claimed by
Finely to belong to the children was not involved in his wife's
grab for settlement property. But Charles Finely violated a
latent PRINCIPLE OF NATURE by lying, with the adverse result
being that secondary circumstances surfaced in the future that
were not discernible or visible to Charles Finely at the time his
lying to conceal assets took place in 1974. His divorce out of
the way, the unexpected happened when in 1980 his corporation
became financially insolvent, and so now he adapted a plan for
liquidation and distribution of the corporation's assets. Now
Finley wanted to hog all of the residual corporation assets for
himself, including grabbing all of the kid's share for himself
(since his previous statements that the kid's owned 40% were
insincere and did not reflect his true asset distribution
intentions); he sought a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in 1982 that he was
the beneficial owner of the 40% block of stock he previously
testified was owned by his children. In properly dismissing his
1982 action seeking to grab the children's assets for himself,
the Appellate Court of Illinois ruled that:
"Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel... Finley having
testified under oath that he owned only 31% of the stock and his
children owned 40%, and having succeeded in convincing the
Indiana courts that his 40% belonged to the children and was not
marital property, cannot now contend that the stock is, in
effect, his property."
-
FINLEY VS. KESLING, id., at 10.
All Federal forums that I have looked into also invoke this
invisible PRINCIPLE OF NATURE to bar the secondary assertion of
inconsistent statements by parties attempting to defile
themselves. See:
-
EDWARDS VS. AETNA LIFE, 690 F.2nd 595, at 598 to 599 (6th
Circuit, 1982);
-
SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE VS. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 587
F.2nd 428 (9th Circuit, 1978);
-
EADS HIDE AND WOOL VS. MERRILL, 252 F.2nd 80, at 84 (10th
Circuit, 1980).
See generally, Note, THE TENNESSEE LAW OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, 1
Tennessee Law Review 1 (1922).
=============================================================[310]
But for our purposes, only the COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE will
be briefly discussed.
Correctly understood, these Administrative Law Demands are
marvelous devices, which, if handled properly, can and will tie
the King's and the Prince's giblets down tight: But they need to
be viewed, understood, and plead, properly. These Administrative
Law Demands many seek are the lessor administrative equivalent of
a judicially sought Declaratory Judgment; and so all of the
Natural Law requirements and indicia that apply to judicial
Declaratory Judgments, also apply to Administrative Judgments.
The most important indicia of which is that there must be a
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY at hand, i.e., some type of case or
controversy, which if left unresolved will damage a person.
[311]
[311]=============================================================
See generally, STANDING, JUSTICIABILITY, AND ALL THAT in 25
Vanderbilt Law Review 599 (1972), by Sedler.
=============================================================[311]
JUSTICIABILITY is closely related to STANDING, [312]
[312]=============================================================
STANDING means your personal interest in the Case. The DOCTRINE
OF STANDING is composed of both Constitutional limitations of the
jurisdiction of Federal Courts and from prudential rules of self
restraint designed to bar from Federal Court those parties who
are not very well suited to litigate the claims that they are now
asserting. In its Constitutional dimension, the STANDING inquiry
asks whether the party before the Court has:
"... such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as
to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to
justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf."
-
WARTH VS. SEDLIN, 422 U.S. 490, at 498 (1975).
The necessary twin elements of STANDING are INJURY IN FACT and
CAUSATION. To demonstrate the "personal interest" in the
litigation necessary to satisfy the Constitution's requirements
in the DUE PROCESS area, the party must suffer a "... distinct
and palpable injury" [WARTH VS. SEDLIN, at 501], that bears a
"... fairly traceable causal connection" to the challenged
action." [DUKE POWER VS. CAROLINA, 438 U.S. 59, at 79 (1978)].
=============================================================[312]
and both are indicia related to make sure that you are in fact,
entitled to the relief that you are seeking, and that there is,
in fact an actual grievance for the Law to operate on and for the
Judiciary to rule upon. [313]
[313]=============================================================
"The jurisdiction [of the Judiciary] is, or may be, bounded to a
few objects or persons; or however general and unlimited, its
operations are necessarily confined to the mere administration of
private and public justice. ... It cannot create controversies
to act upon. It can decide only upon rights and cases, as they
are brought by others before it. On the other hand, the
legislative power [is almost] unlimited."
-
Joseph Story in II COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 16
(Cambridge, 1833).
=============================================================[313]
In JUSTICIABILITY averments, you must establish that you have a
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, [314] and that
the dispute sought to be administratively adjudicated will be
presented in an adversary context, [315] and that the logical
nexus between the Status we assert and the claim sought to be
adjudicated are both present, [316] along with the necessary
degree of contentiousness. [317] To your advantage, the
JUSTICIABILITY DOCTRINE has uncertain and shifting contours, and
properly so, as it organically follows the Branches of the
Majestic Oak. [318]
[314-318]=========================================================
314:
BAKER VS. CARR, 369 U.S. 186, at 204 (1962)
315:
FLAST VS. COHEN, 392 U.S. 83, at 101 (1968)
316:
FLAST VS. COHEN, id., at 102
317:
GOLDEN VS. SWICKLER, 394 U.S. 103 (1969)
318:
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION VS. GERAGHTY,
445 U.S. 388 (1979).
=========================================================[314-318]
To really understand the reasoning behind the judicial
requirement for the presence of JUSTICIABILITY in DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS, think of JUSTICIABILITY as being like "tension" in
effect between two adversaries. If the tension is not there,
then the Judge (either a Judicial Judge, or an Administrative Law
Judge) is not dealing with a grievance, he is actually dealing
with a hypothetical factual setting that may or may not ever come
to pass. If the Judge issued down an Order based upon such a
hypothetical factual setting without the element of
JUSTICIABILITY in effect, the effect of that Order would be to
work a Tort on the adverse Party the Order operates against; this
Party did nothing, and in fact may have very well intended to do
nothing; but now an Order exists declaring some reversed
relational rights (meaning: One of the Parties no longer holds
the upper hand). As viewed from a Judge's perspective, the
absence of that "distinct and palpable injury" of JUSTICIABILITY
renders the Case moot, because there is nothing for the Judge to
do; and if anything was done by the Judge, a judicial Tort would
be thrown at one of the parties for no more than an exchange of
hypothetical factual settings between fictional adversaries. For
example, if in fact the Law requires some simple positive act to
be performed unilaterally by some Government official regardless
of anything you do or don't do, then a proper remedy to compel
performance would lie in MANDAMUS, where questions of the
existence of the tension of JUSTICIABILITY between adversaries is
not relevant. [319]
[319]=============================================================
All government employees operate their kingdoms under contract,
and the Tort requirement of damages is not relevant whenever
contract enforcement is up for consideration.
=============================================================[319]
And specifically referring to rebuffed Demands for Administrative
Hearings, the correct medicine may actually lay in ALTERNATIVE
MANDAMUS (meaning: Grant the Hearing, or in the alternative,
forfeit your jurisdiction, just the right medicine to deal with
bureaucratic recalcitrance).
So merely sending a DEMAND FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING to a
state official to discuss their assertion of a regulatory
jurisdictional environment on the public highways, without any
specific Case or controversy being presented for adjudication,
will later Collaterally Estop no one, as no averments of a
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY were made (who is making an assertion of
jurisdiction over you? What traffic cop or law enforcement
person, and when? What did the traffic cop say? Where is the
assignment of policing jurisdiction of that cop down through
state statutes from the Legislature? What penal statute did he
threaten you with? What does that statute say? (Go ahead and
quote the statute, verbatim). Who is your adversary in the
demanded Hearing? Where is your personal stake in the outcome of
the demanded Hearing? If the Hearing is not granted, how will
you be damaged? Those types of JUSTICIABILITY averments have to
be included in the body of your Demand for an Administrative
Hearing; local Collateral Estoppel victories applied against such
otherwise content deficient Administrative briefings will
collapse under the scrutiny of sophisticated appellate judges who
will examine your Administrative Law Demands from the perspective
of trying to find fault with them, if your local District
Attorney adversary should ever decide to give you a run for your
money.
If you are seeking an Administrative Hearing to discuss the
assertion of a regulatory zoning jurisdiction being made against
some real property you own, then the specific assertion of such a
purported jurisdiction by, perhaps, a Building Inspector must be
made; with the specific assertion being applied against you
individually. What Inspector made the assertion, and when and
how did he make the assertion? How will you be damaged if the
Hearing is not granted? What local ordinance code did the
Inspector threaten you with, and what does it say? Are you up
against incarceration? If so, then come out and say so.
Correctly understood, your averments on JUSTICIABILITY are a
reduced presentation of the larger factual setting the grievance
itself lies in, edited to emphasize the impending damages you
will be experiencing if the Hearing is not granted immediately.
(Incidentally, the easiest way to get some Inspector to make an
assertion of Civil Law regulatory jurisdiction over your property
is to walk up to one, show him your plans, tell him you have no
intention to solicit a Building Permit, and then ask him what he
intends to do about it. His quoting some local code or penal
statute to tell you that Building Permits are mandatory is your
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. [320]
[320]=============================================================
By way of analogy to understand just how serious a prosecution
threat is from a Government Employee involved with law
enforcement, the Federal Judiciary deems the mere threat of a
criminal prosecution, from a Government Employee involved with
law enforcement, is a sufficient JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY as to
attach potential Federal intervention into the Controversy, by
way of a petition for a Federal District Court Restraining Order.
Such a Federal Injunction was granted in the background
circumstances surrounding LEIS VS. FLYNT/HUSTLER MAGAZINE [439
U.S. 438 (1978)], which was a Counsel Case. Another Federal
Injunction was granted in WOOLEY VS. MANYARD [430 U.S. 705
(1976), where the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment
attaches to expressions of political dissent on automotive
license plates], which held that persons are entitled to
Declaratory and Injunctive relief in Federal Courts from
threatened state criminal prosecutions. For a discussion about
how defendants in state criminal proceedings are often stuck
between a "Scylla and Charybdis" (meaning between two dangers,
either of which is difficult to avoid without encountering the
other), see an extended discussion of the use of Federal Suits to
enjoin state criminal prosecutions, starting at page 710.
Although this discussion here is about JUSTICIABILITY in general,
if you are directly seeking such Federal intervention, there are
PRINCIPLES OF ABSTENTION stemming from equitable restraint that
Federal Magistrates are also required to honor. See:
-
HUFFMAN VS. PURSUE, 420 U.S. 592, at 609 to 610, and Footnote #21
(1975);
-
YOUNGER VS. HARRIS, 401 U.S. 37 (1971);
-
STEFANELLI VS. MINARD, 342 U.S. 117 (1951);
-
DOUGLAS VS. CITY OF JEANETTE, 319 U.S. 157 (1943).
So change the factual setting to accommodate the Law. Federal
Magistrates do not rebuff your petitions for Injunctions because
they are some SUB ROSA Fifth Column Commie operatives, but
because they are operating on a narrow slice of limited
jurisdiction, having been given just that limited amount of
jurisdiction by the Congress, which in turn is on a limited
jurisdictional mission itself by the states.
=============================================================[320]
Make sure the Building Inspector quotes penal statutes in his
response to your inquiry, because that is exactly what he will
later be throwing at you in exchange for your defiance of his
Special Interest Group sponsored Civil Law LEX jurisdiction).
[321]
[321]=============================================================
If the Inspector is a clever one, he may perceive that you are
trying to pull off something grand with him by your unusual line
of questioning, and so extracting the necessary admissions and
confessions may be difficult in some cases. One way to handle
these sharpie types is to irritate them. For example, among
other things, I am a Marijuana Grower [I am quite interested in
Horticulture]. When Affidavits which talk about my Marijuana
Growing (in glowing terms and which address the Government law
enforcement reader downward in playfully snooty and condescending
terms to stir up irritation) are read by a police lieutenant
bulldog, then his subsequently telling you to your face when he
barks and snaps at you, that your specific activity is a crime
under state Public Health statutes, and that he would arrest you
immediately if he only knew exactly where such cultivation is
taking place, is your JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. The police
lieutenant did not understand the significance of his statements,
but he:
1.
Made the specific assertion of the jurisdictional attachment of
those penal statutes to me, without any inquiry being made as to
my Status; (What if I work for the KGB and have a Russian
Diplomatic Passport? He never made a Status inquiry, and yet he
doesn't have any right to arrest me. Reason: Through the
overruling intervention of INTERNATIONAL LAW, my Diplomatic
Immunity Status would preclude everything.)
2.
Identified himself as an administrative adversary;
That police lieutenant very much has the required administrative
jurisdiction to throw a criminal prosecution at me, and through
those threats, he created the necessary JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY
that would not have otherwise existed had he not blown his lid
over the very idea of being mouthed off to, even if I did have to
help him out a little by irritating him.
...By the way, a written Admission to a criminal offense is like
an IN REM RESCISSION OF CONTRACT on your Birth Certificate:
Because of and by itself, that Admission, like the Rescission,
means absolutely nothing. Here in New York State, Criminal
Procedure statutes require collaborating evidence to support
Admissions, or else the Admission is non-admissible [see PEOPLE
VS. VOTANO, 231 NYS2nd 337 (1962)].
"A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon
evidence of a confession or admission made by him without
additional proof that the offense charged has been committed."
-
NYS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, Section 60.50.
Yes, the Law operates out in the practical setting, and not on
paper; and what is presented on paper is frequently not that
important. There is a reason why sometimes what is written on
paper becomes important, as I will explain later.
=============================================================[321]
Those are the types of factual averments of JUSTICIABILITY that
have to be plead in the body of a Demand for an Administrative
Hearing, in order to present the administrators with a Case or
Controversy that is ripe for a low level administrative
settlement. [322]
[322]=============================================================
In the Case called ROE VS. WADE [410 U.S. 113 (1972)] the Supreme
Court talks about a special type of JUSTICIABILITY that may fit
your circumstances. The general rule in Federal Cases is that an
actual controversy must exist at each stage of appellate or
Certiorari review, and not just at the original time the action
was initiated (SEC VS. MEDICAL COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 404
U.S. 403 (1972), and Cases cited therein). The special type of
JUSTICIABILITY CONTROVERSY is one where the factual
circumstances:
"... could be capable of repetition, yet evading review."
-
UNITED STATES VS. W.T. GRANT, 345 U.S. 629, at 632 to 633 (1953),
as cited with others in ROE VS. WADE, id., at 125.
I see many confrontation settings out on the highway that repeat
themselves over and over, yet action is not taken on every
infraction.
=============================================================[322]
If that Administrative Hearing Demand of your was submitted to
state administrators after a prosecution has begun, then
Justiciability is obvious for all parties to see. However,
Justiciability still has to be positively plead within the body
of the Demand through sequentially presented factual averments,
otherwise the Supreme Court won't know that a Justiciable
Controversy was offered for a low level settlement.
Now, theoretically, the failure by your regional bureaucrats to
grant the Hearing will later estop a magistrate presiding over
criminal charges that were brought out of those circumstances
that were offered to have been settled, and should have been
previously settled, in a lessor administrative forum. [323]
[323]=============================================================
You need to know that all Judges, State and Federal, are quite
reluctant to simply toss aside a criminal prosecution (where the
defendant is up against very specific and blunt wording in
statutes, and where the Government has an eyewitness who saw you
commit that heinous act), merely because of the operation of an
unwritten Common Law Doctrine that is not provided for anywhere
in statutes, due to "Public Policy" considerations, so called.
=============================================================[323]
In a criminal prosecution defense setting, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
has to be Plead properly, and the factual setting has to be very
carefully structured in advance to show clearly how the
Government is just plain wrong up and down the line, and that
this Collateral Estoppel is just the right medicine to hem in
Government. [324]
[324]=============================================================
In criminal conspiracy prosecutions, by the nature of the crime,
the acts of one person affects the acts of others. So if two
persons are charged with conspiracy, and one is acquitted, the
charges against the remaining conspirator must be dismissed on
appeal [UNITED STATES VS. STARKS, 515 F.2nd 112 (1975)]. The
Principle used to require dismissal is Collateral Estoppel; and
similarly, if the conviction of one conspirator is reversed on
appeal due to insufficiency of evidence, then the remaining
conspirator is excused as well [LUBIN VS. UNITED STATES, 313
F.2nd 419 (1963)]. Since the acts of one conspirator depend upon
the other to complete the crime, Collateral Estoppel enters the
scene to restrain the second act when the first act fails; and
this same Principle operates on Administrative Law Demands, at
least theoretically -- when a collapse of administrative
jurisdiction later restrains an assertion of judicial
jurisdiction. [For a discussion on Collateral Estoppel in
conspiracy prosecutions, see Barry Tarlow in DEFENSE OF A FEDERAL
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, 4 National Journal of Criminal Defense 183,
at 252 (1978)].
=============================================================[324]
So Collateral Estoppel is generally much easier to use in civil
grievances, such as civil tax collections. In any event, a Case
on appeal should have arguments sounding in Estoppel as
background secondary redundant points, when seeking criminal
conviction reversion, as Collateral Estoppel itself is still a
developing jurisprudential branch, [325]
[325]=============================================================
Up until as recently as 1950, there were still only a handful of
Federal administrative agencies in existence, so there was little
administrative law going on to be ruled upon.
============================================================[325]
and, at the present time, is insufficient conviction reversal
material to rely on as a "stand alone" defense line. Although
appellate judges have been reluctant to make Collateral Estoppel
mandatory and binding in favor of the criminally accused, they
are less reluctant to make Collateral Estoppel operate against
the criminally accused. [326]
[326]============================================================
PENA-CABANILLAS VS. UNITED STATES, 394 F.2nd 785 (1968)
[Collateral Estoppel acts to restrain the presentation of
evidence favorable to the accused when that evidence was
litigated earlier in another criminal setting.] See generally,
THE USE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE ACCUSED, 69 Columbia
Law Review 515 (1969).
=============================================================[326]
Having grievances settled at the lowest possible level is a
correct Principle of Natural Law. [327]
[327]============================================================
=
Correct Principles manifest many benefits that surface at
different times and in different settings:
"To preclude parties from contesting matters that they have had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate, protects their adversaries
from the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits,
conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial
action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions."
-
MONTANA VS. UNITED STATES, 440 U.S. 147, at 153 (1979).
=============================================================[327]
And as usual, it is those lawyers who -- in pursuit of their own
financial self-enrichment -- are twisting our Father's Common Law
into what appears facially to be unrecognizable garbage. [328]
[328]============================================================
For example, consider the words of Warren Burger as he talks
about lawyers circumventing the administrative process:
"Consistent failure by courts to mandate utilization of
administrative remedies -- under the growing insistence by
lawyers demanding broad judicial remedies -- inevitably
undermines administrative effectiveness and defeats fundamental
public policy by encouraging "end runs" around the administrative
process."
-
MOORE VS. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494, at 525 (1976).
=============================================================[328]
What Warren Burger is saying is true, even though his instant
expressions of support for Collateral Estoppel happened to
operate against a criminally accused person in Ohio. This
piecemeal approach by the Judiciary is disorganized, and results
in criminal prosecutions being sustained against Individuals when
they really should not be, merely because the proper underlying
authority for conviction annulment is non-existent. [329]
[329]=============================================================
"...judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and of their
ultimate public responsibility by a vigorous stream of criticism
expressed with candor however blunt."
-
Justice Felix Frankfurter, as quoted by the editors of THE
SUPREME COURT REVIEW, inside front cover [University of Chicago
(January, 1984)].
=============================================================[329]
The correct solution for this is for the Supreme Court to grab
the bull by the horns and require that Principles of Collateral
Estoppel are now binding and mandatory on everyone: Government,
the criminally accused, and all parties in civil actions, and no
outs. This would be an activist position for the Supreme Court
to take, a position that is cutting across their contemporary
grain of "narrow opinion" thinking. [330]
[330]=============================================================
Narrow opinion or not, there is a doctrine running through the
Supreme Court that states that it is uncertainty itself that
attracts disputes and interferes with that judicial economy of
minimizing the number of cases that they talk about so much ["...
uncertainty attracts disputes..." GEISLER VS. THOMAS COLLIERY
COMPANY, 260 U.S. 245, at 260 (1922)]; so it might be provident
to write opinions that elucidates well the doctrine being
expounded.
=============================================================[330]
The Doctrine of settling grievances at the lowest possible level,
of which Collateral Estoppel is a correlative Doctrine, is found
replicating itself over and over again throughout Supreme Court
rulings. [331]
[331]=============================================================
Remember that the Law is a line, and it is just as easy for
anyone to be on one side of the line as it is to be on the other
side. For example, if issues that are raised in an
administrative setting are ruled adversely against you in some
type of an administrative NISI PRIUS hearing, and you fail to
appeal that adverse administrative decision, RES JUDICATA bars
you from later on relitigating those issues that you lost on, in
a higher level Judicial setting. See, for example, UNITED STATES
VS. RYLANDER, 460 U.S. 752 (1983);
[Mr. Rylander was dragged into Court before a Federal Judge in an
attempt to extract some contract compliance out of him. He
asserted some defenses in that Enforcement Hearing, and the
Federal Judge ruled against him. Mr. Rylander did nothing to
reverse that adverse judgment against him, and so when his
Contempt Hearing came around at a later time, Mr. Rylander then
re-presented the same issues to the same Judge a second time, and
the U.S. Attorney objected. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled
that issues that were raised, or could have been raised, at the
initial judicial Enforcement Hearing were RES ADJUDICATA against
Mr. Rylander at his later Contempt Hearing. Reason: Failure to
appeal. The PRINCIPLE OF NATURE the Supreme Court was ruling on
involves the acceptance of judgments by silence that your failure
to appeal seals against you; to hold otherwise would be a Tort
against your adversary.]
And in UNITED STATES VS. SECOR [476 F.2nd 766 (1973)], the
Defendant there was barred from relitigating his claimed Fifth
Amendment privilege at his later Contempt Hearing, since he had
raised that same issue in an initial enforcement hearing, lost,
and then failed to appeal [id., 476 F.2nd, at 769]. So whenever
the monkey gets put on your back, get rid of it -- but quick. By
the way, those Enforcement Hearing judgments are not final
decisions, and are very much appealable [REISMAN VS. CAPLIN, 375
U.S. 440, at 449 (1964)].
=============================================================[331]
This SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST LEVEL DOCTRINE surfaces in many
places. For example, it is found:
1.
In the Judicially created DOCTRINES OF EXHAUSTION, PRIMARY
JURISDICTION, PRIOR RESORT, and EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, all of
which operate to send a grievance down to an administrative
agency for different types of rulings for technical reasons,
prior to initiating higher judicial intervention;
2.
By having the parties first exhaust their lower state remedies in
criminal appeals and civil actions prior to seeking higher
Federal judicial intervention; this surfaces most frequently in
petitions for federal restraining orders to block state criminal
prosecutions, and petitions for HABEAS CORPUS;
3.
By having parties seek the lowest possible level of a judicial
forum first (i.e., the lowest state court possessing the
requisite settlement jurisdiction, and the use of federal
magistrates instead of District Court Judges to settle small
single-Hearing oriented grievances);
4.
By a statutory requirement that a lower final demand for money
believed due and owing must first be made and precede the higher
initiation of the judicial civil lawsuit;
5.
By the delegated conferment by the Supreme Court of a Grant of
automatic Concurrent Jurisdiction to every single state court in
the United States, to hear and rule on Federal Constitutional
questions, regardless of any state statutes that may appear to
operate to the contrary; state courts also hold concurrent
jurisdiction to hear a large volume of federal statutory based
grievances;
6.
By the mandates of the Supreme Court to all Federal Appellate
Circuits not to interfere with or reverse any findings of facts
made by Federal District Court Judges, absent very special
circumstances (so that the disputed factual setting the grievance
was cast in is settled at the lowest possible level);
7.
And in the case of the Supreme Court having Original
Jurisdiction, they will first send the Case to a lower regional
District Court having Concurrent Jurisdiction by statute. (If
this Concurrent Jurisdiction is wanting, then after accepting
Original Jurisdiction on the Case, the Supreme Court will appoint
a regional District Court Judge to be a Special Master to make
findings of facts at that low level, which the Supreme Court will
then audit and review as the sole appellate forum);
8.
And this Doctrine is also expressed in the self-imposed mandates
of the Supreme Court to settle grievances by use of a lower
statutory construction if possible, rather than magnifying the
settlement remedy by use of the higher Constitutional
construction;
9.
This Doctrine surfaces in the Supreme Court's refusal to consider
ruling on arguments and reasoning that were not presented to a
lower judicial forum first; and
10.
The Supreme Court also wants lower Federal Tribunals to use lower
state law to settle grievances, prior to using federal common
[Case] law or federal statutes.
And on and on. [332]
[332]=============================================================
Many times this ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE is really invisible by first
surfacing in a Courtroom, making its appearance, doing its work,
and then disappearing without any trace of identification that it
was once there. In 1980, the California Supreme Court ordered
the discharge of charges against a criminal misdemeanant without
any reference to ESTOPPEL PRINCIPLES, because he had been
previously released from civil liability in connection with his
heinous crime [see HOINES VS. BARNEY'S CLUB INN, 28 Cal.3rd 603
(1980)].
=============================================================[332]
This SETTLE IT DOWN THERE DOCTRINE even surfaces in The
Administrative Procedures Act of Title 5 and the Code of Federal
Regulations. Several such rules contained in numerous
Administrative Procedures Acts initially seem to obstruct the
pursuit of justice by creating artificial impediments on both
parties that inhibit the settlement of grievances; but in reality
those impediments take on new vibrancy, life, and meaning when
viewed from the perspective of the Congress trying to create
incentives for both parties to quickly effectuate a settlement of
grievances between adversaries, even while the grievance is still
swirling in a tempest of administrative gestation. Incidentally,
this Doctrine, which is an operation of Nature, is also found
producing results in relations between married folks, and between
neighbors, and between parent and child, and child and school
teacher, and between an Employer and an Employee. Just because
we turn around and walk out the Courtroom doors doesn't mean that
Nature changes at all, or that a different set of Principles
somehow governs life.
All of those are examples of that SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST
POSSIBLE LEVEL FIRST DOCTRINE; and the Collateral Estoppel
Doctrine, which operates to penalize the recalcitrant party that
did not settle something at a lower level that was offered to
them (as an incentive to avoid doing so again in the future), as
applied to Administrative Law Demands, is a correct PRINCIPLE OF
NATURE. [333]
[333]=============================================================
And I have seen the operation of that interesting SETTLE IT AT
THE LOWEST LEVEL PRINCIPLE at work in many seemingly unrelated
professional disciplines, from handling grievances in business
relationships and diplomatic settings, to handling exception
processing in computer hardware engineering, and in the accident
recovery procedures in the design of nuclear power plants.
=============================================================[333]
It is simply all over Nature and scientific method. [334]
[334]=============================================================
People who publicly express any one of several principles,
closely correlated to this SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST LEVEL
PRINCIPLE may cause irritation in the inner sanctums of ruling
power. Consider William of Occam, who was a Fourteenth Century
philosopher at Oxford University, and whose teachings were
condemned by the Pope; his Principle is known as OCCAM'S RAZOR,
and it is this identical same Principle expressed in different
words: That entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity
(i.e., that there is to be no enlargement of the grievance beyond
necessity).
=============================================================[334]
Let us assume that you are a Gameplayer in King's Commerce, so
you are a Taxpayer; so if you have a grievance with your Employer
regarding the premature withholding of money from your wages
under disputed tax liability circumstances, try to settle it with
him right then and there, before going up the ladder a step and
invoking an Administrative Hearing with the IRS. If you do not
try to settle it with your Employer, the letters going back and
forth (proving the factual setting surrounding their threats and
your objections) will be non-existent; which means that you
either made no attempt to settle the grievance right then and
there, or in the alternative, you accepted your Employer's last
offer. That is the way sophisticated Federal Magistrates view
the matter, and if you will but give that model but a few moments
thought and imagination, then you too will arrive at the same
conclusion: That the reason why you were later rebuffed by a
Federal Magistrate is due to your own improper handling of the
factual setting you presented to that Judge when prematurely
asking for a Restraining Order of some type of tax refund suit.
Then after exhausting your potential remedies with your Employer,
always first ask for a Contested Case Administrative Hearing with
the IRS before going up the ladder one more step and initiating a
Judicial Complaint. As you go up the ladder one step at a time,
one of the benefits you will be experiencing is finding your
adversary making numerous technical mistakes, which when called
by you will cause you to win for technical reasons; if you jump
the gun like a lot of Tax Protestors do and head straight for the
Federal District Courthouse to have it out with your Employer and
the King, your grievance will likely have to be addressed solely
on the presentment of poorly drafted pleadings and flaky merits
(being up to your neck in invisible contracts), since by jumping
the gun, no interlocutory steps were offered to your adversary to
slip up on. [335]
[335]=============================================================
One of the biggest slip up steps is the fact that the IRS does
not give out CONTESTED CASE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS to anyone.
Yes, the IRS will schedule an audience with an agent, and in some
larger grievances, they will even schedule a Conference in
Washington -- when they feel like it; but never is there any
Administrative Hearing scheduled that possesses all of the
juristic accoutrements that characterize legitimate
Administrative Hearings: An Administrative Law Judge possessing
the administrative jurisdiction to settle the grievance; true
adversary proceedings; presentation of evidence; transcripts;
witnesses and cross-examination; administrative subpoenas; and
the like.
=============================================================[335]
Any experienced person knows that people, in any field, from
business to law to engineering to medicine, in any field, always
messes up; and IRS agents and the King's Attorneys in the
Department of Justice in Washington mess up each and every single
day, over and over again, just like everyone else. [336]
[336]=============================================================
"... it is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice,
whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the
people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to
subvert them by extreme and dubious legal arguments."
-
Justice Brennan, in UNITED STATES VS. CHADWICK, 433 U.S. 1, at 16
(1976).
=============================================================[336]
Therefore, by jumping the gun, skipping three steps on the
ladder, although you may believe that the end result is closer,
you are actually only damaging yourself. The sky never falls in
because Principles are violated; only very subtle and difficult
to detect secondary consequences surface later on in ways that
make their seminal point of causation difficult to discern.
In contrast, if you are not a Gameplayer in Commerce and have
rejected all federal benefits, then as a non-Taxpayer you fall
outside the procedural administrative mandates of the King's LEX,
and it is provident for you to go directly into the Judiciary.
[337]
[337]=============================================================
"... a nontaxpayer is outside the administrative system set up
for the collection of a refund of overpaid taxes, and is not
required to file a claim for refund to recover money taken from
him... The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of
tax assessments and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and
not to nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their
rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress
does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor
of the object of the revenue laws..."
-
ECONOMY HEATING VS. THE UNITED STATES, 470 F.2nd 585, at 589
(1972)] [sentences quoted out of order].
=============================================================[337]
Should you conclude that it would be provident to initially
pursue Judicial Relief, then your requisite array of Status
Averments form an integral and important part of the Pleadings,
in order to document why you are not a Taxpayer and why you are
somehow exempt from the Administrative ladder that applies to
every one else. Even though you may not be a Taxpayer, there may
be some technical advantages inuring to players who use the
Administrative ladder, one step at a time, but the decisional
turning point on whether to initially pursue administrative or
judicial relief revolves around a purely status oriented
question: Are you a Taxpayer or not? By the end of this Letter,
you should be able to get a good feel as to the extent to which
you have successfully removed yourself out from underneath the
King's taxation thumb.
As for the JUSTICIABILITY Question in Demanding Administrative
Hearings, unless there is a Case or Controversy at hand, it is
foolishness for Government officials to discuss something at an
Administrative Hearing that which, if discussed, would neither
settle nor adjudicate anything; so if your views are that their
granting you the Hearing they don't want to give you would settle
something, then that is part of your entitlement pleadings under
STANDING and JUSTICIABILITY. In our specific instant case of an
Employer, acting in an agency relationship to the King,
withholding money from non-Taxpayers who are not involved with
Commerce and experience no Federal benefits and is an "excepted
subject," [338]
[338]=============================================================
EVANS VS. GORE, 253 U.S. 245, at 261 (1919).
=============================================================[338]
our JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY is the fact that if the
Administrative Hearing is not granted immediately, you personally
will be damaged by a continuing loss of money that is being
withheld from your earnings. That is the kind of hard
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY averment that Judges want to hear, and
that is the kind of JUSTICIABILITY that even case-hardened
Federal Judges will reluctantly respect. Correlative ENTITLEMENT
TO RELIEF averments of STANDING (your personal interest in the
Case) are also required. Since you are personally being damaged
by the operation of statutes, your STANDING is automatic.
And speaking of the Supreme Court (and stay out of any
confrontation with the King unless an extensive journey to
Washington intrigues you) the only question you should want
answered is essentially a STATUS question: Does the King have
the right to intervene into simple common law occupations to such
an extent that an INDIVIDUAL not in an Equity Jurisdictional
relationship with the King and not in Commerce, and rejecting
Federal political benefits, can force the acceptance of unwanted
benefits, and can force a Federal Taxpayer Status on someone
(with the attendant criminal liability associated therewith), and
can force the signing of contracts with the King, and all of that
prior to being able to experience any livelihood at all? If the
Supreme Court responds by saying yes, [339]
[339]=============================================================
The fundamentalists will submit the proposition that since
Prophecies have already declared that no one will soon be able to
buy or eat without some Taxpayer type of identification, it's
best just to throw in the towel now and bag everything; ignoring
the fact that Prophecies are conditional, and often are proposed
statements of what either could have been or what might be
designed to show contrasting consequences for some expected
behavior.
=============================================================[339]
the King does have these extreme intervention Rights to force you
to accept his political and Commercial benefits against your will
and over your objection, because of some important overriding
Governmental interests, then let's get this monolithic slab of
top down Roman Civil Law out into the open so we can deal with it
for what it really is. [340]
[340]=============================================================
Since that decision would be out of harmony with the underlying
structural basis of the Declaration of Independence and every
Principle of Republican freedom of choice in separating or not
separating ourselves from the King (which is one of the meanings
of the Doctrine of Separation of Church (the People) and State),
and violate PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY (that vitiate
the need for any Social Security whatsoever) that our Founding
Fathers stood for and initiated, then such an adverse decision
would give rise to an opportunity, as a CASUS BELLI, to reflect
and re-evaluate our national Status at Law under the RESERVATION
CLAUSE of the Declaration of Independence;
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce [us] under
absolute despotism, it is [our] right, it is [our] duty, to throw
off such Government, and to provide new guards for [our] future
security."
So then the question would be whether or not the time has come to
deal with the King the same way the King's Agents have dealt with
John Singer and Gordon Kahl: Out of the barrel of a gun; and in
the case of Gordon Kahl, literally on the cutting edge of a
fireman's axe. But at the present time, with the Judiciary
operating on Natural ethics and Natural Law, and with reversals
and setbacks being experienced from our own defective factual
settings, our IGNORANTIA JURIS, our manifold invisible contracts,
and our being clumsy, then encouraging structural modifications
to this jurisprudential structure is self damaging, and is to be
discouraged.
=============================================================[340]
My hunch is that if the Supreme Court ever grants CERTIORARI, and
if they have the naked nerve to stand up to the King and actually
publicly report out the decision in their United States Reports
(which is not very likely in today's judicial climate of
intellectual MINIMALISM and judicial restraint [which really
means to hide in a closet]), I conjecture that their ruling will
be consistent with Nature and Natural Law, based on the factual
setting then presented to them, and the King will lose, if the
factual setting was set up properly to sever all voluntary
attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction up and down the line.
[341]
[341]=============================================================
Yes, that is my hunch, and the Law is actually administered
partially on hunches. Judges are supposed to be:
"... the depositories of the laws like oracles, who must decide
in all cases of doubt and are bound by an oath to decide
according to the law of the land."
-
I BLACKSTONE COMMENTARIES, at 169.
but the practical facts are that hunches frequently play heavily
in the reasoning of a Judge. See THE JUDGMENT INITIATIVE: THE
FUNCTION OF THE 'HUNCH' IN JUDICIAL DECISION by Joseph Hutcheson,
Jr. in 14 Cornell Law Quarterly 274 (1929).
=============================================================[341]
Of all of the Federal and state judicial Complaints that I have
seen, going back now 10 years (requesting either injunctive or
restraining relief, or Complaints seeking refunds from the IRS,
(although I do know of some uncontested victories)), I have never
seen one of them correctly plead where all of the required
contract annulment indicia and elements of pure Equity severance
were presented in one neat little package, with all of the
Objections having been made, made substantively, and made timely.
Not one. So, Federal Magistrates who have tossed aside such curt
and incomplete Complaints, are not Commie pinkos and are not
necessarily in bed with the King (there are some Judges who are,
but their dismissals of the sophomoric Complaints I have seen are
not by reason of any coziness going on with the King); since it
is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL LAW to extract money out of
people under some reciprocal circumstances where there is no
written contract to be found any place, and even where one of the
parties is convinced no money is due and owing (because benefits
have been unknowingly accepted under the terms of invisible
contracts).
Whenever a person attempts to effectuate a rescission of their
Social Security Number, and severes the facial attachment of
Equity Jurisdiction such a number creates, the Social Security
Administration will normally respond in their rebuttal retort by
citing and quoting from a Supreme Court Case called UNITED STATES
VS. LEE, [342]
[342]=============================================================
455 U.S. 252 (1981).
=============================================================[342]
to try and convey the image that the RESCISSION you just filed
with them is meaningless and that participation in Social
Security is mandatory, just like in Poland. In reviewing UNITED
STATES VS. LEE, which was a unanimous Supreme Court Opinion
written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, it is an interesting Case
due to a combination of reasons. The factual setting is an
intriguing Case in as much as it shows the difficult situations
the Supreme Court is often placed into as correct law is
pronounced on improvident factual settings that skew off to favor
the King; unknown to the poor Citizen, invisible contracts are in
effect he has no knowledge of, and so the Judiciary is being
asked to toss aside the contract because some of the terms it
contains are philosophically uncomfortable to the aggrieved
Citizen. [343]
[343]=============================================================
By the end of this Letter, the special suggestive nature of the
word CITIZEN should be understood, as CITIZENS are objects
carrying around reciprocal liabilities of Federal Income Taxation
in exchange for federal benefits accepted, and invisible
contracts are in effect -- making any default by CITIZENS in the
King's financial reciprocity expectations as an act of
defilement.
=============================================================[343]
Here in UNITED STATES VS. LEE, the uncomfortable grievance is of
a religious point of origin. Here in LEE, our factual setting
story begins when our marvelous Amish Brothers in Pennsylvania,
who tried to use their religious doctrinal philosophy as their
excuse to try and weasel, twist, and squirm their way out of a
numerous array of Commercial and political contracts they had
previously entered into with the King. The Amish are very
sincere folks known world wide for their majestic status of
correctly placing importance on environmental tranquility; and
who otherwise want no more out of Government than simply to be
left alone and ignored. [344]
[344]=============================================================
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions
favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the
significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of
his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure
and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things.
They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their
thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred,
as against the government, the right to be let alone -- the most
comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized
men."
-
Justice Louis Brandeis in OLMSTEAD VS. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S.
436, at 478 (1927).
=============================================================[344]
Against that well known background orientation, the Amish
Petitioner sought an Employer/Employee tax exemption from Social
Security payments, with the exemption sought being based on
judicially enlarging a parallel off-point statutory religious
exemption that their lawyers had uncovered.
(The Congress had granted by statute [345]
[345]=============================================================
26 USC Section 1402(g).
=============================================================[345]
to SELF-EMPLOYED Amish and other religious groups, elective
exemptions from Social Security taxes. EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES
were not granted this exemption courtesy).
Here in UNITED STATES VS. LEE, an Old Order Amish farmer and
Employer (who was not SELF-EMPLOYED) failed to file quarterly
Social Security tax returns and failed to pay Social Security
Taxes for his Employees. Now a contract went into default, and
the Judiciary acquired the grievance. The Amish farmer quoted
from 26 USC 1402(g), and invited the Supreme Court to judicially
enlarge the meaning of that statute to also now include Employers
and Employees. The reason cited by the Amish farmer for the
desired enlargement was the First Amendment's free exercise of
religious rights, as they considered Social Security to be an
unconstitutional infringement on their religious rights -- this
is a very well known sincere and deep rooted Amish Doctrinal
position, and the Supreme Court accepted the Amish religious
position at full faith and merit.
[Although our Amish Brothers made the tactical mistake of hiring
IGNORANTIA JURIS lawyers and other such assorted clowns after the
grievance arose; rather than taking the blunt preventative advice
I gave Armen Condo to get rid of the contract altogether and
deflect a prosecution from even occurring -- instead, the Amish
folks kept their Social Security contracts, kept their Status as
voluntary participants in that closed private domain of King's
Commerce, kept their Taxpayer Status, kept their Status as
covered Employees and covered Employers, and kept their general
contractual Equity Status with the King, and then also kept their
political benefits and their FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT benefits
contract (which I will discuss later on). Rather than arguing
that the Social Security contract the King wants payment on does
not exist, the Amish admitted that the Commercial contracts
existed, and then argued that sweet line sounding in the Tort of
religious unfairness (an amateurish argument line lawyers excel
in) to try and weasel out of the reciprocating QUID PRO QUO the
Commercial contract calls for, and that Nature requires. By the
end of this Letter, you will see very plainly the existence of
this invisible contract that I am referring to. [346]
[346]=============================================================
This LEE Case centers itself around the EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE
relationship setting. The general "right" of Employers to hire
Employees was long ago settled to be an appropriate subject of
taxation, and this is true both before and after the adoption of
the United States Constitution.
"The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress
cannot be understood without reference to the common law."
-
SCHICK VS. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 65, at 69 (1903)].
In STEWARD MACHINE COMPANY VS. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (1936), the
Supreme Court explains why the right of Employers to hire
Employees is in fact a State sponsored privilege [due to its
Commercial nature], and serves as an appropriate subject of
taxation, as I will explain later. Additionally, a tax imposed
upon the Employer for unemployment benefits inuring to the
Employees, is also proper, and the Constitution offers no
restrainment here either. [See CARMICHAEL VS. SOUTHERN COAL
COMPANY, 301 U.S. 495, at 508 et seq. (1936)].
=============================================================[346]
The Amish are religiously barred from accepting Social Security
benefits, but whether or not these particular Amish folks
actually filed a written NOTICE OF WAIVER, FORFEITURE AND
REJECTION OF BENEFITS with the King to attack the very existence
of one of the contracts the King was collecting money under
("FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION"), the Court Opinion offers no clear
details. [347]
[347]=============================================================
What are called WAIVERS are really high-powered instruments,
since, when properly handled, they can nullify and amend
contracts, and yet, not that much has been spoken about these
fellows. For a discussion on the distinction and lines of
demarcation drawn by judges as they distinguish between WAIVERS
functioning as contract addendums, or functioning as instruments
of EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, see Colin Campbell in THE DOCTRINE OF
WAIVERS, 3 Michigan Law Review 9 (1904).
=============================================================[347]
Since the King had quite a large number of invisible contracts in
effect with these Amish folks, the actual rejection of some
future cash benefits from one of the contracts individually is an
unimportant question, and represents only a very small slice of
the King's total contract pie].
So here we have an Old Order Amish fellow asking the Supreme
Court of the United States to violate every PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL
LAW surrounding the execution and enforcement of Commercial
contracts. [348]
[348]=============================================================
Remember that when they are in effect, Commercial contracts come
first in American Jurisprudence when settling grievances, just
like they come first in that Nature that American Jurisprudence
is modeled after, and just like they come first in the mind of
Heavenly Father who created Nature, and just like Contracts will
come first in Father's impending Last Day Judgment, where
structurally similar nice sounding Tort Law arguments of rights
and unfairness will also be taking a back seat.
=============================================================[348]
Under the MERGER DOCTRINE, contracts we entered into yesterday
lose their identity and significance as they are merged into
contracts that we enter into today -- thus overruling those
contracts we previously entered into -- and properly so, since
the inability to go back and modify, enhance, or terminate
existing contracts is irrational. So here we have our marvelous
Amish Brothers, entering into Employer contracts with the King as
Gameplayers in King's Commerce, and then trying to nullify a few
selected self-serving terms in that contract by using wording
found in an older Contract, a Constitutional Contract of 1787.
[349]
[349]=============================================================
That Constitutional contract of 1787 was designed to restrain
unreasonable Government Tortfeasance under a limited number of
Tort Law factual settings. Since Commercial benefits were being
accepted and experienced by the Amish Employers who had
voluntarily entered into King's Commerce, and the King had
published the terms of the Commerce Game Rules in his statutes
before the Amish went into default on their Social Security
contracts, then would someone please explain to me just where the
unreasonable Tortfeasance lies?
=============================================================[349]
So the Amish had numerous contemporary Commercial contracts with
the King, and then, in what I view to be almost the ultimate act
of self-defilement, [350]
[350]============================================================
The reason why I discourage the nonchalant tossing aside of
Commercial Contracts is because that indifference will translate
over into other areas and interfere with the successful
fulfillment of your important Celestial Covenants, when Lucifer's
imps present to you their large array of day-to-day clever
Contract avoidance excuses sounding in Tort.
=============================================================[350]
the Amish asked the Judiciary to selectively annul a portion of
their contemporary contracts with the King retroactively, just
because they do not now feel like honoring some of the terms the
contract calls for. I think that the Amish strategy was immoral;
reaping the benefits of a Commercial contract without any
reciprocity being exchanged in return as payment on it [however I
am very sympathetic with the difficult position the Amish are in,
as they try and operate with multiple layers of invisible
contracts dragging them down]. But the Amish didn't see any
contracts in effect with the King, so they had no knowledge of
their invisible contract defilement; just like many folks will go
into the Last Day Judgment with Father without any knowledge of
their invisible First Estate Contracts, either. And just like in
the judgment setting of LEE, when incorrect arguments sounding in
Tort are thrown at Father at the Last Day, those very appealing
arguments will also be tossed aside and ignored, at that time.
In LEE, Warren Burger ruled (and I concur in every line he wrote)
that their Social Security contract makes no provision for such a
weasel out, and that no new judicially enlarged religious
exemption will now be created to exempt Amish Commercial
Gameplayers -- EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. I am different from
Warren Burger in that I would have explained to the Amish their
error in contract, and I would have presented the Amish with
contrasting views on the priority of Commercial contracts in
settling grievances -- of which Warren Burger mentioned, but did
not elucidate on. I see real value in presenting folks with
contrasting opposite views. [351]
[351]=============================================================
"The inquiring mind will ask, 'Why is this so?' The answer is
simply that we may know good from evil; all the facts which you
and I understand are by contrast, and all glory, all enjoyment,
every happiness, every bliss are known by its opposite. This is
the decree, this is the way the Heavens are, the way they were,
and the way they will continue to be, forever and forever."
-
Brigham Young, in a discourse in Salt Lake City, October 8, 1876;
18 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 257, at 258 [London (1877)].
=============================================================[351]
Other than for that deficiency element, which I would have
remedied through contrasting explanations of error, the summary
and brief conclusions of Law and of the Game Rules for
participants in King's Commerce that Warren Burger wrote about,
are quite accurate; and the elevated priority status of contracts
in overruling Tort claims of First Amendment infringement were
also correct -- but discernment is often difficult without having
been first given contrasting background explanations of error.
[352]
[352]=============================================================
The Principle I invoke to throw sharply contrasting presentations
of divergent views at folks is merely the specific application of
a much larger Principle that Father invoked when directing the
Creation of this planet: That there must needs be contrasting
opposites in ALL things, as Brigham Young just mentioned in the
previous footnote. Writing in about 580 BC, a marvelous man once
recognized this Principle:
"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all
things."
-
Lehi, as now appearing in NEPHI 2:11.
Today, applications of this Principle are found at all levels of
scientific research -- in a strata of intellectual knowledge that
did not exist when Lehi was writing those words. Gremlins, too,
have taken special notice of this Principle, as they put in their
honest days' work trying to run some civilization into the
ground. Chairman Mao has deemed the recognition of this
OPPOSITION PRINCIPLE by his associates to be the most important
one of them all in advancing the interests of Gremlins, and so he
wrote a piece called ON CONTRADICTIONS:
"The law of contradictions in things, that is, the law of the
unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialistic dialectics.
Lenin said, "Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of
contradiction IN THE VERY ESSENCE OF OBJECTS.' Lenin often
called this law the essence of dialectics; he also called it the
kernel of dialectics. ...
The universality of absoluteness of contradiction has a two-fold
meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of
development of all things, and the other is that in the process
of development of each thing is a movement of opposites exists
from beginning to end."
-
ON CONTRADICTION by Mao Tse-tung; "Selected Works of Mao" page
311 [Foreign Language Press, Peking (1961); Volume I]. Written
in August of 1937, ON CONTRADICTIONS was delivered in lectures to
his thugs and hoodlums at the Anti-Japanese Military and
Political College in Yeneh, and later underwent revision to
delete profane language.
After observing that even simple mechanical motion itself was a
contradiction [id., at 316[, Mao went on to write a correlative
piece called ON THE CORRECT HANDLING OF CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE
PEOPLE in 1957, stating that there are two types of "social
contradictions" in effect: One is between ourselves and the
enemy, and another is between ourselves and each other [see THE
REVENGE OF HEAVEN, at page 398, by Ken Ling (G.P. Putnam's Sons,
New York (1972))]. As applied to Tax Protesting literature,
substituting the King as the enemy for the first type, and folks
disseminating Tax Protesting literature as the second type, then
under Maoist Doctrine as a model, either the King is your enemy
or your philosophical comrades [Tax Protestors] are. As is
usually the case, Gremlins are close enough to reality to satisfy
most inquiring minds, as they do frequently start out with a
correct proposition -- but there the accuracy ends, because the
true enemy in this world isn't something external like an
invading army nor the King, but rather the real enemy always lies
within ourselves: The King with his lies and extravagant
financial demands, as well as Tax Protestors who mean well but
disseminate erroneous and defective information, can succeed in
their objectives to saturate your intellect with their views only
to the extent that you find their error to be attractive. And
OPPOSITION is an essential ingredient in our Salvation:
"It is one of the grandest attributes of Deity that He saves and
exalts the human family upon just and Eternal Principles; that He
gives to no man, or no woman that which they have not been
willing to work for, which they have not expanded themselves to
receive, by putting in practice the Principles He reveals,
AGAINST ALL OPPOSITION, facing the wrath and scorn of the world
-- the world which cannot give a just cause, a reasonable pretext
for the OPPOSITION it has ever manifested to the truths of
Heaven. It is a characteristic of our Father, a Principle of His
divine economy to exact from every soul a fitting proof of its
worthiness to attain the exaltation to which it aspires. There
are no heights that may not be surmounted [WITHOUT OPPOSITION],
but they must be reached in the way that God has ordained. Man
may think to accomplish Salvation by carrying out the selfish
desires of his own heart; but when he fails to take God into
consideration, his Creator, and the Framer of the Laws whereby we
mount into Exaltation and Eternal Life, he knocks the ladder from
under himself whereby he might [have] climbed to that glorious
state."
-
Orson F. Whitney in a discourse delivered at the Tabernacle on
Sunday, April 9, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at 196;
[London (1886)].
=============================================================[352]
The Amish request to weasel out of their Commercial contracts
with the King is therefore denied, and properly so. If I was in
Warren Burger's shoes, I would have come down on the Amish folk a
lot harder than Warren Burger did (and in so doing, I would have
made the Amish petitioners see the fundamental error of their
ways; but Warren Burger just does not now, and never did,
elucidate himself very well at all.) So if we were in Warren
Burger's shoes, we wouldn't want to change one single substantive
thing in the Law that all voluntary Gameplayers in King's
Commerce must abide by House Rules. [353]
[353]============================================================
=
And one of the things we would be up against as Judges, in trying
to rule in favor of individuals and against Government, is the
fact that there has been a general declension in American's
status, away from property law rights, and into a tight contract
relational setting with Government affixed as a party thereto
where Tort Law Constitutional restrainments are increasingly less
and less applicable:
"But the days when Common Law property relationships dominated
litigation and legal practice are past. To a growing extent
economic existence now depends on less certain relationships with
government -- licenses, employment, contracts, subsidies,
unemployment benefits, tax exemptions, welfare and the like.
Government participation in the economic existence of individuals
is pervasive and deep. Administrative matters and other dealings
with government are at the epicenter of the exploding [volume of]
law. We turn to government and to the law for controls which
would never have been expected or tolerated before this century,
when a man's answer to economic oppression or difficulty was to
move two hundred miles west."
-
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, at a TEXT AND TEACHING
SYMPOSIUM at Georgetown University, October 12, 1985.
=============================================================[353]
Another thing we would not want to change is anything substantive
in American Jurisprudence either; however, Gremlins do not share
our views. [354]
[354]============================================================
=
In the Spring of 1976, the Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) Oil Company
published a series of advertisements in major newspapers across
the United States, soliciting public opinion on just what changes
Americans would like to see. ARCO seemed very concerned about
making changes in the United States:
"We'd like your help. We need your vision. We want you to tell
us about the changes you would like to see take place in America
-- and in our American way of life. ...We have always been a
nation more interested in the promise of the future than in the
events of the past."
In his FAREWELL ADDRESS, President Washington had a few words to
say about the importance of remembering our past, as there are
lessons to be learned there -- but Gremlins want nothing to do
with George Washington or anything else Celestial his Status
represented. Gremlins have big plans for the future which
require us to discard the past, and so we should not be too
surprised to see a Rockefeller Cartel, corporate nominee like
ARCO never bothering to ask us just what we might like to see
remain the same, while urging us to forget the past and toss
aside the counseling of our Fathers. [See generally a two-page
ARCO advertisement called THE TRICENTENNIAL in the NEW YORK TIMES
MAGAZINE, ages 44 and 45 (Sunday, April 18, 1976)].
=============================================================[354]
Remember the general rule: The Constitution of 1787 cannot be
held to interfere with the execution of contemporary Commercial
contracts. For the Judiciary to hold otherwise is to have the
Judiciary work a Tort on the party the "unfairness" operates
against, and places the very existence of contracts in a
questionable state of uncertainty. Important benefits were
accepted and experienced by both parties; to have the Judiciary
hold that some accepted Commercial benefits can be retained by
reason of overruling Constitutional Tort intervention once
previously waived when the Commercial contract was initially
entered into, is to take Nature out from underneath the Oak.
[355]
[355]=============================================================
Benefits accepted are the key to lock folks into reciprocal
demands of Excise Taxation that Juristic Institutions lay on
objects within their jurisdiction. Once the King has created
certain benefits, it is very much provident for the King to
create reasonable expectations of a reciprocal QUID PRO QUO (that
"something for something") on benefit acceptants [unless his
Charter explicitly disables him from asking for certain types of
reciprocity]. For example, in 1933, Congressional Hearings were
held to create a sequence of LEX statutes custom tailored to
provide benefits for workers:
"A BILL giving the protection of the law to the worker's right to
work and guaranteeing him an equal share of the employment
available; forming trade associations to effectuate such rights
and to enable such industries to stabilize business and to
provide certain benefits for their employees; and imposing
certain excise taxes."
-
Senate Bill 5480, 72nd Congress, Second Session; as printed in
[WORKER'S RIGHT TO WORK, "Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary," at page 1; 72nd Congress, Second
Session (February, 1933)].
Notice how, in reading that quotation from Senate Bill 5480, once
benefits were created, they were thrown at a class of people
(workers), then a demand for a reciprocal excise tax was then
laid in return. That is the same pattern we find in all Taxation
schemes that we uncover: Benefits created and then accepted, and
then reciprocity expected back in return. And when benefits
offered conditionally are accepted, then invisible contracts are
in effect, and failure to reciprocate is now an act of
defilement. Rather than snickering at Judges after the
defilement has taken place, it would be provident to consider
rejecting the benefit before hand.
=============================================================[355]
The Constitution was never designed or intended by our Framers to
negotiate terms of contracts -- never. If you are coerced by the
King into being an involuntary party to a contract in order to
enjoy a substantive natural right by clever administrative rule
making (e.g., the rights of association, speech, work, and
travel), then that is another question; as contracts claimed to
be in effect where Tort elements of duress and coercion were
present at the time of initiation loose their paramount standing,
and so otherwise off-point Tort Law Government restrainments
found in the Constitution would then take upon themselves vibrant
new practical meanings and now appropriately intervene into
grievances where the very existence of the contract itself is
disputed. But the Amish made no such duress averments, no
complete benefit waivers [or any benefit waivers at all, in whole
or part], nor where there any objections made to the very
existence of their Commercial contracts they had entered into
with the King. So their contracts with the King stand
unquestioned. With this air-tight Commercial contract scenario
in mind, consider the following words of Warren Burger that are
now partially quoted by the Social Security Administration
lawyers in their retortional rebuttals to facial Social Security
Number equity rescissions coming into their offices from
Protestors:
"The design of the system requires support by mandatory
contributions from covered employers and employees. This
mandatory participation is indispensable to the fiscal vitality
of the social security system." [356]
[356]=============================================================
UNITED STATES VS. LEE, 455 U.S. 252, at 280 (1981).
=============================================================[356]
I happen to agree with that statement totally. And if you
understand Nature, you should too, otherwise go back and read it
carefully again, as it only applies to covered PERSONS. Covered
PERSONS have contracts with the King, and contracts should be
honored, so stop asking to have the Judiciary help you weasel out
of your contracts, based on philosophical political
discontentment with some of the terms your contract calls for. I
don't have any problem with Warren Burger's pronouncements, and
furthermore, I don't have any problems with the merit and
substance of the Social Security Administration's position that
your contract rescission is utterly meaningless: Because the
King has an invisible contract on you even without a Social
Security Number, if you accept the King's intervention and
benefits in your Employer/Employee contract. Remember the Pan Am
jet leasing example, or of our friend the SEEMINGLY stupid
roofing contractor who went right ahead with his work without any
written contract in effect: You don't need a written contract on
someone else in order to work him into an immoral position on
non-payment of money; and neither do you need a written contract
on someone else in order to forcibly extract money out of him in
a Judicial setting (written statements of contracts do offer the
benefit of settling grievances in accelerated pre-Trial judicial
proceedings, but written contracts are not necessary, here in the
United States of 1985, to attach liability and extract money out
of other people). But you do need to get that other person to
accept and then experience some benefits you previously offered
conditionally. That is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE; to
understand why, then consider the moral consequences of allowing
someone to want and then experience some benefits without any
reciprocity being required back in return. So whether you never
had a Social Security Number, or if you had one and then later
revoked it, that non-existence of a Social Security Number is, of
and by itself, irrelevant and meaningless. So the Social
Security Administration is exactly right in this sense: Your
Equity Jurisdiction rescission is, by itself, meaningless, and
contributions covered by Employees are and remain mandatory.
(But unlike the Social Security Administration, I just told you
why -- as the practical acceptance of federal benefits in an
Employment setting overrules the non-existence of an
administrative number.) Social Security is very much a wealth
transfer instrument. [357]
[357]=============================================================
There are many books and research papers all pointing to the same
conclusion, but for different reasons. Exemplary perhaps would
be Peter Ferrara's SOCIAL SECURITY, published by the Cato
Institute, San Francisco, California (1980) [The Cato Institute
has since moved to Washington, D.C.]. Also in this line is the
Austrian School of Economics, which includes Ludwig von Mises,
Murray Rothbard, and F.A. Hayek, INTER ALIOS. Consider the
following story of a Wealth Transfer grab by Ludwig Von Mises:
"Paul in the year 1940 saves by paying one hundred dollars to the
national social security administration. He receives in exchange
a claim which is virtually an unconditional IOU... drawn upon
future taxpayers. In 1970, a certain Peter may have to fulfill
the government's promise although he himself does not derive any
benefit from the fact that Paul in 1940 saved one hundred
dollars.
"Thus it becomes obvious that... [t]he Pauls of 1940 do not owe
it to themselves. It is the Peters of 1970 who owe it to the
Pauls of 1940. The whole system is the acme of the short-run
principle. The statesmen of 1940 solve their problems by
shifting them to the statesmen of 1970. On that date the
statesmen of 1940 will be either dead or elder statesmen glorying
in their wonderful achievement, social security."
-
Von Mises, in HUMAN ACTION: A TREATISE ON ECONOMICS, pages 847
et seq. (Third Revised Edition 1963).
=============================================================[357]
And now that we are all cognizant of that, in order to get out of
this Social Security wealth transfer instrument, in addition to
effectuating a rescission of your facial attachment of Equity
Jurisdiction via a Social Security Number, you must also
effectuate an applied Equity severance by objecting to the King's
intervention into your relationship with your Employer, and
waive, refuse, and reject the King's benefits -- and not just the
future benefits of retirement income everyone knows about, but
also the immediate environmental protection benefits that all
Employees experience (as I will later discuss). If one of these
lily white (absolutely free from Equity contamination)
non-Commercial factual settings is ruled upon adversely by the
Supreme Court some years from now (that is, they rule, in some
well-oiled pronouncement, that the overriding Public Policy
interests involved must preclude the ability of a prospective
non-Commercial Employee who involuntarily entered into the shoes
of an EMPLOYEE, to waive and reject unwanted benefits, and that
our Founding Fathers in 1787 just did not understand the complex
world we now live in, and that the Supreme Court just does not
have the time it takes to talk about PRINCIPLES OF NATURE or of
the quiescent ambiance that permeated the relationship between
the King and the Countryside up to the 1900s, and that the
Federal Taxpayer Status with its attendant criminal liability
provisions is now mandatory by all Americans just in order to eat
and have a simple LIVELIHOOD), then that's fine with us, as it is
important to simply get it out into the open: Since the King is
then dealing with us out in the open under Roman Civil Law styled
force and coercion, then our reciprocation will then be on
similar terms. [358]
[358]=============================================================
In 1936, the Supreme Court went into a protracted discussion
where the arguments were Patriot oriented, i.e., that arguments
were made that the relational status of EMPLOYMENT is one so
essential to the pursuit of happiness, that it may not be
burdened with a tax. Like Tax Protestors today, the petitioner
back then argued that EMPLOYMENT is a "natural" or "inherent" or
"inalienable" right, and not a Government "privilege" subject to
taxation. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating:
"But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation
as rights of less importance."
-
STEWARD MACHINE VS. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, at 580 (1936).
The reason why this is so, is rather simple and blunt: BECAUSE
YOU ARE IN BUSINESS:
"Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It
is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on
effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that
constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any
of them. The whole includes the parts."
-
STEWARD MACHINE, id., at 581.
Whenever Commercial contracts are in effect [meaning that you are
experiencing hard financial enrichment coming out of that
contract], and particularly more so when a Juristic Institution
is a party to that contract [meaning that Government is supplying
the Commercial benefit you are experiencing], then claiming the
Tort of unfairness when uncomfortable impediments surface in the
relationship later on [like heavy taxation], THOSE UNFAIRNESS
CLAIMS ARE NOT AN ADDRESSABLE ARGUMENT IN COURT. In Nature,
contracts (if they are in effect) ascend to an elevated
overruling dominate priority when settling grievances -- a
PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, which if not learned now, will be learned in
no uncertain terms at the Last Day before Father. So rather than
acting like some goofy lawyer clown [who was taught legal
procedure, not Principles, in Law School] and throw arguments at
judges that are sounding in the Tort of unfairness, you might
want to be slick and smooth in your MODUS OPERANDI from now on,
operating your Life like a well-oiled machine: Before preparing
to argue a grievance, first scan the factual setting for the
possible presence of an invisible contract [you will know how to
identify invisible contracts by the end of this Letter]. If a
contract is present, then back off from arguing unfairness Tort
claims. If the grievance cannot be won ON-POINT because an
invisible contract is controlling, then avoid the Courtroom
grievance scene as a pre-planned confrontation altogether. The
Illuminatti Gremlins and Witches make no effort to identify the
possible presence of a Contract controlling from the First
Estate; so like Tax and Highway Protestors who loose now with
their manifold Tort arguments of Constitutional unfairness,
Illuminatti and Witches will also be loosing at the Last Day for
the same identical reason: An invisible contract surfacing to
wash out Tort arguments.
See generally, Professor John MacArthur Maguire in TAXING THE
EXERCISE OF NATURAL RIGHTS, Harvard Legal Essays, at pages 273
and 322 (1934).
=============================================================[358]
But as for important present considerations, this Objection and
Benefit Rejection must be served synchronous with the timing of
your entrance into your next non-Commercial Employee/Employer
contract. Now that we understand that the entire
EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE relational setting is Commercially oriented
from top to bottom, may I also suggest in providence that a
change in addressable names from EMPLOYMENT to, perhaps,
LIVELIHOOD, and from EMPLOYEE to WORKER might be recommended;
together with explicit disavowal of the characterization
EMPLOYMENT, due to the inherent COMMERCIAL BENEFITS ACCEPTED and
important BUSINESS stigma it automatically creates with Judges --
a stigma that automatically overrules and annuls any and all Tax
Protesting courtroom arguments sounding in the Tort of
Constitutional unfairness. [359]
[359]=============================================================
Whenever contracts are in effect, only the content of the
contract is relevant. This is a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE found in all
settings, and is a concept for settling grievances, which if not
learned now, will be learned at the Last Day -- when Illuminatti
defense arguments sounding in the Tort of justifying damages are
tossed aside and ignored by Father, who [just like Federal Judges
today], will pull an invisible contract out of His sleeve [by
returning to us our memory of the First Estate], and then only
talk about that contract.
=============================================================[359]
Interestingly enough, UNITED STATES VS. LEE closed on an
Commercial note; almost as if Warren Burger was announcing a
Talisman to those who would also foolishly follow the Amish lead
and dishonor their own Commercial contracts with the King. His
warning and CAVEAT to those who would enter into Commercial
contracts are words wise to consider:
"When followers of a particular sect enter into Commercial
activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their
own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be
superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others
in that activity." [360]
[360]=============================================================
UNITED STATES VS. LEE, id., 455 U.S., at 261.
=============================================================[360]
But what if you are different?
What happens if you did not enter into that closed private domain
of King's Commerce as A MATTER OF CHOICE? [361]
[361]=============================================================
"No one is compelled by law to engage in the business of buying
and selling merchandise, stocks, operating railways, or in any
particular business whatsoever. If he chooses to do so, he
submits himself of his own choice to any excise tax that may be
uniformly laid upon that particular kind of business."
-
Remarks of former Vermont Senator George F. Edmunds, in Senate
Document #367, page 2, entitled INCOME TAX, 61st Congress, Second
Session [GPO, Washington (February 17, 1910)].
=============================================================[361]
What if you are forced into Commerce by clever administrative
rule making on your Employer, through the operation of a contract
that your Employer already has with the King for other reasons?
Now what?
In my personal facial Equity rescission, I claimed that the
Social Security Administration is jurisdictionally similar to a
Federal District Court, i.e., on a limited jurisdictional mission
by the Congress, and that they have no grant of jurisdiction in
Title 42 to prevent, interfere, or obstruct with terminal
contract rescission and benefit forfeiture, nor does Title 42 in
any way restrain the cancellation of Social Security contracts
and the attachment of Equity Jurisdiction with the King such a
contract initiates. And these rights are self-existent under
Common Law unless specifically overruled. And I emphasized the
waiver and forfeiture of benefits, and toned down the
significance of the rescission of the assigned Social Security
Number itself. So in the retortional rebuttal response I
received back from the Social Security Administration, no such
off-point foolish rebuttal was made to UNITED STATES VS. LEE, and
the entire rebuttal Letter, which was rather long, simply went
from one paragraph to the next telling me of all the dire
practical consequences I would be experiencing without having a
precious little Social Security Number in effect.
To those PERSONS who have Social Security contracts, both the
United States Social Security Administration and the Contract
itself is governed by Title 42, SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, and so Title
42 now becomes the terms of your Social Security Contract.
Question: Have you ever read your contract?
Why are so many folks so willing to enter into contracts they
have never read? Typically, the response would be something to
the effect that:
"Well, it's just a checking account..."
No, it is not just a bank account. No, it's not just a Social
Security Number. Those contracts have multiple secondary and
ripple tertiary effects that expose people to criminal liability
for nothing more than mere forgetful negligence on their part.
They are CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of your having accepted a Federal
Commercial Benefit. I don't know why most folks are indifferent
to the terms and consequences of contracts they enter into; and
one of the consequences that holders of Social Security contracts
experience is that the presentation of your Social Security
Number to your Employer synchronous with the initiation of your
relationship with him seals your Status (and your fate, in a
sense) as a Taxpayer, and gives rise to a just liability for a
reciprocal QUID PRO QUO payment of the Excise Tax on your wages
by adherence (as a hybrid juristic Adhesion Contract) to Federal
tax statutes (Title 26), and furthermore, gets you into an
immoral position if the tax is not paid (since under Social
Security, the King is now a participant in contractual equity
with you). If you want to challenge the King on this, then
equally important with your personal relational Status is the
importance that both your Employer's termination threats and your
Objections have to be in writing, as a confrontation with the
King is coming, and you cannot afford to have a disputed factual
setting surrounding that Objection and its timing -- because you
are attacking the very existence of invisible juristic contracts
that take effect whenever qualified Royal benefits are accepted.
If no initial refusal was made by you to provide a Social
Security Number to your Employer, and no objection to the
presentation of your Social Security Number was made at the time
actual presentation was made, then failure to object timely is
fatal, and Magistrates have no choice but to ignore your defenses
later on when a confrontation with the King arises, and to
characterize your Protestor caliber "wages are not taxable," and
"no liability exists to Title 26..." arguments, at that time, as
being specious and frivolous, and properly so. [362]
[362]=============================================================
As for the timeliness of objections, failure to object is
automatically fatal, and failure to object timely is equally as
fatal. The most important statement in this entire discussion on
contracts is this: The bottom line on contract annulment is the
STATE OF MIND of the parties at the time of, and immediately
prior to, the execution of the contract, since your fundamental
argument is that you did not voluntarily enter into any contract
with the King; and so now the very existence of the contract
itself is disputed. If you want out of these contracts the King
coerced you into by way of his clever administrative rule making
on Employers by contracts, then your State of Mind at the time
when benefits were first accepted, when the contract was
initially entered into, has to be proven by you, through written,
timely objections; otherwise, you lose.
=============================================================[362]
If I was a Federal Judge, I would express discontentment with
your flaky arguments in far more aggressive characterizations
than the mild playful ensnortment by Federal Judges I have seen
in action. [363]
[363]=============================================================
I was once in a Federal District Courtroom when the Judge wanted
to make a Statement, by snorting at a poor PRO SE litigant
arguing Tort when an invisible contract was controlling. I could
just feel it coming in the air as there was an eerie mystique in
gestation up on the Bench; I detected that a tongue-lashing was
imminent. Yes, just like the strange momentary calm quiescent
lull that always precedes a hurricane; this was going to be one
jungle snort that would be long remembered. The Judge wanted
this impending snort to cover every single square inch of his
courtroom kingdom like a blanket; so having sensed the requisite
tranquil atmosphere of attentive silence that he wanted from the
public seats in the back of the courtroom, the Judge stood up,
threw his derogatory PRO SE slur at the poor fellow, and then sat
back down again. Having made his Statement, having thrown his
playful little snort at the PRO SE litigant, after folks in
attendance regained their composure, the machinery started back
up in motion, and the courtroom business went forward.
=============================================================[363]
If this model scenario of initial refusal followed by continuing
objection was not correctly replicated in your present employment
initiation setting, then pay your Bolshevik Income Tax this time
and eat it; no war was ever fought in a single campaign, and
setbacks and reversals are always expected by sophisticated
strategists in all disciplines (subject to the qualification that
intellectual wisdom and factual knowledge were acquired in place
of some other tangible form of conquest).
In summary, consider the following Case Study: If I were to
lease you my car, and we signed an Agreement to that effect
stating everything, we now have a contract... Right? No, not
yet. There is no contract in effect until benefits have been
accepted and you take possession of my car. That acceptance of
benefits is the Grand Key to lock yourself into, and unlock
yourself away from, contract liability altogether, IN TOTO. The
only reason why SIGNING THE CONTRACT sometimes creates the
contract is because the written statement of the contract
contains the admission by you that you have accepted a benefit.
Now let's give this continuing auto leasing scenario a factual
twist: You now have taken possession of the car, and while you
are out driving around in my car, you file a NOTICE OF RESCISSION
OF CONTRACT, IN REM on me, telling me that you are cancelling the
Automobile Rental Agreement we signed. Does that Rescission
cancel the contract? No, it does not, and the contract very much
remains in full force and effect. And I, as the owner of the
car, can go right ahead and keep extracting all the money out of
you that the contract calls for. In fact, I actually don't even
need any written statement of the terms of the contract at all --
I can sue you and very much win. I would not need to prove that
you did in fact accept my benefits, which isn't that difficult,
and then I would need to prove the amount of money damages due
(by showing a judge a long list of those other people I have
rented that car to, and the amounts they paid). So why do
merchants want written statements of contracts? Because without
written admissions from you as to what the terms of the contract
were, I would have to deal with you in a protracted trial setting
which is financially expensive, and go through the trouble and
nuisance of adducing supporting evidence (which costs money),
whereas with written admissions your little lies and denials get
tossed aside and ignored and I can deal with you very effectively
and inexpensively in accelerated Summary Judgment Proceedings --
hearings only. So a written statement of the contract in writing
does not create the contract -- it is just a STATEMENT OF THE
CONTRACT; and it is actually the exchange of valuable
Consideration (benefits) out in the practical setting that
creates the contract and initiates the attachment of your
contractual liability. I know that this line appears to be
different or even contrary from what you have been taught by
others since its angle of presentation is unique -- but read on,
and you will see that I am only enlarging on the information your
intellectual repository of factual knowledge already possesses.
The only time when signing your name to a statement of the
contract actually initiates the contract is that when synchronous
with signing the statement, you also make the written admission
therein that you have accepted a benefit -- usually stated as:
"In exchange for good and valuable Consideration in the amount of
$1.00, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Party
X...")
Now with that admission by you, of having accepted his benefits,
the merchant has you tied down tight: But it is not your
signature that ties you down into a contract -- it is your
admission within the statement of the contract that you have
accepted a benefit that ties you down. I have had considerable
experience with Retail Installment Financing going back into my
days at High School when I sold mobile homes part time -- and I
am unaware of any Retail Installment Contract, Mortgage, credit
loan, or Security Interest Contract I have ever read or placed
with a lender that does not extract the specific admission from
you that a specifically defined Consideration (a benefit) has now
been accepted. This acceptance of a benefit is so important that
lawyers will go right ahead and put the benefit (Consideration)
acceptance recital right into the statement of the contract
anyway as a redundancy factor, even though the lawyer knows very
well what primary benefit it was that you really accepted (the
car, the boat, the house, the plane, etc., whatever it was).
Therefore, if circumstances come to pass and the boat, car,
house, etc. gets repossessed back into the hands of the seller
for some reason, then the contract still survives the
CONSIDERATION FAILURE of the primary benefit, since some
secondary benefit ($1.00) was retained by you. So yes, your
signature on these Commercial contracts is very important, but
only because the contract extracts the admission out of you that
benefits have now been accepted, and not because the existence of
the facial written statement of the contract means anything else.
Well then, while out gallivanting about in my car that you had
leased from me, just what does that NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF
CONTRACT, IN REM that you served on me mean, as you attempted to
unilaterally terminate the automobile lease? That RESCISSION, of
and by itself, means absolutely nothing, and you are wasting your
time even writing it. Only when you redeliver the car back to
me, only when you cease accepting my benefits, does the contract
then actually terminate -- that is when the NOTICE OF RESCISSION
might mean something. If I am your Landlord, and you are renting
an apartment from me, the anything we sign or agree to orally
gets AUTOMATICALLY extended if you keep the apartment keys (keys
are evidence of continued possession of the apartment benefit).
That's right, once knowledge of a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE is learned
in one setting, its application is automatically known throughout
all settings.
This is the Grand Key concept to understand in unlocking yourself
away from undesired contracts; it is fundamental and is of
maximum importance to understand, in order to understand why
Federal Magistrates correctly rule, with such rare gifted genius
the way they do; as they first snort at, and then toss out, a Tax
Protestor's NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF CONTRACT, IN REM filed on
some Birth Certificates. If you kept possession of the car
(retention of benefits) after the written statement of the
contract was unilaterally rescinded, somehow, then that
RESCISSION means absolutely nothing, and I can go right ahead
extracting all the money out of you that the contract called for,
without any facial written contract in effect at all. This is
also why the lawyers in the Social Security Administration are
also absolutely correct as they snort at Social Security Number
rescissions where there has been no irrevocable benefit rejection
filed. Therefore, Federal Magistrates who snort at, and then
toss out, arguments that discuss IN REM CONTRACT RESCISSIONS are
not in bed with the King, as it is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE
and American Jurisprudence that it is the practical acceptance
and use of benefits that is the key determining factor on the
liability question of holding someone to a contract or not
(initially attaching liability). And so merely stating the terms
down in writing, or not, is actually unimportant in initially
attaching liability; also unimportant is whether or not the terms
of the contract were recited in front of witnesses, or even in
front of a judge, or in front of a Notary Public, or recanted
verbatim on the floor of the United States Supreme Court in
Washington. All of those contract procedures have their time and
place to preventively deflect the potential unenforceability of a
particular covenant within the contract -- which if the disputed
evidentiary picture occurred would then make contract enforcement
expensive and tactically difficult by requiring a Trial. But
getting you to admit the terms and conditions of the contract
makes your future lies and denials a waste of time on your part.
But none of these contract enforcement procedures of written
admissions or of collecting neutral witnesses (designed to allow
for inexpensive contract enforcement by way of summary pre-Trial
hearings) ever defines the essential and fundamental underlying
structural question of liability attachment itself. And so
merely noticing out to the other party the IN REM CONTRACT
RESCISSION is utterly meaningless. Generally speaking, Federal
Magistrates are your friends, and they even remain your friends
while that Courtroom kingdom of their is swirling in a whirlwind
of unbridled retortional ensnortment following your RESCISSION
submission for an annulment of taxing liability without a
correlative waiver and timely rejection of all political and
Commercial benefits that was filed with the King preceding the
taxable years the IRS now wants addressed as the grievance. And
as for the King's Agents in the United States Social Security
Administration, when they rebuff your facial IN REM equity
contract rescissions, they too are absolutely correct: Mere
rescission of the written instrument itself is unimportant and
meaningless, and what is important is your acceptance and use of
Federal Benefits. And accepting the King's benefits by going to
work in an environmentally protected occupational Status as an
EMPLOYEE, without any waiver and rejection of the King's large
volume of labor-oriented benefits, does correctly give rise to a
taxing liability on you (under PRINCIPLES OF NATURE relating to
the immorality of allowing someone to get away with unjust
benefit enrichment), with the amount of the tax being measured by
net taxable income (or anything else the King's statutes, as
stating the terms of the contract, so define). To waive and
reject tangible benefits, you need to return possession of the
property to the owner (such as surrendering the keys to an
apartment you may have rented, or surrendering the car if a car
rental agreement was in effect. Intangible benefits are waived
and rejected by formal Notice stating so in writing (or orally
with witnesses).
The reason why benefit rejection is best done in writing is for
the same identical reason that complex contracts are best stated
in writing: So that all of the details can be presented on the
record, without protracted evidentiary presentations just to
establish what the record is. Try and find me three people who
can memorize a 25-page BENEFIT REJECTION STATEMENT word for word;
like contracts, you do not need the REJECTION to be in writing in
order for it to be Judicially recognized as sound and valid, but
failure to make a record of it causes you the additional expense
at a later time of first proving just what was REJECTED, before
addressing the merits of the REJECTION arguments themselves. So
placing statements in writing is a benefit for yourself relating
to the economy of producing evidence later on, and the mere
absence of a written record does not derogate your standing
before a judge -- although you are unnecessarily inconveniencing
yourself.
Being rebuffed by the King's Agents in the Social Security
Administration (by their telling you that you rescission is
meaningless and contributions remain mandatory) should not be the
End of the World for anyone; properly handled with an inquisitive
spirit about you, such a bureaucratic rebuffment is only the
beginning of a quest to find out why such a rebuffment took
place, and then to find out just what is the larger meaning of
all of that; and so failure to keep yourself in a teachable STATE
OF MIND is what is really self-damaging. And correlative to
that, always remember just one thing: The King wants your money,
and he's got plenty of ways of getting it, by getting you to
accept his wide-ranging array of invisible and intangible
benefits without you even knowing it.
The most important element of any playful little battle with the
King is the factual setting that you will present to the
Judiciary for grievance settlement; and the next most important
element is the correct Pleading of the relevant points of law and
the technical facts that you want that law to operate on, inuring
to your favor.
There is a judicial reference to a particular subdivision
classification of contracts where the factual setting surrounding
the initiation of the contract is characterized such that one of
the parties is in such an unevenly strong bargaining leverage
position, that the terms of the contract are always presented on
a "take it or leave it basis"; [364]
[364]=============================================================
"The term 'adhesion contract' refers to standardized contract
forms offered to consumers of goods and services on essentially a
'take it or leave it' basis without affording the consumer a
realistic opportunity to bargain and under such conditions that
the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or services except
by acquiescing in the form contract."
-
VICTORIA VS. SUPERIOR COURT, 710 P.2nd 833, at 837 (1985).
=============================================================[364]
these contracts, entered into this way, are in a special status,
and fall under what is called the ADHESION CONTRACT DOCTRINE.
These Adhesion Contracts are typically the case when dealing with
store clerks and other low-level public interfacing instruments
when buying automobiles, homes, or anything on time payment
plans, since the clerk simply hands you a pre-printed form, and
simply expects you to approve of it. As a result of the dominate
leverage position obtained when pre-printed forms are used by
some low-level clerk or contract agent who has no Grant of
Corporate Jurisdiction to change, modify, or rearrange any terms
contained in that statement of the contract; and so the contract
is full of terms, conditions, and waivers of procedural defense
lines ("the buyer hereby waives his right to a Notice of
Protest") that would never be there if the contract was
negotiated from scratch each time. [365]
[365]=============================================================
"Contracts of Adhesion are standardized contracts
characteristically used by large firms in every transaction for
products or services of a certain kind. The use of such
contracts can have profound implications for ordinary notions of
freedom of contract:
"The weaker party, in need of the goods or services, is
frequently not in a position to shop around for better terms,
either because the author of the contract has a monopoly (natural
or artificial) or because all competitors use the same clauses.
His contractual intention is but a subjection more or less
voluntary to terms dictated by the stronger party, terms whose
consequences are often understood only in a vague way, if at
all."
"Kesler, CONTRACTS OF ADHESION -- SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT FREEDOM OF
CONTRACTS, 43 Columbia Law Review 629, at 632 (1943). For a more
recent discussion of adhesion contracts, see Leff in
UNCONSCIONABILITY AND THE CODE -- THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLAUSE, 115
University of Pennsylvania Law Review 435, at 504 (1967)."
-
Anthony Krouman in CONTRACT LAW AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE,
footnote #23, 89 Yale Law Journal 472 (1980).
=============================================================[365]
In Commercial Law, the requisite "Meeting of the Minds", so
called, is known as MUTUAL ASSENT. Judges conveniently ignore
this DE MINIMIS Common Law indicia for contracts when a Juristic
institution is a party to the contract, with statutes then
containing the terms and content of the contract. With Juristic
institutions involved as parties to an Adhesion Contract, Judges
want to see the QUID PRO QUO of reciprocity -- the acceptance of
benefits -- being there by you as an Individual, but generally
they have no interest in making sure that there was this MUTUAL
ASSENT in effect between the parties. As I will explain later,
many things are routinely inferred by silence as PRESUMPTIONS;
however, telling some neighboring Prince that you do not approve
of some precious little statute that operates without the
adducement requirement for either a MENS REA or contract, and
then going down into his Kingdom and committing the heinous act,
and then later arguing lack of MUTUAL ASSENT as a defense line in
a criminal prosecution, will not likely trigger a dismissal on
the merits. [366]
[366]=============================================================
In contrast to that, Commercial contracts will face judicial
supervisory rearrangement when pure MUTUAL ASSENT has been
quietly withdrawn from the contract factual setting, by reason of
the contract's ADHESIVE origin. If a convenient clause within a
contract is ADHESIVE, then any ambiguities surrounding the
interpretation of that covenant will be subject to stricter
construction, and held against the party possessing the stronger
bargaining weight (meaning the party who provided the
standardized, pre-printed contract forms) [see GRAHAM VS.
SCISSOR-TAIL, INC., footnote #16, 623 P.2nd 165 (1981)].
=============================================================[366]
The terms and conditions of contracts in effect by statutory
pronouncements are deemed to be in a quasi "like it or lump it"
status, aloof from the Common Law requirement that knowledge and
desire to be in effect.
As it would pertain to you and me, Adhesion Contracts are in
effect whenever we sign a lease with a landlord, buy a television
or automobile -- i.e., in any Commercial setting where
standardized, pre-printed contract forms are used, and the low
level salesperson you are dealing with has no agency jurisdiction
to modify the contract's terms at all. As the purchase price
gets bigger, the general rule is, the less "Adhesive" the terms
of the contract becomes; so purchases like jets, chemical plants,
oil refineries, pipelines, and large real estate properties, etc.
are very rarely on standardized forms. As the word "Adhesion" is
used throughout this Letter, it means to say that once benefits
are accepted by you, and the terms of the contract are written in
statutes, then you are deemed to be bound by the terms of the
statutory contract, "adhesively" (meaning forcefully, like glue).
Incidentally, the only defense out of "Adhesion Contract" that
numerous legal commentators have issued advisory memorandums on,
involves your being able to document (prove) that you did not
accept the benefits of that statutory contract. Once your
adversary adduces to a judge that benefits have been accepted,
the formation of the contract is deemed to be complete, and there
are few outs remaining.
EMPLOYEES, so called, are bound to Federal Statutes by a
combination of devices, such as the acceptance of Federally
created income generating benefits under the protection and
advantages of the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (which gives Employees
the upper hand over their Employers) by those persons accepting
benefits such as corporation situs EMPLOYMENT and Government
contract enforcement of that EMPLOYMENT. Not that the King is
really responsible for the primary benefit of that corporations'
offering you an employment position, [367]
[367]=============================================================
In CARTER VS. DUCHESS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 735 F.2nd 8, at 13
(1984), the Second Circuit mentioned that the FLSA also offers
the benefit of eliminating unfair competition among workers
looking for jobs, even before they are hired.
=============================================================[367]
but that once the corporation does offer you the position on your
own merits, the King then intervenes into the Employer/Employee
relationship to give Employees rights and the upper hand over
their Employer through an array of direct benefits, as well as
restraining the Employer in some areas. That Employer, no doubt,
is involved with Interstate Commerce, and that Employer is up to
his neck in air-tight redundant contracts with the King; and so
now the King is using that contractual relationship with your
Employer to force a transfer of his benefits over to you.
Remember all along that I have been saying that the key words to
get out from underneath the King and his Equity Jurisdiction lies
in refusing to accept his benefits, and in doing that, you negate
the expected reciprocal QUID PRO QUO Federal Judges see very
clearly as they snort at Tax Protesting suits seeking withholding
relief of some type. [368]
[368]=============================================================
Such benefits are both Commercial and political in nature.
=============================================================[368]
All courts, state and federal, who have commented on Adhesion
Contracts, in explaining why DEFENDANT SO AND SO is in fact
attached to a Contract of Adhesion, all pronounce similar
Adhesion Contract governance: That the best way to defend
yourself against Contracts of Adhesion is to go back to the very
seminal point of contract formation and attack the very existence
of the contract at its origin, by proving that you did not accept
any benefits, since the adhesion contract, like all other
contracts, came into effect whenever benefits, offered
conditionally, were accepted by you. And where the records show
that benefits have been accepted, the liability will always
follow. Viewing this from a Judge's perspective, this means two
things: When did you decline the benefits, and how did you
decline the benefits? So if you improperly Objected (meaning,
not in writing and therefore the explicit disavowal was
disputed), or Objected belatedly, then you automatically lose; I
don't know how to explain it any simpler. [369]
[369]=============================================================
To Object to something is to make a STATEMENT, which is in itself
an art. To make a STATEMENT is to place someone else on Notice
that you are not what they thought you were. Here, our Objection
is to place all Judges, both State and Federal, on NOTICE, that
we are not the gameplayers in King's Commerce pursuing that type
of Governmentally assisted enrichment that they otherwise assume
that we are through our silence; we are not one of those types
that the King has a reasonable expectation of taxation
reciprocity on. We are not ones to have accepted juristic
benefits that carried along with them latent reciprocal hooks of
taxation expectations retained by the benefit donor. So this
Objection is to make a STATEMENT, and STATEMENTS are intended to
change the opinions held by others. And as we probe around a bit
and change settings over into different areas, we find that the
fine art of making a STATEMENT, to change the otherwise frozen
opinions of others, actually goes on world wide:
...It was a nice sunny morning on this Friday, December 2, 1977.
About 50 miles off the coast of South Carolina there occurred a
tremendous boom in the atmosphere at about 10am, which when it
arrived inland at Charleston caused dishes to rattle, furniture
to shake, and giblets to roll over. Was it a ship that exploded,
or maybe an aircraft? No one knew. Later the same day, at
3:45pm, 650 miles to the north-northeast off the New Jersey Coast
there occurred a second boom in the atmosphere; this one was felt
throughout the New York metropolitan area from Maine, New Jersey,
all the way up the East Coast to Connecticut. Sensors at the
LAMONT-DOUGHTERY GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY north of New York City
jumped off the scale. Was it an earthquake? If it was an
earthquake, then where was the secondary wave? In Manhattan,
more dishes rattled and more furniture shook. A Manhattan
housewife once related the following story:
"My older kids were in school, and I was at home with my smallest
children when I heard this tremendous boom. It sounded like a
deep lull, a thundering roar from the bowels of Earth. It was
all-encompassing; it could have been next door or it could have
been a million miles away. It sounded like a bomb. I grabbed my
kids and ran to the wall. I turned on my radio, but heard
nothing there about it. When the kids came home from school, I
found out they had been scared, too; the teachers claimed that it
was Con Edison. But the boom sounded as if something had hit the
bottom of the Earth."
Then she turned to that newspaper the world esteems as great --
the NEW YORK TIMES, for Saturday and Sunday, December 3rd and
4th, but found no story or talk whatsoever on the boom anywhere.
Like the radio stations, the great newspapers were silent on the
booms, and so she turned to her friends, who also very much felt
the boom, but they too just drew a blank. Something about this
was eerie, it was strange, there was dimension to these booms
that was different -- and why the silent treatment?
Over the coming days, more booms were heard up and down the East
Coast, particularly on December 20th. When the news media did
finally get to talk about it, the booms were generally
characterized as a joke. A few months later, the NEW YORK TIMES
would try to deflect attention over to the CONCORDE supersonic
jet as being the explanation to feed to the public [see the
opinion of an INTELLIGENTSIA clown, Dr. Jeremy J. Stone, trying
to wash it all away, in the NEW YORK TIMES ["Scientist Says Data
Upholds Thesis Tying Concorde to Coastal Booms"], page B16 (March
16, 1978)]. Three days later, the NEW YORK TIMES reluctantly ran
a story discrediting what their precious Dr. Stone had just said,
as the United States Navy said the Concorde was probably not the
origin of those booms [see the NEW YORK TIMES ["Concordes May Be
Booming"], page E9 (March 19, 1978)], but the Navy did not
identify the origin of those atmospheric booms.
The reason why those booms first triggered the media's silent
treatment, then the joke treatment, then outright fraudulent
distortions trying to wash it all away, is because the Gremlins
knew all along what the origin of those booms were, and those
booms are directly related to the impending invasion of the
United States by Russia -- and the Gremlins controlling both the
Federal Government and the major news media in New York City do
not want anyone to be cognizant of the surprises they have in
store for you and me. Deception is very important to Gremlins,
and correlative to that, sequestering away key factual
information on impending damages is a necessary accessory
instrument of Gremlin aggression in these Last Days preceding the
Second Coming of the Savior. That Manhattan housewife, who along
with others that experienced those booms, were unknowingly snared
in a web of Gremlin intrigue originating back in the early 1970s
when the well-orchestrated Gremlin diplomatic deception of
DETENTE was in vogue. Back then a hard-driving engineer with
good technical common sense named Leonid Brezhnev directed and
personally supervised an intense Russian military drive in a
little known branch of physics called HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS.
Technological developments produced out of that intense campaign
were such items as the PARTICLE BEAM WEAPON, where massive
amounts of electricity are projected out of a cannon-like device
that Nikola Tesla developed conceptually, and literally tears to
shreds the atoms of whatever the beam comes into contact with.
Other military hardware produced were electrogravitic SPACE
PLATFORMS; these airships use the electrostatic belt around the
Earth to elevate and lower themselves, with small side mounted
rockets for horizontal propulsion. These Russian space platforms
are similar to UFOs in the sense that advanced magnetic
technology and gravitic levitation are used to provide propulsion
to a vehicle, but the Russian design of the mid-1970s was crude
compared to the sleek UFO technology from our Adamic brothers
inside the Earth, as the Russians were then able to only use the
Earth's gravity to elevate and descend vertically, and so side
rockets then had to provide horizontal movement. Using advanced
cryogenics and other technology stolen from the West, Leonid
Brezhnev tied all these devices together, by mounting a PARTICLE
BEAM WEAPON inside a floating SPACE PLATFORM. [See AVIATION WEEK
["Beam Weapon Threat"], editorial on page 11, and ["Soviets Push
for Beam Weapons"] on page 16 (May 2, 1977). In contrast, see
also the Gremlin's NEW YORK TIMES trying to keep the lid clamped
down tight on what is happening, in ["Weapon That Fights Missiles
Could Alter World Defense Focus"], page 1 (December 4, 1978).
The NEW YORK TIMES quotes Dr. Ruth Davis, a Gremlin nestled in
the Pentagon's bureaucratic structure, as saying that:
"... there is no scientific evidence to suggest Moscow is
actually testing beam weapons."
-
NEW YORK TIMES, id., at D11.
That deceptive Gremlin skew STATEMENT is technically correct in a
limited sense, as yes, there was no SCIENTIFIC evidence that beam
testing was underway, however, there was an avalanche of MILITARY
INTELLIGENCE evidence coming into American sources back then that
Russian beam weapons were being tested. Coming close to hitting
the nail right on the head is always particularly irritating to
Gremlins, and so there will always be a deceptive skew pushing
things off to the side when the preferred MODUS OPERANDI of
silence is uncontrollable.]
...The use of a PARTICLE BEAM CANNON consumes fabulous amounts of
electricity (as well it should for the fabulous amount of damages
it creates), which is an easy enough deployment when the cannon
is on the ground plugged into a nuclear power plant. QUESTION:
How do you generate 10 megawatts of electricity in an aircraft
the size of a 747 jetliner? The answer lies in another
interesting piece of hardware developed by Brezhnev -- a rocket
propelled generator using rare earth magnetics; a device totally
without parallel in the West. The generator only produces peak
juice for a few moments -- but for a PARTICLE BEAM ray, that's
enough.
On that Friday morning off the Coast of South Carolina, a Russian
CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM CANNON was getting exercised. Operating in
a fuzzy de-focused mode, the beam was fired into the atmosphere
from a floating SPACE PLATFORM. These aircraft are also called
the ANTI-WAR MACHINE inside the Kremlin due to the incredible
magnitude of military leverage they create for their holders. In
the early 1980s, the Russians produced a second generation SPACE
PLATFORM called a SUPER-HEAVY -- they are huge, and have a
tremendous cargo capacity.
Of all the places on Earth the Russians could have used to test
their PARTICLE BEAM machinery, they selected the East Coast of
the United States politically: To make a STATEMENT to the
Gremlins who are running the show in Washington: That your days
are numbered, and you little NUCLEAR WAR Gremlins had better
start trembling at the knees.
All Americans will one day become very well acquainted with these
SPACE PLATFORMS, as they will drop in from the heavens and hover
out in the open over key American cities and military bases
synchronous with the Russian invasion. Those SPACE PLATFORMS
will be there visibly to make a STATEMENT at that time as well:
That an accelerated American surrender would be worthwhile
considering.
=============================================================[369]
But under this FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, [370]
[370]=============================================================
Title 29, Section 201, et seq. (1982).
=============================================================[370]
the Congress has intervened into the relationship between
Employees (and not consultants/contractors) and Employers: To
give Employees the upper hand over their Employers under certain
limited circumstances and under certain limited conditions [371]
[371]=============================================================
See generally MITCHELL VS. ROBERT DEMARIO JEWELRY, 361 U.S. 288
(1960).
=============================================================[371]
(such as Employees cannot be terminated for pregnancy, no racial
discrimination permitted, minimum wage required, minimum
sanitation environment required, maximum numbers of hours per
week that can be worked is mandated, minimum vacation time off is
required, hearing required on demand, and in Title 11
["Bankruptcy"], Employees are given absolute priority over all
other secured and unsecured creditors in an Employer bankruptcy
proceeding). Railroad Employees too have an entire sequence of
proprietary statutes just custom-tailored for them; [372]
[372]=============================================================
The RAILWAY LABOR ACT lies in Title 45, Section 151, et seq.
Correlative supporting statutes are found in Title 15, Section
21, and Title 18, Section 373, and Title 28, Section 1291. See
also related statutes that confer benefits on Railroad Employees:
The RAILROAD RETIREMENT TAX ACT, the RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT,
and the RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT in Title 26, Section
3231; Title 42, Section 301; and commingled in with the RAILWAY
LABOR ACT in Title 45, Section 151 (et seq.).
=============================================================[372]
and in addition, there is a long list of other benefits that
inure to those persons accepting the benefits in a livelihood
from the federally protected occupational business Status of an
EMPLOYEE. [373]
[373]=============================================================
Just addressing Employee discrimination alone, the King has
enacted numerous statutes that prohibit discrimination on the
basis of:
-
Race, gender, and other demographic characteristics in the CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (Title 42, Section 200e-16);
-
Age, in the AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967 (Title
29, Section 631, 633a);
-
A Handicapping condition, by the REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
(Title 29, Section 791).
=============================================================[373]
So Employees are in a special environmentally protective
enrichment setting by the King's assistance; [374]
[374]=============================================================
And remember that the very word itself, EMPLOYEE, is
automatically suggestive of the legal standing of that PERSON
being another taxable gameplayer in Commerce; on the floor of a
Courtroom it is a business term and carries great significance to
it, and so now Protesting arguments sounding in the Tort of
NATURAL LAW RIGHTS and correlative arguments of unfairness,
freedom, claims of Constitutional infractions, and the like, are
all not relevant. And having accepted multiple layers of State
and Federal juristic benefits, EMPLOYEES now walk around clothed
with multiple layers of JURISTIC PERSONALITIES, having insulated
themselves from using Tort defense arguments by virtue of the
multiple layers of invisible contracts in effect that juristic
benefit acceptance created latently. Yes, contracts do elevate
themselves to an overruling level, washing out all other
arguments sounding in the Tort of unfairness and off-point
rights, whenever judgments are being handed down -- a PRINCIPLE
OF NATURE that if not learned now, will be learned in no
uncertain terms at the Last Day before Father, as Heavenly
Father, just like the King, has a large number of contracts to
hold us to -- contracts that remain invisible only to those who
have not yet OPENED THEIR EYES.
=============================================================[374]
however, things were not always this way. Our King is somewhat
unique in that his jurisdiction is limited in nature; in order
for the King to have the jurisdiction to throw benefits at
something, there first has to be a requisite Grant of
Jurisdiction for him to create the regulatory jurisdiction.
There once was a day and age in the United States when there
existed a presumption against the existence of INTERSTATE
COMMERCE in the EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE relationship; there was once a
Time and Age in the United States back in the 1800s when the
words EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYER meant no more on the floor of a
Courtroom than they meant on the street corner. Back in those
days, there was somewhat of a quiescent relationship in effect
between the King and the Countryside; and in such a passive
setting, there was no such EMPLOYMENT taxation contracts in
effect back then, and so the King was not expecting that much in
return from us. But today in 1985, things are different -- today
multiple invisible juristic contracts are in effect, and if we do
not get rid of incorrect reasoning sounding in the sugar sweet
tones of Tort, we will be damaging ourselves. [375]
[375]=============================================================
Back in the 1800s, back when our Father's philosophy held the
upper and, EMPLOYMENT was not an article of King's Commerce;
being no juristic benefits permeating the EMPLOYMENT setting,
there were no reciprocal expectations of taxation liability to be
concerned with:
"The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of
commerce."
-
Title 15 ["Commerce and Trade"], Section 17 [Antitrust LEX]
(October, 1914).
But today, in the 1980s, there are multiple juristic contracts in
effect permeating the EMPLOYMENT scene that were not in effect
back in the 1800s. Today, there is SOCIAL SECURITY (August,
1935), which operates with and without an assigned number in
effect; there is the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (June, 1938); and
the OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (December, 1970). Those
generic contracts are in effect with numerous other specific
setting EMPLOYMENT contracts, such as the:
-
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, Title 29, Section 141 et seq.
(June, 1947) [creating arbitration benefits for members of labor
unions];
-
COAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, Title 30, Section 801 et seq.
(December, 1969) [dust, ventilation, and environmental
requirements for miners];
-
LONGSHOREMAN'S AND HARBOR WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION ACT, Title 33,
Section 901 et seq. (March, 1927) [safe places of Employment];
-
RAILROAD ACTS, Title 45, Section 1 et seq. (May, 1926) [creating
a large array of benefits inuring specifically to Employees of
railroads].
And as we change over to ecclesiastical settings, nothing changes
there, either; as we also once lived in an era with Father when
there were no Covenants to be concerned with -- but now there is.
Therefore, arguments once entertained back then are no longer
relevant today, because Contract Law overrules reasoning sounding
in Tort -- if in fact contracts are in effect. Without
Covenants, there was once a Time and an Age in the First Estate
when Heavenly Father listened very carefully to our concerns
about what was fair and what was not fair; as Spirits, we were
without the behavioral specificity that Covenants call for back
then, and so what was relevant to be discussed and considered in
that embryonic stage of our development back then was anything we
felt like making an issue out of. Back then, Father was issuing
out ADVISORIES, today, he is issuing out COMMANDMENTS (the word
COMMANDMENT implies the right to use force. Notice how the
intensity of the words selected has escalated from one Estate to
the next. Why is Father now suggesting inferentially the use of
force to obtain our obedience? Because Father has our consent to
do so, originating from Covenants we all entered into in the
First Estate - Covenants that are now invisible. Although the
Covenant itself is invisible, the accessory circumstances
generated by its existence are visible -- such as the careful use
of some forceful words to characterize the necessity of obedience
to some behavioral standards).
In such a passive setting without Covenants our relationship with
Father back then was quite quiescent. Without Covenants in
effect, arguments considered are very broad and wide-ranging;
with specific Covenants in effect governing judgments, the range
of permissible arguments is narrowed greatly, and only the
content of the Covenant itself is relevant discussion matter.
Since there were no Covenants in effect back then, Father had
reduced levels of behavioral expectations to hold on us. But
today in this Second Estate, things are different -- today
multiple invisible ecclesiastical Contracts are in effect, and if
we do not get rid of incorrect reasoning sounding in the sugar
sweet tones of Tort, then we will be damaging ourselves at the
Last Day where Contracts are controlling. Just like Tax
Protestors throwing NATURAL RIGHTS arguments from the 1800s at
judges today, extracted from Cases when there were no contracts
in effect back in that era, Heathens and Gremlins also using
arguments sounding in Tort at the Last Day will go through at
that time what Tax Protestors in the United States are going
through now in Federal District Courts: Rebuffment and rejection
-- but Tax Protestors, like Heathens and Gremlins, have not
figured that out yet. But there the similarity ends: Tax
Protestors are quite different in the sense that they head
straight for the law books, the court opinions, and the
courtrooms in an effort to get to the very bottom of this Tax
Question. That MODUS OPERANDI is very beneficial. Heathens and
Gremlins stay on an aloof theoretical level, and always stumble
from one fundamental error to the next for one reason or another
-- they don't have the backbone to be criminally prosecuted
simply to get answers to questions.
=============================================================[375]
In a grievance where the reasoning turned on the question as to
whether or not it was permissible for the King to pre-emptively
assert a regulatory jurisdiction in effect between Employers and
Employees, the Supreme Court had the typical Federal Government
type of arguments thrown at them that the relationship between
Employees and their Employers just CRUCIALLY affected Interstate
Commerce:
"Much stress is put upon the evils which come from the struggle
between employers and employees over the matter of wages, working
conditions, the right of collective bargaining, etc., and the
resulting strikes, curtailment and irregularity of production and
effect on prices; and it is insisted that interstate commerce is
greatly affected thereby..." [376]
[376]=============================================================
CARTER VS. CARTER COAL, 298 U.S. 238, at 308 (1936).
=============================================================[376]
But the relationship of Employer and Employee was declared to be
distinctively local in nature, and not an appropriate setting for
pre-emptive Federal intervention:
"The relation of employer and employee is a local relation. At
common law, it is one of the domestic relations. The wages are
paid for doing local work. Working conditions are obviously
local conditions. The employees are not engaged in or about
commerce, but exclusively in producing a commodity. And the
controversies and evils which it is the object of the act to
regulate and minimize, are local controversies and evils
affecting local work undertaken to accomplish those local
results. Such effect as they may have upon commerce, however
extensive it may be, is secondary and indirect. An increase in
the greatness of the effect adds to its importance. It does not
alter its character." [377]
[377]=============================================================
CARTER VS. CARTER COAL, id., at 309.
=============================================================[377]
And if you accept the benefits of the King's intervention and
protection, through such devices as the FAIR LABORS STANDARDS
ACT, accepting Social Security Benefits, and Government
enforcement of that Employment contract, it is very reasonable
and very ethical and very proper under PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW
for the King and your regional Prince to get paid for having done
so. Contrary to the howling of Protestors, our Father's Law is
not being contaminated by the taxation of Employees in the United
States, since today, unlike yesterday, invisible contracts are in
effect, and our Father's Law already knows how to deal with
contracts. [378]
[378]=============================================================
In one of the First Sessions in Council in the First Estate,
Father started collecting and rearranging Spirits into groups
[meaning a soft Judgment was taking place]. We, as Spirits, then
got away with some fairness related reasoning sounding in Tort.
However, the next impending Judgment will be a hard Judgment [if
HARD is the word], because Covenants are in effect and Father has
much higher standards of behavioral expectations on us. These
Judgment standards specifically exclude Tort defense arguments --
and not because Heavenly Father is a Fifth Column Commie Pinko
who is trying to run us into the ground, but because the Judgment
Law to be governing at the next Judgment [that this Life is now
collecting its factual setting evidentiary presentation on] has
been changed: Because now invisible Celestial Covenants are in
effect from the First Estate. To those Spirits who do not have
replacement Covenants that were entered into down here, those
First Estate Covenants will be controlling at the Last Day.
There were no Covenants in effect when a preliminary
stratification of Spirits [by Judgment] took place back in the
First Estate, and certain groups of Spirits went off and attended
certain Sessions of Council by themselves [for example, the NOBLE
AND THE GREAT had a very interesting Session all to themselves
back then]; and the impending tightening up in Judgment criteria
that will be used by Father at the Last Day does not mean that
Father's Law is going to the dogs [as Protestors would like you
to believe since Constitutional unfairness arguments are now
being tossed aside by the Judiciary], but rather the factual
setting presented for Judgment -- Celestial Contracts are now in
effect that were not in effect the first time around.
...Today in the United States in areas of Government taxation, it
is happening all over again right down the line: Protestors are
blowing their lids when experiencing Judicial rebuffment after
having quoted plain language from Cases dated before juristic
EMPLOYMENT contracts went into effect roughly from the turn of
the century to about 1920 or so. Since commercial contracts were
not in effect back in the 1800s, then what was ruled upon in that
era doesn't mean anything today, because today contracts are in
effect, and contracts change everything. This does not frustrate
Patriot objectives, it only changes the nature of the attack
strategy: Patriots first need to get rid of the contract as an
item on the factual record, then you can start arguing fairness
and unfairness.
=============================================================[378]
Since our King has intervened to give Employees the upper in some
key selected areas, such as creating a slice of LEX to throw at
us, like his high-powered FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, our King now
wants a percentage piece of the action from the Employee -- and
that does not bother me at all. [379]
[379]=============================================================
Is this FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT really the high-powered
conveyance device for EMPLOYEES to bask in, as Federal Judges
treat it? Yes, it is, and supporting evidence of this fact
surfaced in the Nixon Presidential era when the Congress decided
to tone down the level of benefits this Act created for
EMPLOYEES, and shift more of its benefits over to EMPLOYERS:
"The Congress hereby finds that the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
1938, as amended, has been interpreted judicially in disregard of
long-established customs, practices, and contracts between
employers and employees, thereby creating wholly unexpected
liabilities, immense in amount and retroactive in operation, upon
EMPLOYERS [to the benefit of EMPLOYEES] with the result that, if
said Act as so interpreted, or claims arising under such
interpretations, were permitted to stand,
1)
the payment of such liabilities would bring about financial ruin
of many Employers and seriously impair the capital resources of
many others, thereby resulting in the reduction of industrial
operations, halting the expansion and development, curtailing of
Employment, and the earning power of Employees;
2)
the credit of many Employers would be curtailed;
3)
there would be created both an extended and continuous
uncertainty on the part of industry, both Employer and Employee,
as to the financial condition of productive establishments and a
gross inequality of competitive conditions between Employers and
between industries;
4)
Employees would receive windfall payments, including liquidated
damages, of sums for activities performed by them without any
expectation of reward beyond that included in their agreed rates
of pay;
5)
there would occur the promotion of increasing demands for payment
to Employees for engaging in activities no compensation for which
had been contemplated by either the Employer or Employee at the
time they were engaged in;
6)
voluntary collective bargaining would be interfered with and
industrial disputes between Employees and Employers and between
Employees and Employees would be created;
7)
the courts of the country would be burdened with an excessive and
needless litigation and champertous practices would be
encouraged;
8)
the Public Treasury would be deprived of large sums of revenues
and public finances would be seriously deranged by claims against
the Public Treasury for refunds of taxes already paid;
9)
the cost to the Government of goods and services heretofore and
hereafter purchased by its various departments and agencies would
be unreasonably increased and the Public Treasury would be
seriously affected by consequent increased cost of war contracts;
10)
serious and adverse effects upon the revenues of Federal, State
and local Governments would occur."
-
Title 29, Section 251 ["Portal To Portal Act"] (May, 1974).
So here is the Congress in 1974 now reversing itself from the
1938 era, and starts to hem in Employee benefits by enacting the
PORTAL TO PORTAL ACT, which was designed to relieve Employers
from some of the burdens cast upon them [in favor of Employees]
as a result of the generous application of the FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT by the Federal Judiciary to EMPLOYEES. So, yes,
the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT was, and so remains down to the
present day, from the Judicial perspective, as a high-powered
juristic device for conveying benefits into the pockets of
EMPLOYEES -- and having created benefits, now the King wants an
excessively generous piece of the action.
Incidentally, when the Congress enacted this PORTAL TO PORTAL
ACT, they braced themselves for any possible Constitutional
challenge someone might later be throwing at them, by claiming
that the necessity for this Act originates with multiple sources
of Constitutional fuel:
1.
"Burden on Commerce;
2.
General welfare;
3.
National Defense;
4.
Right to define and limit the jurisdiction of Federal Courts."
-
Title 29, Section 251 (a & b) ["Findings of Congress --
Declarations of Policy -- Purposes of Act"].
Therefore, whenever someone now comes along and wants to
challenge the Constitutionality of this PORTAL TO PORTAL ACT for
some reason, each of the four separate and distinct sources of
Constitutional jurisdiction must individually be attacked and
voided; succeeding in nullifying just one of the four will not
nullify this statute, just like the most eloquent and impressive
Tax Protester arguments on the monetary disabilities of Article
I, Sections 8 and 10 will not nullify the existence of the
Federal Reserve or those paper Notes it circulates pursuant to
Gremlin enscrewment objectives; and just like voiding one fuel
tank on a Boeing 747 jet carrying multiple fuel tanks offers no
velocity reduction. All independent sources of jurisdictional
fuel must be voided individually to successfully challenge an Act
of Congress -- a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE Tax Protesters might want to
take notice of, as it applies across all settings, both worldly
and Heavenly.
=============================================================[379]
(I may personally view the percentage slice the King wants to be
a bit aggressive and excessively generous towards the King when
analyzed from a COST/BENEFIT perspective, but the underlying
moral and ethical reciprocal considerations regarding the
mandatory exchange of benefits remains intact). Now that an
Employee knows his Status as a beneficiary of Federal
intervention and benefits, rather than badmouthing Federal
Judges, one such person might very well ask the question,
"...Gee, most of those benefits never apply to me. Throwing half
my income out the window every year to Washington for those
benefits is just not worth it."
That analysis is quite accurate for most folks: It isn't worth
it; but monetary worth is a business question each of us needs to
ask and decide for ourselves, and this is not a question of Law
for a Judge to come to grips with in some type of a contract
enforcement proceeding, after we have previously accepted those
benefits without ever filing a timely objection and rejecting
benefits. In every single Tax Protesting Case that I have
examined, based on the arguments submitted, I would have ruled
the same way the Judge did. I know that most folks --
particularly TAX PROTESTERS EXTRAORDINAIRE do not want to hear
this line and don't want to be told that it was themselves all
along who were in error and not the Judges, but it's about time
someone revealed your error to you.
So any half-way clever King, who wants maximum revenue
enhancement, is always searching for new ways to get more folks
to accept his benefits; and once benefits have been accepted,
then the Constitution fades away in significance, as it's design
to restrain Government under a few Tort Law factual settings is
no longer applicable. [380]
[380]=============================================================
"The Constitution is not a formulary. For constitutional
purposes, the decisive issue turns on the operating incidence of
a challenged tax. A state is free to pursue its own fiscal
policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution, if by the practical
operation of a tax the state has exerted its power in relation to
opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has
afforded, to benefits which it has conferred..."
-
STATE OF WISCONSIN VS. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, 311 U.S. 435, at 444
(1940).
=============================================================[380]
And to those types who experience benefits from the King, but
don't want to pay for them by a philosophical reason of political
discontentment with something grand that the King is pulling off
again with looters and Gremlins, then these Kings always have a
redundant pile of Aces tucked neatly up their royal sleeves, just
tailor-made to deal effectively with these recalcitrant types;
the type that experience benefits provided by a third party, but
who refuse to reciprocate and part with any QUID PRO QUO money in
exchange for benefits accepted. Federal Judges have a
characterization I once heard for this type of a Protestor: A
CHEAP PERSON. For these folks, the King has Nature on his side
(a state of affairs warranting the Tax Protester's failure in a
Courtroom, a state of affairs Tax Protesters never seem to bother
addressing when disseminating legal advice fixated on talking
about technical reasons why the United States should not prevail
based on impediments in the King's LEX and Charter); for these
recalcitrant Protesting types who believe that they are correct,
the King has actually worked them into an immoral position: The
Protester is up to his neck in multiple layers of invisible
juristic contracts with the King, and the Tax Protester doesn't
even know it. Nature is operating AGAINST the Protester, and the
Protester does not even see it. Yes, there is a very good reason
why so few Protesters are winning in the Courts: Because the
Protester was not entitled to prevail for any reason. [381]
[381]=============================================================
"To overcome this statute, the Taxpayer must show that in
attributing to him the ownership of the income of the trusts, or
something fairly to be dealt with as equivalent to ownership, the
lawmakers have done a wholly arbitrary thing, have found
equivalence where there was none nor anything approaching it, and
laid a burden unrelated to privilege or benefit."
-
BURNET VS. WELLS, 289 U.S. 670, at 679 (1932).
QUESTION: Just how are Protesters, throwing Court actions at
Federal Judges as Employees, going to prove that there were no
juristic benefits conferred in the income-producing setting that
the King is trying to tax in reciprocity? You're not going to be
able to prove any such thing until you start to hit the nail
right on the head, and get rid of those contracts that formed
invisibly when juristic benefits were accepted in your state of
silence. However technically wrong some Government attorney can
find and then chew up some of the points in that brief sketch of
the model OBJECTION that I talked about at the beginning of this
section, at least I OBJECTED, and at least I rejected the
benefits and got rid of that particular contract; and getting rid
of this EMPLOYMENT contract is in itself just a point of
beginning.
=============================================================[381]
Unlike Protesters, I am not concerned about what some little
snortations are that fly around inside a Judge's mind; however,
what Father is going to do about this or that -- now THAT
concerns me. If the Protester would now only Open his Eyes to
see the invisible Contracts Father has on us all down here from
the First Estate, and learn experientially from dealing with the
King in distasteful contracts whose origin is literally Hell
itself, not to use structurally similar Tort Law reasoning and
rationalizations when dealing with Heavenly Father in a known
impending Judgment, the ex-Protester can magnify his stature
before Father and avoid altogether being on the wrong side of
what will be the biggest Contract Star Chamber this world will
ever see: The Grand Judgment of the Last Day. [382]
[382]=============================================================
An enlargement of our comprehension, which includes the ability
to appreciate important impending events, is of a Heavenly
origin:
"Our religion teaches us truth, virtue, holiness, faith in God
and in his Son Jesus Christ. It reveals mysteries, it brings to
mind things past and present -- unfolding clearly things to come.
It is the foundation or mechanism; it is the spirit that gives
intelligence to every living being upon the Earth. All true
philosophy originates from that Foundation from which we draw
wisdom, knowledge, truth, and power. What does it teach us? To
love God and our fellow creatures -- to be compassionate, full of
mercy, long suffering, and patient to the forward and to those
who are ignorant. There is a glory in our religion that no other
religion that has ever been established upon the Earth, in the
absence of the true Priesthood, ever possessed. It is the
fountain of all intelligence; it is to bring Heaven to Earth and
to exalt Earth to Heaven; to prepare all intelligence that God
has placed in the hearts of the children of men; to mingle with
the intelligence that dwells in Eternity; and to elevate the mind
above the trifling and frivolous objects of time which tends [to
pull things] downward towards destruction. It frees the mind of
man from darkness and ignorance, gives him that intelligence that
flows from Heaven, and qualifies him to comprehend all things.
This is the character of [our] religion..."
-
Brigham Young, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle in
Great Salt Lake City on May 22, 1859; 7 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES
139, at 140 (London, 1860).
=============================================================[382]
Back