George Mercier's Invisible Contracts

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

George Mercier

[Pages 131-193]

[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE CONTRACTS to an electronic medium. For an explanation of the conventions used, please download the file INCONHLP.ZIP for further illumination. Other background information as well is contained in INCONHLP.ZIP. It is advisable to EXIT this file right now and read the contents of INCONHLP.ZIP before proceeding with your study of this file.]

Some years preceding his multiple prosecutions in 1984, Mr. Condo went down to a bank, and initiated an Equity relationship with that corporation and the King. Yes, Commercial contracts in effect with banks are invisible juristic contracts in effect with the King. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that banks are in a special Status with the King, and likewise so are the individual people who experience profit and gain from any Commercial contract they enter into with a bank. This relational effect of doing business in King's Commerce is pronounced quite clearly in the INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE the Supreme Court initiated publicly with DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS:


"National banks are instrumentalities of the Federal Government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States." [170]



DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS, 161 U.S. 275, at 283 (1896).

The factual setting giving rise to DAVIS was a Bankruptcy proceeding. In the many quotations from the United States Supreme Court and other judicial forums in this Letter, sentences were rearranged and then quoted out of original order for enhanced logical continuity; and in other places I made nominal punctuation and capitalization changes. Therefore, please refer to the original citations before requoting.



This Instrumentality Doctrine is very significant, and the word INSTRUMENTALITY means an Equity Relationship that is quite strong in American Jurisprudence. As nationally chartered banks are the Instrumentality of the Congress, consider the subordinate Party (the banks) as being the "right hand" of the Master (the Congress). This is a very powerful Doctrine indeed, and it needs to be understood for what it really means. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that, from a Judicial Perspective, any profit or gain experienced from a bank carries with it the same identical full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain. Consider, for a moment, the application of the Instrumentality Rule to corporations:


"Under this Rule, corporate existence will be disregarded where a corporate subsidiary is so organized and controlled and its affairs so conducted as to make it only an adjunct and instrumentality of another parent corporation." [171]


[171]=================raph Numbers
Uj[1][1]` ` [1]





a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers

_o[1][1]` ` [1]





a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers
h[1][1]` ` [1]


[1]hh#@$(a) hh#

a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ[1][1]` ` [1]


[1]hh#[1](@*i) (h-(#

2+a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3![1][1]` ` [1]


[1]hh#[1]([1]-@p/a) -pp2(#p

a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleXqq



Doc InitInitialize Document Style


[1] I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg[1]

Tech InitInitialize Technical Style.

k[1] I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical[1]

2zž%a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)W
؄(1) .
a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)
؅(a) .
a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6



a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9


؂1. [1][1]
2 Ra4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{



a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<



a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@
؆i) .
a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(
؇a) .

R[1]UQ[1]'}PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper




hp x‑ (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H? A








































28 +

1. Incorporate into Judy16 IRC 7343person, 26 CFR 1.11(a), (b), &

(c), & U.S. v. Tweel ( attached ) Demand all records within their

"control" which classify you as a 7343 or a 26 CFR 1.11(c) "person"

within 30 calendar days, cite "Tweel."

2. On Fed Tax Liens; look under "kind of tax" usually list a tax

form number. Suggest write to issuing IRC office and ask what kind

of tax is a "1040" tax. I am unable to find that section in the

IRC. Again cite "Tweel" and demand a response within 30 calendar

days. Did this month ago response in 2 weeks, "mistake" cited

section 6652(a) referring to two other sections " failure to file

forms for payment of dividends or patronage dividends for under

$10.00" Agent said was going to refile liens. Waiting for him to

do this. Get certified copies of the recorded liens. Look at Penal


115 "filing false information in a public record is a

felony." file complaint with D.A. A.G. or Feds. whatever it


3. You probably already know what the word "levy" means. Therefore

"Notice of Levy" only means that your property is deemed available

to satisfy a tax "assessed." Does not mean they can take it until

they seize. Altogether different procedure and only certain

property is subject to seizure; like stuff you make or transport

alcohol, tobacco or firearms with. Will send later.


(4190 Edition)

Ch. 1.

Determination of Tax Liability, Tax On Individuals
Sec. 1.11 Income tax on individuals
(in part)8"

(a) x‑

Hez$ General rule. x‑

@[ (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes

an income tax on the income of every individual who is a

citizen or resident of the United States and, to the

extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b) on the income

of a nonresident alien individual.8"

(b) x‑

Hez$ Citizens or residents of the United States liable

to tax. x‑

@[ In general, all citizens of the United States,

wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are

liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the

income is received from sources within or without the

United States.8"

(c) x‑

Hez$ Who is a citizen. x‑

@[ Every person born or

naturalized in the United States and subject to its

jurisdiction is a citizen.8"

Subtitle FProcedure And Administration
Ch. 75.P
Crimes, Other Offenses, and Forfeitures.

Subchapter DMiscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture Provisions


7343. Definition of Term "Person".
The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an

officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or

employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee,

or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of

which the violation occurs.8"
Secs. 145(d), 894(b)(2(D), 1718(d), 1821(a)(4),

2557(b)(8), 2707(d), 3228(in part), 3710(c), 3793(b)(2),

1939 Code.8"

His assertion that 26 U.S.C. 

7343 only applies to

business entities and their employees ignores the word

"includes" in the statute delineating the class of persons

liable. He asserts that the sixteenth amendment only

allows taxing income from "sources" (entities and

monopolies created by law), not persons. The sixteenth

amendment authorization, however, is for a tax on income

from whatever source derived.8"

X[1] gt> XA[1]

United States v. Condo


@[ (1984) 741 F.2d 238, 239.8"

X[1]Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a

legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left

unanswered would be intentionally misleading.8"



United States v. Tweel


@[ ( 1977 ) 550 F.2d 297, 299.8"
t an action to perfect Judgment against you, possibly limited to an IN REM proceeding in some states, and thence to initiate a foreclosure action on his Lien. Whatever deficiency he fails to acquired on the forced Referee's Sale of your house, he can take on any other asset you own (if his judgment was IN PERSONAM). Yet, during Court proceedings, no written contract was ever presented to the Judge to prove that a contract existed. So where do Judges get off on the idea that a contract is in effect, just somehow? The reason why an invisible contract was in effect is because you had accepted the benefits that the roofing contractor had offered to you, conditionally. This means that the contractor offered you the benefit of a new layer of asphalt, subject to the condition that a set sum of money be transferred over to him on his completion of the benefit. So the homeowner accepted benefits where reciprocity was expected in the mind of the benefit's contributor (and the roofing contractor is the person contributing the benefits of a new roof to that contract). So even though no written statement of the contract was ever created by either party, the contractor very much gets a judgment against you as the homeowner, and also gets to foreclose on your house, as well. And all of that takes place very much in close harmony with Nature -- and nothing was ever signed, and nothing was ever written down. Yet, according to Protestor liability standards, no contract was in effect -- but the Protestors are seriously in error and are incorrect. But by the end of this Letter, you will see that there is an identical relationship in effect between cheap home owning deadbeats who refuse to pay contractors for benefits accepted, and numerous Highway Contract Protestors and Income Tax Protestors out there, who think that they are being politically cute, somehow, by refusing to return the reciprocity that an invisible contract they entered into calls for. Yes, you Protestors are deceiving only yourselves by believing that unless the contract is in writing, that it is unenforceable or otherwise nonexistent. After reading to the end of this Letter, I might suggest that you come back to this area and reread this exemplary presentation, as it will trigger close parallels in your imagination between cheap people, trying to get a new roof for nothing, and Tax Protestors you are possibly acquainted with, who also refuse to reciprocate and pay for benefits that were previously accepted.


Yes, the Law operates out in the practical setting, and not on paper, and you Highway Contract Protestors are really missing the boat. [294]



"The law necessarily steps in to explain, and construe the stipulations of parties, but never to supersede, or vary them. A great mass of human transactions depends upon implied contracts, upon contracts, not written, which grow out of the acts of the parties."

- Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 249 ["Contracts"] (Cambridge, 1833).



So, do we really need a written contract on someone in order to bring them to their knees? The answer is, no: No written contract is required by any one in order to work someone else into an immoral position on the default of non-payment of money or some other technical contract requirement, just like Pan Am did to us in the oral jet lease example, and just like the roofing contractor did to the homeowner. No written statement of the contract is now necessary in the United States, or ever was necessary, going clear back in chronology to the Garden of Eden. [295]



I could have gone back in Time even further, but where does someone draw the line? With Heavenly Father and his Law there is no line to be drawn, since there is no identifiable point of chronological beginning.



However, in order to perfect judicial contract enforcement, it is required that you adduce evidence that a benefit was accepted by the other party against whom you are moving, and additionally, that the other party wanted to experience the benefit that you offered to them conditionally. This is a key Equity Jurisdiction Principle to understand in defining a relationship with your regional Prince; because the Prince does not need any individually negotiated, custom written contract from anyone in order to rightfully and properly extract money out of them in a civil extraction proceeding, or otherwise assert a Regulatory Jurisdiction against them out o those highways; Like the Prince, the King also has his written PRIOR NOTICE and PUBLIC NOTICE statutes to point to, and so all the King now needs to do is to adduce some evidence that you experienced a benefit the King offered, and it then becomes unethical for the Federal Magistrate to work an immoral Tort on the King by restraining the unjust enrichment by the acceptance of the King's benefits. Do you see what a difficult position a clever King has worked Judges into -- anyway the Judge rules in your favor, on the merits of the case, is to defile the Judge. QUESTION: Did the jet's leasee want to lease the jet and experience a benefit by using Pam Am's jet? Certainly. The idea of wanting a benefit is an important one, since if a benefit is forced on a party who objects, the benefit then becomes a gift and no reciprocating obligation arises to pay for the benefit, even if the benefit is experienced by the default of the Grantee to take the benefit back. This BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE DOCTRINE applies to both tangible as well as intangible benefits. The King's Scribes in the Congress, who write the King's LEX, addressed this same question by way of an analogy in 1970 with an amendment to the U.S. Postal Statutes regarding the mailing of unordered merchandise. [296]



Title 39, Section 3009(a) reads that:

"... the mailing of unordered merchandise... constitutes an unfair trade practice..."

Section 3009(c):

"Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a)... may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender."



So, in Equity Relationships where contracts govern, no formal written contract is necessary to work someone else into an immoral position on their deficiency of QUID PRO QUO reciprocity through the nonpayment of money to you. And when the King is a party to an unwritten and invisible contract, otherwise disputed factual setting arguments surrounding the AMOUNT OF MONEY DUE question are not applicable (when the King is a party), due to the prior PUBLIC NOTICE effect of his statutes (and therefore Persons entering into Equity Relationships with the King have already consented to the AMOUNT OF MONEY DUE terms). If anyone ever tells you that our King is dim witted or dumb, get rid of such a person but quick. [297]



What the King is taking advantage of here are some fellows called PRESUMPTIONS. These little creatures are known to make quick appearances at Trials -- when they surface, go to work in someone's favor on some evidentiary question, and then disappear back into the woodwork again from which they came. PRESUMPTIONS are not evidence itself, but these invisible fellows function in a Courtroom in ways similar to directors and Stage Lights in a drama theater production; by directing some of the sets and actors to turn this way or that, and by throwing different colored lights on objects on the Stage. PRESUMPTIONS change the appearance of the evidence Show that is being presented to the Jury -- and as a result of the different Lighting angles and color hue techniques, the Jury (the Audience) is lead to make certain INFERENCES and PRESUMPTIONS regarding the evidence Show that the Jury is looking at:

"Presumptions are deductions or conclusions which the law requires the jury to make under certain circumstances, in the absence of evidence in the case which leads the jury to a different or contrary conclusion. A presumption continues to exist only so long as it is not overcome or outweighed by evidence in the case to the contrary; but unless and until so outweighed, the jury should find in accordance with the presumption."

- E. Devitt et al., in FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE AND INSTRUCTIONS, Section 71.04 (2nd Edition, 1970).

As it pertains to Government PUBLIC NOTICE statutes, one of these PRESUMPTION fellows is waiting in the wings, called a NOTICE PRESUMPTION. This fellow is waiting for that day when some statute will be thrown at you in a prosecution. When that great day happens, this invisible fellow will suddenly make his appearance in your prosecution, coloring the evidence adjudged in a light unfavorable to any LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON CONTRACT TERMS claims you raise at that time; and then having done his work, he will go back into the woodwork and disappear.

There is an extensive body of EVIDENTIARY LAW ON PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES written down waiting for your intellectual absorption; as a point of beginning, to become acquainted with the MODUS OPERANDI of these slick and invisible hardworking PRESUMPTION fellows, consider:

- Wigmore on EVIDENCE ["PRESUMPTIONS"] (1981) [a huge 9 volume set];


[Wigmore and Thayer are extensively quoted by state and Federal judges in all American jurisdictions; when the Congress drafted their new FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE in 1974, the opinions of Wigmore and Thayer were predominate in quotations cited by commentators. See the 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, HR 5463 (House) and Serial #2 (Senate)];

- C. McCormick in HANDBOOK ON EVIDENCE (1954 Edition);

- McBaine in PRESUMPTIONS: ARE THEY EVIDENCE?, 26 California Law Review 519 (1938);

- David Louisell in CONSTRUING RULE 301: INSTRUCTING THE JURY..., 63 Virginia Law Review 28 (1977);

- Morgan and Maguire in LOOKING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS AT EVIDENCE, 50 Harvard Law Review 909 (1937);

- 34 L Ed 2nd ["PRESUMPTIONS"];


The Second Coming of the Savior spells the end of this world for Gremlins (as this is THEIR world, in a sense); and like Gremlins, these invisible PRESUMPTION fellow will be raised and brought forth to make their appearance at the Last Judgment Day with Father; but unlike Gremlins, these PRESUMPTION fellows won't need to concern themselves with a double cross by Lucifer: Because PRESUMPTIONS are not up for judgment. Generally, the interposition by the invisible PRESUMPTION fellows into our Celestial Contracts are sophisticated concepts and require a presentation setting in a protracted background discussion, which is something that lends itself well to another future Letter. However, for an introductory glimpse into the world of PRESUMPTIONS and of their origins in the Heavens, see FRANCIS COFFRIN VS. UNITED STATES [156 U.S. 432 (1894)]; there the Supreme Court suggested the possibility that the PRESUMPTION of innocence in a criminal Trial can be found in Deuteronomy [COFFRIN, id., at 454]. When you get through with my impending discourse on PRESUMPTIONS, you will see that these invisible PRESUMPTION fells have been around a lot longer than just the BC days of Moses when he wrote Deuteronomy -- as their origin is long before the Garden of Eden was created, back before this World was created, back a long time ago, on a planet far away, when our Heavenly Father, as a man then, went through his Second Estate just like you and I are going through our Second Estate now. Through contemporary Prophets, it has been revealed to us what some of the circumstances were that Father when through back then. ... As for us now, just what PRESUMPTION fellows will be making their appearance in our favor or against us at the Last Day depends upon the factual setting we create down here; factors taken into consideration are whether or not First Estate replacement Covenants were entered into, and which of those Covenants were then honored in whole or in part; and what was the extent to which we listened to Lucifer's SUB SILENTIO imps hacking away at us -- that "... YOU JUST DON'T NEED TO CONCERN YOURSELF WITH ANY OF THAT CONTRACT JAZZ. THAT MERCIER -- BAAH!" Provident to understand for the moment is that when we are UNDER THE COVENANT, numerous PRESUMPTIONS will be both making an appearance on our behalf and operating in our favor, at the Last Day.



So although written contracts are not that important, of and by themselves, in terms of attaching and detaching liability, however without written statements of the contracts being signed by the parties, it is then required that expensive and protracted trial litigation be conducted just to prove the content of the contract -- since the other party in default will always just lie about it and deny liability, and you in turn then have to "over prove" the other party's lie (called the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE). You avoid all of that protracted mess (assuming that you want to win) by simply getting the other party to make written admissions as to the content of the contract, and then you can deal with the enforcement of that contract at a later time in chronologically accelerated Summary Judgment Proceedings (meaning just brief LAW AND MOTION Hearings). So it is for the economy of the contract's judicial enforcement that the written statement of the contract then becomes important: For economical reasons, by being able to present the Judge with a non-disputed factual setting through written admissions, and thereby avoid the cost, expense, and delay of a trial, and of avoiding the financial cost of calling in witnesses to over prove the position of your adversary, since in civil grievances, the party possessing the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE prevails).


Mindful of that government Principle hanging in the background, we will now consider the following points of attachment of King's Equity Jurisdiction on us all...


they finally gave up and stopped asking for my consent altogether to search the trunk when I told Mr. Nice Guy that the consent they sought would not be forthcoming regardless of who they sent over to talk to me. So a MUTT AND JEFF tactic is where the police will present to someone two opposite and contrasting personality extremes, in order to trigger the desired admission/confession/consent, etc. In describing the MUTT AND JEFF tactic that the police love to use, in the application of its use during interrogations, the Supreme Court has said that:

"... in this technique, two agents are employed. Mutt, the relentless investigator, who knows the subject is guilty and is not going to waste any time. He's sent a dozen men away for this crime and he's going to send the subject away for the full term. Jeff, on the other hand, is obviously a kindhearted man. He has a family himself. He has a brother who was involved in a little scrape like this. He disapproves of Mutt and his tactics and will arrange to get him off the case if the subject will cooperate. He can't hold Mutt off for very long. The subject would be wise to make a quick decision. The technique is applied by having both investigators present while Mutt acts out his role. Jeff may stand by quietly and demur at some of Mutt's tactics. When Jeff makes his plea for cooperation, Mutt is not present in the room."

- MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436, at 452 (1965).



But it did not work.


The arrest operation had lasted across several hours; the Sheriff's Department had called out nine patrol cars and had detoured traffic around the arrest scene [they just love to put on a big production, after all, this highway is THEIR kingdom]. They probably resented the SUB SILENTIO Statement I was making by wearing very expensive business clothes and carrying a large amount of cash on me, while stingily refusing to spend so much as $18 to register my car. But I had a hunch that they resented most of all my cackles and giggling, which I had a difficult time restraining -- after all, this was a criminal arrest, this was heinous, I was supposed to "have done something wrong," I was supposed to have been feeling guilty, I was supposed to have earned a spanking. [281]



Research on the decision making process by police to arrest or not arrest [or in my case, to intensify or not intensify the arrest scene] typically centers around the:

"... social organization of arrest, especially how upon situational elements, such as the deference and social position of the suspect towards police, the preference of the complainant for arrest, and the social position of the suspect, affect the decision..."


In the old days, the emphasis of the INSPECTORATE had always been preventative in nature, i.e., that of generating compliance with the Law. The known policy objectives back then were to protect the public from unscrupulous criminal adventurers, to develop public trust, and to facilitate the flow of Commercial activities. Unlike today, the INSPECTORATE'S job then was not that of filling jails (which were then few in number), but of preventing Tort violation by controlling and ordering relational standards among people.

Initially, the power of police officers to arrest on their own authority was limited to matters committed in their presence and to the execution of Warrants to arrest. The reverse has gradually become to be the case nowadays. With the emergence and extension of the doctrine of arrest on PROBABLE CAUSE, the discretionary power of the police was expanded, and so as a result, the apprehension of criminals came to dominate the organizational police department mandate. With this objective in view, now the focus of police practice training shifted to conform to this exaggerated emphasis on arrest. Even today, little official attention is given to the following facts:

1. That the ordinary police officer on patrol infrequently makes an arrest in his daily duty [A RAND NEW YORK study reported an average arrest productivity of .22 Index crime arrests per man month for uniformed patrol, and .86 Index for detective's work. See P. Greenwood in AN ANALYSIS OF THE APPREHENSION ACTIVITIES OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, at 49 (Rand New York Institute, 1970)];

2. Citizen reporting, and leads originating from Citizens reporting illicit behavior, accounts for the large majority of all arrests by patrol officers [A. Reiss in THE POLICE AND THE PUBLIC, at 84 et seq. (1971].

In short, the principle business of American policing is now the enforcement of Criminal Laws by detecting statutory infractions (of which few infractions actually require the factual presence of damages) and apprehending the offenders, who are then thrown at the criminal justice machinery for some indeterminate CRACKING. This contemporary Criminal Law now treats our Father's old values of peacekeeping and other order-maintenance functions as unimportant residual matters [a quiescent state of affairs a typical American police commander would probably snort at today as being patently unfeasible]. See generally, W. Spelman & D. Brown in CALLING THE POLICE: CITIZEN REPORTING OF SERIOUS CRIME (Police Executive Research Forum, 1981).



I was in the patrol car facing West, so the large evening sun was setting over the roof of my car parked in front of us, and just like in some Hollywood CLICHE scenario, the Sheriff's Deputies had a small army of scavenger like silhouettes working my car over, taking whatever they could find in it, tossing it out on the road, and uttering salty frustrations at their legal disability to search my trunk without my consent. [282]



Uttering salty frustrations is something that the police are very well acquainted with, as their progenitors in ancient Rome also got their cookies turned over by ventilating the unsavory expressions of the vilest slang then floating around Rome:

"In the reign of Augustus, when Rome had a population of nearly a million, there was a police force of seven thousand men, with a commissioner, inspectors, captains, and lieutenants. Their twenty-one station houses were carefully distributed over the whole area of Rome. One of these old time stations was exhumed in 1868, and the remains of it show that the Roman police were well-housed and cared for. They had a fine building of marble and brick, with baths, a gymnasium, and a lounging-place for "reserves" who were not actually on patrol duty.

"A peculiar interest attaches to this station house, because on its walls there still remain the jests and comments which the policemen scratched there when off duty. Many of the inscriptions seem very modern, for they are sometimes criticisms of those who were 'high up' -- sometimes even of the Emperor -- and they are often couched in slang, or in language that is viler still."

- Richard Kemp in MUNSEY'S MAGAZINE, at page 441 ["The Evolution of the Police"] (July, 1910).



After having decided that they were not going to find anything in the car to justify throwing another slice of LEX at me, they had one last item of business to attend to -- they wanted to make sure that I understood that this Government Highway was THEIR kingdom, and so they were determined to wipe that sneaky grin off my face. [283]



This time, the Sheriff's bouncers were passively respectful of the Law, although they are not always so. The study of naked law breaking by the police is an art in itself; for an analysis of their sneaky circumvention of the EXCLUSIONARY RULE, see J. Skolnick in JUSTICE WITHOUT TRIAL: LAW ENFORCEMENT IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY (1960) and Stinchocombe in INSTITUTIONS OF PRIVACY IN THE DETERMINATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, 69 American Justice Society 150 (1963). For their circumvention of suspect interrogation rules, see Reiss & Black in INTERROGATION AND THE CRIMINAL PROCESS, 347 Annals 47 (1967). For an examination of the illegal use of police force in general, see Reiss in POLICE BRUTALITY -- ANSWERS TO KEY QUESTIONS, 5 Transaction 2, at 10 to 19 (July/August, 1968). The general conclusion they reach collectively through their protracted intellectualizing is an obvious one: That the police are motivated in part by stimulation originating from the suspect, which stimulation can be either negative or positive in nature; and they are also motivated in part by the specificity and intensity of instructions to CRACK, by departmental management.



So they decided to make their closing Statement for the evening by dragging me in front of a judge, and then throwing a Criminal Arraignment at me.


At the Arraignment, I interrupted the Judge as he was reciting the charges to ask a very simple question: Is this a COURT OF RECORD?


In response, the Judge threw an invective back at me that did not answer the question asked; rather his little deflectional snort was to state that he was just not a very good Judge to put such a question to. My response was to state that I was not a very good individual to throw a Prosecution at -- and with that, the Judge's face distorted into a dozen different directions; I had his giblets into a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 cracker for conducting an Arraignment without a transcript being made. The furious Judge now had an Adversary who apparently knew just enough to make him dangerous, so the Arraignment was moved into another room and started over again.


I was up against some two years incarceration, but that really did not concern me. In the following weeks, after starting to hear some of my arguments in pre-Trial hearings, circumstances came to pass (after I was threatened with a 30-day commitment at the State Hospital for a Psychiatric Examination because I had continuously refused to hire a lawyer), [284]



Criminal Magistrates want very much for you to have Counsel, as the mere lack of Counsel bars them incarcerating accused Persons. Frequently, I will refer to Magistrates ruling over chronologically compressed criminal ceremonies as STAR CHAMBERS; this characterization I merely borrowed from the Supreme Court, as they annulled a criminal conviction where Counsel was forced on an unwilling Defendant:

"The Sixth Amendment, when naturally read, thus implies a right of self-representation. This reading is reinforced by the Amendment's roots in English legal history.

"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late 16th and early 17th Centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common law traditions. For these reasons, and because it specialized in trying "political" offenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard for basic individual rights. The Star Chamber Court not merely allowed but required defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an Indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed."

- FARETTA VS. CALIFORNIA, 422 U.S. 806, at 821 (1975).

Yet, there are writers that try and create the image that the King's STAR CHAMBER, along with its torture and dismemberment on political dissidents, really wasn't all that bad [see STAR CHAMBER MYTHOLOGY by Thomas Barnes in 5 American Journal of Legal History, at 1 (January, 1961)]; a stratagem of INTELLECTUAL CONTAINMENT by rewriting history that Gremlins are well acquainted with in other textual settings.



where I was alone with the part-time state judge in his law office [I went to his law offices to serve him with an Emergency Appeal Notice, but the judge invited me into his own office for a chat, and so I had it out with the judge, right then and there]. I did not know it then, but the judge did not want the Emergency Appeal being heard before appellate judges. The meeting lasted for several hours, and the judge explained to me in a round about and vague way how I was wrong on the merits of the large volume of Tort Law arguments that I had thrown at him. He talked to me evasively about the duties of Citizenship (which is a Contract Law relationship), and how Licenses revoked by the state are in a special status where Contract Law still applies, although he did not specifically explain to me just why this is so; which means that I asked the Administrative Law Judge the wrong questions. [285]



Asking the right question is a real art in itself, and very serious art at that: It is literally a matter of life and death, not just in this World, but even more so in the impending Third Estate as well. In 1949, the Supreme Court was asked a question: Did the refusal of the Trial Judge presiding over a murder conviction violate DUE PROCESS when the Judge relied on information at the Sentencing Hearing (after the Defendant was convicted by the Jury), whom the Defendant could neither confront nor cross-examine. The Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendment's DUE PROCESS CLAUSE applied to criminal prosecutions up until the time of conviction; therefore, sentence of death affirmed -- go get executed. [See WILLIAMS VS. NEW YORK, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) (After a Jury convicts, the Judge is free to impose any Sentence within statutory guidelines, and the Judge is free to draw upon any information he feels like to make his decisions, such as previous convictions, etc.)]. For asking the wrong question, Williams got the electric chair.

... In 1976, the Supreme Court was asked the question whether the mandatory death sentence imposed by the North Carolina legislature violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, the answer came back: Yes, it did. For asking the right question, sentence of death reversed; no execution here. [See WOODSON VS. NORTH CAROLINA, 428 U.S. 280 (1978)].



When I probed deeper to extract detailed information as to whether it was the revoked nature of the old Driver's License that continued to attach a regulatory jurisdiction, he said loosely that my revoked License status was not relevant in holding me to those Motor Vehicle statutes, and that I could be held to those statutes even if I had never applied for a License. And so, even though I knew that he was withholding from me some Law that I wanted to know, I quickly reasoned that I was wrong not just for one reason, but for several substantive reasons, so I capitulated immediately, and the judge offered to give me a qualified dismissal, his head hanging down looking at the floor, probably finding his protracted conversation with some occasional sharp technical exchanges on the Law, particularly in the Counsel area, to have been simply incredible. And the prosecution so ended, quickly and unexpectedly. Suddenly, my RIGHT TO TRAVEL Case, that I thought I would be arguing on appeal, just fell apart and collapsed right in front of me; my Case that I had spent so long in preparation and in building up an air-tight defense line just vanished from underneath me; all of the incredible amount of time that I had spent researching and writing my large volume of justifying defense arguments, of digging out large volumes of Highway Cases from the 1800's, and all of my meticulous records preservation of an arrest scene factual setting where rights were demanded... all of that went out the window for a reason that I never originally contemplated, a reason that I never thought of, and a reason that I never even considered as probable as I was writing those copious Tort Law arguments: An invisible contract I had no knowledge of, that suddenly made an unexpected appearance. Yes, an unknown and invisible Highway Contract was actually in effect when I was driving around without a License in effect; a contract was in effect that my legal Patriot mentors had specifically and adamantly told me did not exist (since I was not using the Highways for a Commercial purpose and my Driver's License did not exist). But the Patriot advisors were point-blank wrong, and the contract did exist, as I will explain later; and the contract was invisible, and I have no recourse at all to my legal Protesting mentors who led me to the false conclusions that they did. And now I know, in a very real way, what a Witch or Bolshevik Gremlin will be feeling like at the Last Day before Father; having spent so much time and careful preparation in developing a line of defense to win a known impending Judgment, but it was all for naught as one tiny little invisible contract I had no knowledge of nullified my entire array of Tort Law arguments, up and down the line. I have some compassionate remorse for those poor Gremlins, as I know what they are going to be up against at the Last Day, and it isn't very pleasant. And just as I have no recourse to the Patriot clowns I listened to who exaggerated the legal significance of the Driver's License as being "the contract", so too will the world's Gremlins have absolutely no recourse to seek a redress from their mentor, Lucifer, who is now also leading them astray for the identical same reason: Important factual knowledge is being withheld from the Gremlins on the existence of an invisible Contract in effect with Father from the First Estate, which nullifies their Tort defense arguments and damages vitiation justifications. After I subtracted out my Tort Law related arguments that the invisible Highway use contract nullified, only a handful of procedural errors still remained (at that pre-Trial stage); I also had an interesting administrative estoppel, and also a strong automatic conviction reversal on the Counsel issue, but none of these were ON POINT to the RIGHT TO TRAVEL question itself that I had been juiced up to argue on Appeal.


Unlike Tax Protestors, I have no interest in trying to argue Rights and numerous procedural deficiencies, while coming up to the appellate courts on the left side of the factual issue: Because the most important element of your defense is the factual setting, and that instant factual setting favored the Prince, as viewed from a judicial perspective: Multiple invisible contracts were in effect that I had no knowledge of. As I will explain later, when I used that Government Highway, I had accepted a special benefit that the New York Prince had conditionally offered to me -- offered with expectations of reciprocity being held by the benefit's donor, and so now an invisible contract was actually in effect. Unlike Tax Protestors, I am in a teachable state of mind, and so when a judge is trying to explain serious and fundamental error to me (as distinguished from mere philosophical disagreement with my defiance), I listen.


There is wisdom in selective capitulation. For example, like being in a jail processing center and having 6 jail guards on you with choke holds to drag your fingerprints out of you through your blood, there are some circumstances where your failure to capitulate is to be discouraged. And that Tax Protestor from California I mentioned earlier, being up to his neck in contracts with the King, should have capitulated for his own good; his defense was lousy and his "Recessions" were never filed timely, and so he should have capitulated for that reason alone. Criminal prosecutions are adversary proceedings, and even if yo are correct, your failure to explain why to the Court is necessarily fatal, when certain invisible juristic contracts the Judge has already taken IN CAMERA Judicial Notice of, are PRIMA FACIE Evidence of your taxation liability. Yet, there is a tremendous amount of value to be gained by being "Hardened" experientially, and our willingness to get our feet wet and be prosecuted even though we may be technically wrong for different reasons, will later prove to be to our advantage; as the Bolshevized threats of future Kings to pay or else be incarcerated, while shocking everyone else into submission, will fall on our death ears.


For people like Armen Condo and Irwin Schiff, who have such strong political feelings against the King, this internal bias of their's is obscuring their own practical judgment. So correctly understood, addressing this Armen Condo/Irwin Schiff manifestation of sloughing off responsibility for their acts and relative state of factual knowledge onto third parties "... it's the King who's wrong, not me," more important than the problem of exercising judgment on a limited slice of the available facts, is the problem of they're not being in a teachable state of mind. When I sent Armen Condo that Letter, his reaction was to quickly toss it aside in the context of oral derogatory characterizations. Someone else found it and pulled out of it things Armen Condo saw, but never read. So the distinction between Armen Condo and the other fellow was that one was in a teachable state of mind, and Armen Condo wasn't. As a Judge, I could overlook ignorance when the now enlightened Defendants wants to remedy his prior misdeeds (negating the CORPUS DELICTI question of damages), but a non-teachable PERSON gets committed to a cage: His own worst enemy isn't the King, it's himself. [286]



You and I, Mr. May, have an interest in being concerned about this since the sentencing of Irwin Schiff earlier this month in Hartford, Connecticut, to 3 years incarceration based on technical violations of his bank account contracts he adamantly refuses to get rid of, gives outsiders very strong impressions that this Movement is either illegal or unfeasible, and probably both.

[In December of 1982, the IRS seized a large amount of money out of Irwin Schiff's bank accounts. Mr. Schiff then discussed his seizure and its secondary ramifications in a monthly publication he was editing at the time, called THE SCHIFF REPORT.]

As for the public, the general attitude of outsiders is that if the kingpin of tax resistance research, Irwin Schiff himself, is unable to keep himself out of the King's Dungeon, then there just must not be too much substance to our philosophical position.

It has always been difficult for folks on the outside to relate well to others who were being criminally prosecuted for political reasons. Last month, Irwin Schiff was being prosecuted under an infracted contract; Irwin Schiff had been selected for prosecution by reason of his high political profile. The significance of Mr. Schiff's taxation contract with the King that was presented to the Federal Judge was an elusive item for Irwin Schiff to come to grips with, as he dismissed for naught the advisories to GET RID OF THOSE CONTRACTS, that were given to him by sympathizers I know of. The significance of those contracts was invisible to him. Like Tax Protestors, Latter-day Saints have had a long and unpleasant background in being prosecuted by Governments as well. When Brigham Young left Nauvoo, Illinois in 1846 to escape incredible persecution, and started the long march out to the Salt Lake City Valley, they actually fled the United States, as Utah was the Territory of Mexico at that time. Those folks who are indifferent to the easy use of Juristic Institutions as instruments of harassment and persecution, typically speak unfavorable comments about those who sympathize with the persecuted:

"What this deluded people may do with their prophet, priest, and king, an unwilling prisoner in the hands of the law, no man can foretell. I only witness and record such bitter hatred of their rulers, such fierce invectives against the Government under which they live, and such muttered threats of coming retribution against whom they deem their oppressors as I have never witnessed before."

- A writer for the NEW YORK TIMES ["Brigham Young in Court"], page 1 (January 14, 1872).

Many folks snickered at Irwin Schiff for this tax protesting while reading about him in the papers [as technically incorrect as his protesting was], but like Brigham Young, Irwin Schiff will one day OPEN HIS EYES and look back on his commitment to a Federal cage under an infracted contract for that it really was, and be ever grateful that the seriousness of invisible contracts was driven into him, as he goes forth to inherit and preside over WORLDS WITHOUT END, leaving those who vindictively snickered to fall behind as they continue on with their attractive behavioral justifications sounding in Tort. Irwin Schiff is a great man in many ways, and those who are great have much to do, so some dimension of error will always surface here and there for others to find fault with:

"He that has much to do will do some things wrong, and of that wrong must suffer the consequences; and if it were possible that he should always act rightly, yet when such numbers are to judge his conduct, the bad will censure and obstruct him by malevolence, and the good sometimes by mistake."

- Samuel Johnson, as quoted by the editors of the NEW YORK CITY DIRECTORY, inside front cover [John Trow Publisher, New York (May 1, 1864) {New York Historical Society, LIBRARY, New York City}.



It is very much highly moral and proper for the Judiciary of the United States to forcibly extract a 1040 out of Taxpayers: Because the mandatory disclosure of information in a 1040 is identical to the disclosure of information that is routinely extracted out of adversaries in civil litigation (called "Discovery"); [287]



In a really pathetic status Case where manifold contracts governed, the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress has the Common Law right, in an income tax collection setting, to force Citizens to produce testimonial and other evidentiary goodies against their will and over their objection, even though no explicit Congressional statutes specifically authorized the evidentiary grab. See UNITED STATES VS. HARVEY EUGE [444 U.S. 707 (1980)]. Mr. Euge was up to his neck in Citizenship and multiple Commercial contracting instruments like bank accounts, which to him were invisible since he did not understand their significance in the impending judgment setting; and so like a Gremlin at the Last Judgment Day before Father, Harvey Euge turned to the Judiciary appealing for rights, justice, and fairness -- only to find his arguments falling on death ears. Harvey Euge I feel sorry for, but I resent his lawyers who took his money and did not enlighten Harvey on his error.



and in a King's Commerce setting, where the Taxpayer experienced financial enrichment and Federal Benefits in the context of reciprocity being expected, the Taxpayer and the King are in a Contractual relationship where Tort Law Principles of fairness and privacy are not even relevant.


One of the reasons why the circumstances surrounding the initial execution of a contract, the contract's existential RAISON D'ETRE, of any contract in Commerce is important is because the judicial enforceability of the contract drops a notch or two into another Status altogether if the deficiency element of either party never having experienced any benefit from that contract surfaces during a grievance as an attack strategy. This requirement of experiencing a benefit is very important in American jurisprudence, and properly so, since it is immoral and unethical to hold a contract against a person he received no benefit or gain from. In this case of entering into bank account contracts, could someone please show me how any person could possibly have a checking account or a bank loan, or any type of credit or depository relationship with a bank, and not experience a hard tangible financial benefit? This places Judges in a difficult position in that if they simply toss aside and annul contracts because one of the parties involved doesn't feel like honoring some uncomfortable terms the contract now calls for, but that same nonchalant party does not want to give up or return any of the financial benefits they experienced under the life of the contract, then by examining the prospective consequences of potential annulment, we find that the Judge is actually in a difficult moral position for not enforcing the contract: Because the nonchalant party gets away with the illicit retention of hard financial gain they experienced through the operation of the contract -- if that prosecution ever gets dismissed.


This is a contributing reason as to why Federal Magistrates come down so hard on, and so openly, brazenly, and freely snort at "Tax Protestors," so called, (and with so little concern for their being reversed on appeal), who are dragged into their Court by the King's Agents on an administrative contract enforcement action -- WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE: Because a Commercial contract was in effect, the Judge knows that the Defendant has experienced financial gain from that contract, and that now letting the Defendant out of the contract is immoral. [288]



Some folks reading that Armen Condo Letter have been surprised that the Federal Judge already had a copy of Armen's bank accounts in front of him, while Armen was throwing his foolish Tort Law arguments, in the form of Constitutional pronouncements, at the Federal Judge; and in fact the Judge also had Armen's bank accounts even before the prosecution even started. This should not really have surprised anyone, since in all criminal prosecutions in the United States, in all political jurisdictions, both state and Federal, from murder to rape to check forgery to bombing a Federal building, there is always a preliminary examination of the evidence the prosecuting attorneys want to use. This examination normally takes place in the Judge's Chambers (called an IN CAMERA examination), at the time the Judge is requested to consider signing the Bench Warrant/Arrest Warrant/Criminal Summons. The examination determines if there is enough valid evidence to bind the Defendant over for Trial. Quite often there is a second examination hearing in open court (called a Preliminary Examination even though it is the second evidentiary examination for the Judge) that is like a mini-Trial, particularly with felonies, with the Defendant present in open court in adversary proceedings. For a mentioning of the practice of the IRS (through the personality of the local United States Attorney) to adduce evidence of that PERSON'S entry into Interstate Commerce before the Judge, quietly, EX PARTE, and in an IN CAMERA meeting, in advance of the issuance of the criminal 7203 Summons, see the unreported Slip Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the UNITED STATES VS. RONALD FOSTER, ET AL., dated November 29, 1977, page 3. (Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Number 76-3733).

And it is in those quiet Chambers when the Criminal Summons is signed that the most important "Trial" takes place: Because it is then that the Judge quietly takes Judicial Notice of the fact that you are up to your neck in contracts with the King.



But be advised that nothing I have said so far relates at all to the liability for the payment of the Excise Tax on personal incomes (the so-called Income Tax). Even though the Income Tax is an Excise Tax, it is also a Franchise Tax and several other things. This is why Federal Judges openly snort at folks making a defense to the Income Tax, so-called, or its administrative mandates in Title 26, based on deficiencies claimed from its Commercial Excise Tax application perspective. In Federal Appellate Circuit Courts, attorneys who argue the "Income Tax is an Excise Tax" line for the clients are sometimes fined. What those lawyers do not concern themselves with is that although the Income Tax has been characterized on occasion by Federal Courts has being an EXCISE TAX in reported opinions, such a characterization is not exclusive; additionally, the meaning of just what an EXCISE TAX is has been organically enlarged over the centuries. Your arguments, documenting the deficiencies in the Income Tax as an Excise Tax as applied to your client, are only valid and legitimate, if and only if, your client has previously cut and terminated all other adhesive attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction, of which the Citizenship Contract is an important item, so that the only remaining disputed area of Equity Jurisdiction left over involves questions of voluntary entrance into Interstate Commerce, an area of Law very much appropriate for an Excise Tax. Then, and only then, do your arguments get addressed by Federal Magistrates. But such a pure and lily white person is extremely rare today, and such a pure and clean rescission out away from King's Equity is a tactically difficult thing to do, even when you are planning it in advance and are trying to do it. If your client has other attachments of Equity Jurisdiction on his Person, and you lawyers argue Excise Tax deficiencies on Appeal, then without even addressing the substance of your Excise Tax deficiencies, your arguments are patently stupid on their face: Because you have only told the Federal Court somewhere between 3% to 8% of what they need to hear. What about the other 95%? What about the other attachments of Equity Jurisdiction the King has on your client? What about them? Why are you silent on those attachments? [289]



Reason: Because your client is up to his neck in multiple layers of invisible juristic contracts with the King, so multiplicitous that they are difficult to get rid of. And you are being correctly rebuffed by Federal Magistrates when they first snort at, and then toss out, your incomplete and deficient arguments, even though of and by itself, your Excise Tax argument is often technically accurate [Excise Taxes have organically changed in meaning since their appearance in the EXCISE TAX CLAUSE of 1787, and arguments centered around such a 1787 meaning are now incorrect. It would be provident for a federal appellate forum to momentarily stop their snortations when dealing with a Tax Protesting action and elucidate well on the growth in the semantic differential in Excise Taxes, by explaining the enlargement in meanings from 1787 to the present].



Those rubbery little lawyers, stealing money from their clients in the form of an advisory fee, are in the same sinking boat that many Patriots are in: They look for deficiencies in the King's Charter and in his statutory LEX, rather than explaining error to the clients. But they are out for his money, and his best interests are the last thing that lawyers concern themselves with -- but what is really sad is that lawyer's do no even know the Law they fraudulently purport to be schooled in. [290]



The lust for power among contemporary lawyers is impressive; see Doug Brandow in THROW LAWYERS AT THEM, Conservative Digest, at 46 (January, 1983).

"In tribal times, there were the MEDICINE MEN. In the Middle Ages, there were PRIESTS. Today there are the LAWYERS. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day."

- Fred Rodell in WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS, at ix [Reynal & Hitchcock, New York (1939); the title for this book originates in Luke 11:52]

Perhaps we could speak more kindly of lawyers if we had some good authority to do so, but even the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of what they pull off:

"Due to sloth, inattention, or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... The glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."

- ROADWAY EXPRESS VS. PIPER, 447 U.S. 752, at 757 (1982).



Patriot arguments on the Federal Reserve System and its circulating Notes are in a very similar situation: Because the Congress has more than just the GOLD AND SILVER COIN CLAUSE of Article I, Section 8 as its source of jurisdictional authority to create the Federal Reserve, so now Patriot money arguments that attack only Article I, Sections 8 and 10 are extremely deficient in substance on their face without any detailed examination into their merits, and this is true even though your Article I, Section 8 arguments are technically accurate, of and by themselves. So arguing the monetary=======================[197]


itself as we now have it, synchronous with King Richard II's unsuccessful conquest against France in the 1300's (and long before the King of England's chartering of the Bank of England in 1694 under Gremlin prompting and intellectual guidance), [198]



The King modeled his bank after the BANK OF AMSTERDAM. Before the Bank of England was established, English mercantile writers such as Sir Josiah Childe and Thomas Yaranton placed the Crown on notice that "... the Amsterdam bank was of so immense advantage to them..." because Dutch Government Debt Instruments "... go in Trade equal with Ready Money, yea, better in many parts of the World than Money." [quoted by Dickerson in THE FINANCIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND: A STUDY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC CREDIT, 1688-1756, at page 5 (MacMillian Company, London, 1967)]. The Bank of Amsterdam had begun as a Warehouse for the safe storage of gold and silver belonging largely to Merchants. A Merchant would deposit his precious metal for safekeeping, with a receipt given in return; and the banker charged a fee for the safekeeping. But soon a few Merchants wanted the receipts to be divisible, because they wanted to negotiate just the receipt itself, without having to bother making arrangements to physically arrange an exchange of the gold or silver. While the Merchants were looking at ways to save time here and there, the bankers themselves were developing a few ideas of their own; the bankers noticed that only some small percentage of the gold and silver actually came and went in and out the doors, so they started to loan out gold that was not theirs. Now this was getting interesting -- charging both for the storage and also collecting interest on the property of others; and its allure attracted the attention of a Gremlin, Mr. John Law, who used this concept as a basis for developing a Government monetary theory similar to what Gremlin John Maynard Keynes would be writing about two centuries later:

"This theory [of John Law's] was that the economic system of that day was being starved because of insufficient supplies of money. And using the Bank of Amsterdam as a model, he had a scheme for producing all the money a nation needed."

- John Flynn in MEN OF WEALTH, at 51 [Simon and Schuster, New York (1941)].

For nearly two decades, John Law shopped his theories around European Juristic Institutions, with his plans falling on death ears, but one day a window opened for his intrigues to be used. After King Louis the 14th of France had depleted his Treasury funds in 1716, he turned to John Law who he had previously rebuffed. John Law established the BANQUE GENERALE with himself at the top; soon it was named the ROYAL BANK with a monopoly charter granted on the issuance of money -- and John Law issued bales of paper money, and so, not surprisingly, prosperity was rampant.

"It is not to be wondered that for a few brief months Paris hailed the magician who had produced all these rabbits from his hat. Crowds followed his carriage. People struggled to get a glimpse of him. The nobles of France hung around his anteroom, begging a word from him."

- MEN OF WEALTH, id., at 75.

John Law followed the Gremlin script for enscrewment right down the line; all gold and silver was accumulated in the hands of his ROYAL BANK; public ownership of gold was outlawed; devaluations transpired; inflation mounted and illiquidity was in the air as debt instruments began to be difficult to service. John Law fled France in 1720, with the mobs who had once hailed him for being a financial genius now calling for his head. If this economic scenario sounds at all familiar to you, it should, because Gremlins find it unnecessary to change, alter, modify, or rearrange their MODUS OPERANDI with the passage of time, as they go about their work running one civilization into the ground after another:

"As a NEW DEALER [John Law] was not greatly different in one respect from the apostles of the mercantilist school -- the Colberts, the Roosevelts, the Daladiers, the Hitlers and Mussolinis... who sought to create income and work by state-fostered public works and who labored to check the flow of gold away from their borders. He introduced something new, however, that the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Roosevelts, the Daladiers and the Chamberlains have imitated -- the creation of funds for these purposes through the instrumentalities of the modern bank. Law is the precursor of the inflationist redeemers."


So the Bank of England was modeled after the Bank of Amsterdam which had been created early in the 1600's, and the Dutch bank in turn had been modeled after the Bank of Venice [as reported by Charles Wilson in THE DUTCH REPUBLIC AND THE CIVILIZATION OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, at page 25; McGraw Hill, New York (1968)]. The Bank of England became so successful at selling Government debt instruments that it soon became the prototype for public banks where looters in other nations sought similar objectives of grabbing more money for themselves without having to ask their subjects for it. Under the direction of a series of astute financial moves, England's new Bank quickly created investor confidence in Government funded debt instruments, enabling the Crown to borrow large sums of money at steadily declining rates of interest, rather than go through the nuisance and irritation of raising taxes dramatically. Writing in THE SPECTATOR, Joseph Addison once compared Government credit loans to:

"... a beautiful Virgin seated upon a throne of Gold possess'd of the powers of a Croesus to convert whatever she pleas'd into that precious Metal [CROESUS was a King of Lydia in the 6th Century, B.C., and possessed vast wealth; hence CROESUS means any fabulously wealthy man.]

- quoted by Dickerson in THE FINANCIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND: A STUDY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC CREDIT, 1688-1756, inside the front page [MacMillian Company, London, 1967)].



The special SUB ROSA relationship that was developed between the circulation in King's Commerce of paper money by the King and a grand Tort the King intends to work, still remains in full force and effect down to the present day in the United States. [199]



"The history of the law of money evidences a constant struggle between the customs of trade and the doctrine of freedom of contract, on the one hand, and on the other, the exercise of the political power for the needs of Government or the relief of private debtors [meaning banking Gremlins]."

- Phanor J. Eder, writing in "Legal Theories of Money," 20 CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY 52, at 53 (1934).



Anglo-Saxon Kings have a long history of never bothering to stop pulling off whatever they can get away with. [200]



There is some value in turning around and looking back at the past to uncover the movements of men in other ages, because once their behavior in that setting is known, then the real meaning of the movements of men today are exposed:

"If we consider the shortness of human life, and our limited knowledge, even of what passes in our own time, we must be sensible that we should be forever children in understanding, were it not for this invention, which extends our experience to all past ages, and to the most distant nations; making them contribute as much to our improvement in wisdom, as they had actually laid under our observation. A man acquainted with history may, in some respect, be said to have lived from the beginning of the world, and to have been making continual additions to his stock of knowledge in every country."

- David Hume in PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS ["Of the Study of History"], at page 390; [Longmans Green, London (1898); Greene and Grosse, Editors].

But Anglo-Saxon Kings are not the only looters to play this game. For a discussion of Monetary Debasement being pulled off in B.C. times, see the writings of Phanor J. Eder in THE GOLD CLAUSE CASES IN LIGHT OF HISTORY, 23 Georgetown Law Journal 369, at page 722 (Part II) (1935).



For example, in the 1500's, the King of England (actually Queen Elizabeth) ordered a debasement of Britain's national currency for the express purpose of working a Tort on rebels in Ireland. This carefully planned currency debasement was explicitly designed to damage these Irish adversaries of the Crown as an act of war. When these debased coins were issued out all over England to the public at large, they became known as MIXED MONEY due to the novel alloy composition in the coins, meaning a hybrid of part precious and part ordinary metals. This degenerate mixed money was then sent by the King of England to Ireland as a covert war military measure against the rebels there. The rebels were buying supplies abroad, and they were making their purchases by using valuable Britannic gold and silver coins, which always had an international allure to them, and properly so. So the King decided that the best way to stop the rebels from making their arms purchases would be by making their money unattractive to their suppliers, foreign gun runners. In making their purchases of guns and armaments, the rebels had been obtaining their gold and silver English Crown coins from loyal British subjects in the course of ordinary dealings, and those subjects in turn had received it from Queen Elizabeth's soldiers and others functioning as Crown distribution agents. So the King, knowing what he does about using both devalued coin and soft paper currency to damage adversaries, simply reduced the value of the money the rebels were getting, by clever debasement. Although debasing the currency to damage a rebel out in some remote place carries the secondary consequence of damaging loyal subjects who mean the Crown no harm; so as to not offend the Crown's subjects, the Queen promised to redeem this debased money at face value later on [sound familiar today?] [201]



The Queen died shortly after making this promise to her subjects, but her successor honored her commitment. See Simon, HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRISH COINS, at page 38 (1749).



But as for the rebels in Ireland, now the debased Crown coins were being rejected by the foreign gun runners as payment for goods they had been selling to the rebels, and so, as the supplies to the rebels were cut off at the source in this slick and clever way, the plans for conquest by the rebels was frustrated. [202]



For additional Commentary on the use of debased currency against the Irish rebels, see generally, John Hannigan, THE MONETARY AND LEGAL TENDER ACTS OF 1933-34 AND THE LAW, 14 Boston University Law Review 485, at 504 (1934).



The English Case of 1604 that I had quoted from above called THE MIXED MONEY CASE was a challenge to the authority of the King of England to pull off what he did against Irish rebels, and as you read above in a quotation from the Case, the Judiciary has declared that it is a Sovereign prerogative of the King to debase his own currency, whenever and however the King feels like it. [And rather than snicker at Judges today for tossing aside your challenges to paper money, the correct remedy lies in writing explicit and blunt restraining language into the King's Charter (the Constitution), but our Framers in 1787 never did that; and the Framers of 1787 did not write in such explicit and blunt restrainments for a very good reason; Because there was strong reservations expressed on the floor of the Convention on whether such proposed restrainments were really provident. [203]



"Once the Convention was under way, proposals that the Federal Government be given the power to coin money and fix its value and that both the Federal and State Governments be vested with authority to emit bills of credit triggered heated debate over the appropriate limits of governmental monetary power."

- Getman, THE RIGHT TO USE GOLD CLAUSES IN CONTRACTS, XLII Brooklyn Law Review 479, at 489 (1976). See generally, Max Farrand, editor, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 [Yale University Press (1937)], 4 volumes.

So what we are left with today is the milktoast of Article I, Section 10.



That Mixed Money Case was a sleeper, as our Framers never correctly designed the Constitution to repel this special type of quiet SUB ROSA political aggression; and 250 years later, that Mixed Money Case surfaced in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the context of justifying the Civil War era Legal Tender Acts. [204]



THE LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U.S. 457, at 548 (1871).



Down to the present day, the excitement of war is used as a justification to either initiate or continue one more turn in Gremlin enscrewment objectives. [205]



Professors Peacock and Wiseman correctly point out that a Government's call for a spirit of sacrifice leads to the general acceptance of a higher tax rate at the end of a major war, rather than at the beginning of the war [see A.T. Peacock and J. Wiseman in THE GROWTH OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1961);] but as is the caliber of collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA, never is there any discussion of the quiet movements of Gremlins in the shadows directing the administrative operations of their nominees that they had previously planted and placed in political jurisdictions; and so as a result, the true illicit nature of the LEX designed to create Special Interest benefits and damages not related to legitimate juristic police power operations, remains obscured. The last annulment institution in the United States for illicit LEX, the Supreme Court, is moving in the right direction generally, but they still need some fine tuning:

"The requirement of a legitimate public purpose guarantees that the State is exercising its police power, rather than providing a benefit to special interests."

- ENERGY RESERVES VS. KANSAS POWER, 459 U.S. 400, at 412 (1983).



So now we should have some minimum discernment to see why contemporary representations to the effect that gold is just too unsuitable by its heavy bulk weight to be a modern circulating denomination of currency, as both fraudulent and factually defective. Paper money is characterized by its depreciating nature. [206]



"But the history of paper money, without any adequate funds pledged to redeem it, and resting merely upon the pledge of national faith, has been in all ages and in all nations the same. It has constantly become more and more depreciated; and in some instances has ceased from this cause to have any circulation whatsoever, whether issued by the irresistible edict of a despot, or the more alluring order of a republican congress."

- Joseph Story, III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at page 225 ["Prohibitions - Paper Money"] (Cambridge, 1833).



Fraudulent because people with sinister intentions use debased currency (and non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes that quietly lose a little decremental value with each passing year are debased currency) for political conquest and to damage their adversaries. [207]



"... the reader should note especially the 'striking parallels to modern times' [in comparison to King Solon in 594 B.C., when he pulled off currency debasement acts by]... military adventures draining treasuries, threats of national bankruptcy, inflations, massive liquidations of debt, debasement of all coinage, disputes over sovereign prerogatives concerning money..."

- Henry Holzer, GOVERNMENT'S MONEY MONOPOLY, page 15 [Books in Focus, New York City (1981)].



And such representations are factually defective because the King's new proposed money (which the Treasury Department has already quietly circulated prototypes of) has thin strips of metal imbedded in between layers of paper, and those strips of metal could just as easily have been alloyed with gold and silver if our King wanted it -- but no, our King is not quite through with his MAGNUM Tortfeasance, not just yet. [208]



Down to the present day, pleas and petitions for a reinstatement of the Gold Standard, of just some type, continuously falls on death ears in Congress [maybe because that is not OUR Congress]. In December of 1981, the House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee entertained such a petition [see GRASSROOTS HEARINGS ON THE ECONOMY, PART III, "Petition for Hearings on HR 391 -- Rhode Islanders for a Gold Standard," 97th Congress, First Session, starting at 499 (GPO, 1981)], but the petition was tossed aside and ignored.



And just as Patriots go right ahead and argue defective reasoning based on the milktoast language in Article I, Section 10, so too do Patriots go right ahead and try to argue the line, that well, since the United States has no express grant of jurisdiction to create corporations, therefore, the Federal Reserve Board is unConstitutional for this reason. I have concluded that if I were on the Supreme Court, I would uphold the inherent jurisdiction of the King to organize corporations (or any other instrumentality that had its own separate treasury, with the King calling that instrument whatever he feels like). [209]



"A strange fallacy has crept into the reasoning on this subject. It has been supposed, that a corporation is some great, independent thing; and that the power to erect it is a great, substantive, independent power; whereas in truth, a corporation is but a legal capacity, quality, or means to an end; and the power to erect it is, or may be, an implied and incidental power. A corporation is never the end, for which other powers are exercised; but a means, by which other objects are accomplished."

- Joseph Story, in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 131, ["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).



That idea of a separate treasury is important to the Supreme Court, since that is the determining logic behind their rulings making municipalities exempt from the 11th Amendment, which otherwise operates to immunize actions against states. [210]



LAKE COUNTY ESTATES, 440 U.S. 391, at 401 (1978).



My reasoning comes from a confluence of factors. First, getting a feel for the lack of specificity in the Framer's drafting of the Constitution; for example, no where is the King given permission to hire employees, to excavate sites for office buildings, to sign leases, or to purchase assets or land in foreign lands, etc. In examining those areas where the Supreme Court has ruled on inherent meanings of Clauses, they have ruled, for example, that the "Adversary Nature" of criminal prosecutions is inherent in the Sixth Amendment [MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA and the counsel cases], and that Courts created by the United States have inherent Contempt jurisdiction, regardless of the absence of the conferment of any such jurisdiction. [211]



IN RE: RUSSO, 53 Federal Rules Decisions 564 (United States District Court, 1971).



And on and on. For these reasons there is very much a basis for an implied grant of jurisdiction for the King to do something, not otherwise specifically denominated in his Charter. The test to be applied to see if some jurisdiction claimed operative by the King, but not exactly specified anywhere in that Constitutional Charter of his which breathed life into the King his breath of juristic life, lies in another strata: First, is the challenged LEX even inferentially in conflict with any restraining mandate the Framers wrote into the Constitution? In the limited question of creating corporations, the answer is no, it isn't. Next, we shift into the broader question and ask: Is the creation of corporations even out of harmony with the LEIT MOTIF of the Constitution to restrain the King from functioning as a Tortfeasor? [212]



"The Bill of Rights is the primary source of expressed information as to what is meant by Constitutional liberty. Its safeguards secure the climate which the Law of Freedom needs in order to exist. It is true that they were added to the Constitution to operate solely against Federal power [BARRON VS. BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243, at 247 (1833)]. But the Fourteenth Amendment was added in 1868 in response for a demand for national protection against abuses of State power. A series of decisions over the last 25 years has held that many rights were indeed extended against the states by that Amendment. It is indeed fair to say that from 1962 to 1969 the very face of the Law changed. Those years witnessed the extension to the States of nine of the specifics of the Bill of Rights, decisions which have profound impact on American life, requiring the deep involvement of State courts in the application of Federal Law."

- Justice William Brennan in REMARKS, 36 Rutgers Law Review 725, at 727 (1984).

Patriots and Tax Protestors can carry on all they want with demanding, and believing, that they posses some Constitutional Rights, and just like Justice Brennan's REMARKS, there are many high, noble and lofty characterizations of those Rights available -- but those REMARKS, together with the Tax Protestor's demands, are all for naught when one tiny little device surfaces in a grievance: A Commercial Contract. By the end of this Letter the elevated priority in Nature that contracts ascend to in settling grievances should become apparent, whenever they are in effect; a doctrinal concept if unlearned now, Mr. May, will be learned in on uncertain terms before Father at the Last Day.



Does the challenged act of Congress (creating corporations or other political instruments with separate treasuries), have the effect, in the practical setting, of allowing or in any way assisting the King to function as a Tortfeasor against us countryside folks? In other words, does the creation of privately held corporations by the King, such as the Federal Reserve System, provide the King with a mechanism to damage us that he would not otherwise be privileged to do, or able to do in the practical effect with his own direct employees? In the case of creating corporations, or in the creation of separate juristic organizations with their own treasuries, the administrative form of the corporation (the wording on the piece of paper that is its charter) offers no possibility of a Tort on us that could not be otherwise worked by Executive Agencies operating under direct Presidential administrative jurisdiction. This is true even in the case of the Federal Reserve System. The Fed is very much a Tortfeasor in its control over the rate of inflation, [213]



Inflation is a Tort, and can be claimed as such in damage awards. See the Supreme Court in JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION VS. PFIFER, 462 U.S. 523 (1983). And Inflation is also a tax, and is treated as income by the Treasury Department; in the ANNUAL REPORT of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1919, on page 213, there lies the interesting admission that the large federal deficits of 1917 to 1919, totaling then some $23 billion, were financed by money creation, and other devices.



and in its proclivities to do so; and from its being such a dominate financial market maker and control of re-discount rates its Open Market Committee can and will fix rates of interest at whatever level it feels like; and the Gremlins running the Fed know very much that they posses considerable power to determine prosperity levels. [214]



"The purpose of the Federal Reserve System is to contribute, to the maximum extent that monetary policy can contribute, to the achievement of sustained high employment, stable values, and a rising standard of living for all Americans."

- William McChesney Martin, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in THE FEDERAL RESERVE AFTER 50 YEARS ["Hearings before the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd Session, Volume I, page 16 [GPO Washington (January and February, 1964)].



By controlling these financial market forces, the Fed single-handedly controls the relative level of economic prosperity or decline in the land. [215]



Economists watch Fed monetary statistics quite closely, as if they were national policy tools (which they are). Statistics generally targeted for close observation are those two monetary velocity instruments called M-1 and M-2, as they are indications of the direction of the future percentage advance of the GNP and Inflation. See THE VELOCITY OF MONEY by George Garvey and Martin Blyn, [Federal Reserve Bank, New York (1969)]. The true point of origin of all directional changes in the economy necessarily originates with that institution that controls the aggregate issuance of its circulating instruments; at the present time, this is the Fed and its OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE, a fact that the Congress collectively is well aware of but not always acknowledged publicly. See CONDUCT OF MONETARY POLICY in Hearings before the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session, Serial Number 96-22 (July, 1979), which discusses the cascading effect of decisions of the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE on multiple macroeconomic indicia.



If the Fed were an administrative agency under, perhaps, the Comptroller of the Currency, then all of the regulatory assertions it now makes over member banks would remain in effect, and it would still control prosperity through its regulatory mechanisms. (Incidentally, the mere absence of prosperity, under such highly managed and tightly controlled monetary circumstances, is a Tort against us by the Fed). [216]



An INTELLIGENTSIA clown once hired by Gremlins to do some writing for them wrote a few words to talk about the Gremlin perception of prosperity:

"An economic system does not have to be expansive -- that is, constantly increasing its production of wealth -- and it might well be possible for people to be completely happy in a nonexpansive economic system if they were accustomed to it. In the twentieth century, however, the people of our culture have been living under expansive conditions for generations. Their minds are psychologically adjusted to expansion, and they feel deeply frustrated unless they are better off each year than they were the previous year. The economic system itself has become organized for expansion, and if it does not expand it tends to collapse [and when it does collapse, it is because the Gremlins were there]."

- Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 497 [MacMillian Company, New York (1966)].



If the Federal Reserve were an Article II Executive Agency under Presidential Jurisdiction (which as a privately owned and independently managed business entity, it is not), then every single decision made by the Federal Reserve Board and its Open Market Committee (and its predecessor) down to the present time, would still have been made and carried out. [217]



The Federal Reserve Board is a very handy instrument to massage economies, create depressions, and run civilizations into the ground with. For example, in the late 1920's, there was an era of speculation in the securities markets of the United States; after a while in any market, what appears to be SPECULATION will always surface when rising prices and highly leveraged loans make their institutionalized appearance on the scene. Economists, bureaucratic theorists, and other clowns will cast SPECULATION into an illicit image, but SPECULATION, so called, is nothing more than a manifestation of strong prosperity -- and Gremlins do not want you and I to have sustained protracted prosperity, they want us to experience economic starvation like they wanted physical starvation for those millions of Ukrainians who were murdered in the great manufactured Famine of 1932-33. Easy high percentage loans are an important ingredient to create SPECULATION, so one of the devices used by Rothschild Gremlins to create a balloon of American speculation was to lower the rate of interest charged by the Federal Reserve Board to member banks:

"Nothing did more to spur the boom in stocks than the decision made by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, in the Spring of 1927, to cut the rediscount rate. Benjamin Strong, Governor of the bank, was chief advocate of this unwise measure, which was taken largely at the behest of Montagu Norman of the Bank of England [Montagu Norman was a Rothschild nominee planted in the Bank of England]. Ostensibly, this easy money policy was designed to stop the flow of gold out of England [as usual, DECEPTION is present when Gremlins are running the show]. Its primary effect, however, was to cause a reevaluation of all securities [upward], and to further inflate our already inflationary credit system by making large sums of money available for financing stock speculation."

- Bernard Baruch,, in his autobiography BARUCH: THE PUBLIC YEARS, at 221 [Holt Rheinhart & Winston, New York (1960)].

The well known Gremlin economist John K. Galbraith dismisses the view that the action of the Federal Reserve Board authorities in cutting the rediscount rate in the Spring of 1927 had much effect on the elevated speculation which followed, on the grounds that this:

"... explanation obviously assumes that people will always speculate if they can get the money to finance it. Nothing can be farther from the truth. There were times before and there have been long periods since when credit was plentiful and cheap -- far cheaper than in 1927 to 1929 -- and when speculation was negligible. Nor, as we shall see later, was speculation out of control after 1927, except that it was beyond the reach of men who did not want in the least to control it."

- John K. Galbraith in THE GREAT CRASH, page 16 [Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1955)].

SPECULATION is actually fueled by the ability to easily obtain highly leveraged loans in a market characterized by rapidly rising prices. Your analogy of 1927, Mr. Galbraith, to previous eras is defective because other previous periods of cheap credit was deficient in possessing the twin important structural SPECULATION requirements of easily obtainable highly leveraged loans and rapidly rising prices; if both highly leveraged loans and rapidly rising prices are not present, then cheap credit loans will not induce SPECULATION. And so the failure of cheap and plentiful credit loans in previous eras to trigger SPECULATION then, is not relevant and does not negate the highly stimulating effect that such inexpensive credit loans created in the American securities markets from 1927 to 1929, since declining rates of interest very much act as an accelerant on markets already structurally conditioned for SPECULATION by the twin important indicia of highly leveraged loans and rapidly rising prices. You really are not competent to be an economist, Mr. Galbraith -- and incidentally, managing SPECULATION, so called, was very much WITHIN the reach of your brothers who very much wanted to control it, TOTALLY. Sorry, Mr. Galbraith, but you don't do a very good job of covering the tracks of your Gremlin brothers from the First Estate who, like you, are repeating the same judgment mistakes now that you made then.

Having created something ILLICIT, having created something that just NEEDS and IS BEGGING for a corrective solution, Gremlins acting through their instrumentality, the Federal Reserve Board, in 1929 now had just the right medicine to fix this wicked SPECULATION, as one visible Rothschild nominee, Mr. Montagu Norman, once again made his descent sortie on Washington in vulture trajectory, and told Andrew Mellon what to do next:

"... the Federal Reserve Board issued a formal statement today declaring that it conceived it to be its duty in 'the immediate situation' to restrain the use, either directly or indirectly, of Federal Reserve credit facilities in aid of the froth of speculative credit...

"No information could be obtained from Mr. Norman or American officials concerning the purpose of his visit [to Washington] other than he had come here for a general discussion of international financial conditions with the System and members of the [Federal Reserve] Board...

"All efforts to obtain any further interpretation of the action of the Federal Reserve Board than that contained in its formal statement were futile...

"The decision by the Federal Reserve Board to take so definite a stand in connection with its attitude towards speculative activities, was made, it is understood, only after a conference in which Secretary Mellon, as Chairman [of the Federal Reserve] EX-OFFICIO participated [meaning that Gremlin Andrew Mellon DIRECTED, after having received his instructions from the Rothschilds through Montagu Norman]...

"The frankness of its announcement today therefore added to the interest it caused in financial circles."

- THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Loan Curb Hinted by Federal Reserve Board; States Duty in 'the Immediate Situation' is to restrain Speculative Credit"], page 1 (February 7, 1929).

Who is Montagu Norman? A Gremlin who was recognized as being very powerful at that time [Carroll Quigley claims the WALL STREET JOURNAL for November 11, 1927 characterized Montagu Norman as "... the currency dictator of Europe."] Like all good hardworking Gremlins putting in their honest days' labor, they are answerable to another person up the line [even the Rothschilds know from whence their benefits originate]; and like a few other WORLD CLASS Gremlins, Montagu Norman held the high honor of running an entire civilization into the ground:

"... Norman held the position [of CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER] for twenty-four years (1920-1944), during which he became the chief architect of the liquidation of Britain's global preeminence."

- Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 325 [MacMillian Company, New York (1966)].

He had brilliance, he had genius, he had SAVIOR-FAIRE, and Montagu Norman tied it all together with slick Gremlin FINESSE when he so smoothly ran Great Britain into the ground with so very few people even knowing that he had done so; and so when Montagu Norman brought his conquests to other continents, for and on behalf of his Rothschild sponsors, he would also be leaving the ruins of those once majestic civilizations with little indication that he had been there.

The year 1929 started out to be a great year, and American businessmen had positive expectations [see the many businessmen quoted through the WALL STREET JOURNAL for January 1, 1929]; but the world's Gremlins had a few ideas of their own:

"On February 15, 1929, the Federal Advisory Council adopted the following resolution:

"The Council believes that every effort should be made to correct the present situation in the speculative markets before resorting to an advance in rates.

"The Council in reviewing present conditions finds that in spite of the cooperation of member banks, the measures so far adopted have not been effective in correcting the present situation of the money market. The Council, therefore, recommends that the Federal Reserve Board permit the Federal Reserve banks to raise their rediscount rate immediately and maintain a rate consistent with the cost of commercial credit."

- Transcript of the minutes of the 3:10pm Meeting of the FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL in the Federal Reserve Board Room (April 19, 1929) {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}. The Federal Reserve Board's FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL was abolished in the 1930's.

The FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL had also met twice earlier that day, at 10:05am and at 12:10pm. There had been an ominous atmosphere of excitement in the air that day:

"The prospect of further developments of importance in regard to the Government's attitude on the credit situation appeared today when members of the Federal Advisory Council... met in a special session and later held a joint conference with the Board [the 12:10pm meeting]. Resolutions were adopted by the Council and transmitted to the Board, but their purport was closely guarded. ... An atmosphere of deep mystery was thrown about the proceedings both by the Board and the Council. No advance announcement had been made that an extraordinary session of the Council was contemplated, and in fact that the members were in the city became known only when newspaper correspondents happened to see some of them entering the Treasury Department building. Even after that evasive replies were given, until it became apparent that such tactics were futile... While the joint meeting was in progress at the Treasury Department, every effort was made to guard the proceedings and a group of newspaper correspondents were asked to leave the corridor. The meeting of the Council attracted particular attention in view of the fact that it had met here in regular session on February 14th, a week following the Reserve Board's warning statement against the excessive use of Reserve System credit in speculative operations on the stock market."

- THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Reserve Council Confers in Haste: Atmosphere of Mystery is Thrown About Its Meeting in Washington"], page 9 (April 20, 1929).

A month later, one more Gremlin turn of the screws was administered to the economy:

"The Federal Advisory Council has reviewed carefully the credit situation. It continues to agree with the view of the Federal Reserve Board as expressed in its statement of February 5, 1929 that 'an excessive amount of the country's credit has been absorbed in speculative security loans.' The policy pursued by the Federal Reserve Board has had a beneficial effect due largely to the loyal cooperation of the banks of the country. The efforts in this direction should be continued, but the Council notes that while the total amount of Federal Reserve credit being used has been reduced, 'the amount of the country's credit absorbed in speculative security loans' has not been substantially lowered.

"Therefore, the Council recommends to the Federal Reserve Board that the time has come to grant permission to raise the rediscount rates to six percent to those Federal Reserve Banks requesting it, thus bringing the rediscount rates into closer relation with generally prevailing commercial money rates. The Council believes that improvement in financial conditions and a consequent reduction of the rate structure will thereby be brought about more quickly, thus best safeguarding commerce, industry, and agriculture."

- Resolution approved by the FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, in its 2:30pm Meeting on May 21, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.

While the Gremlins controlling the Federal Reserve were busy raising interest rates, the analytical staff of the Federal Reserve was cognizant of the extreme economic damages such an elevated rate of interest was doing to Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture [directly contrary to the beneficial effect claimed by the Federal Advisory Council]:

"The higher money rates do not appear to have restricted short term commercial borrowings, but in a number of ways the present high level of money rates is beginning to have a detrimental effect upon business.

"1. The volume of building operations has been declining largely because of difficulty in obtaining second mortgage money and loans for building operations and also difficulty in selling real estate bonds. Stock financing which has been resorted to in some cases has only partly met the requirements.

"2. A good many state, municipal, railway and other projects, ordinarily financed through bonds and notes, have been postponed because of difficulty in securing at reasonable prices...

"3. Reduced foreign financing in the United States... are diminishing the purchasing power of those countries for our products, a tendency which is likely to be reflected sooner or later in reduced exports.

"It thus seems reasonably certain that present money conditions, if long continued, will have a seriously detrimental effect upon business conditions, and the longer they are continued the more serious will be the effect. The volume of business now appears to be sustained in part by the production of automobiles considerably in excess of retail purchases with a consequent stimulating effect upon the steel industry..."

- PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM FOR THE OPEN MARKET INVESTMENT COMMITTEE ["Effects on Business"]; Prepared for the 5:00pm Meeting of the Fed's Open Market Investment Committee on April 1, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.

In September of 1929, the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE would be warning that:

"... there are some indications of a possible impending recession."

Six months earlier in April, the economy was still experiencing the stimulating effect of surplus automobile production, but by September, now automobile manufacturing was going to the dogs:

"Building activity has been reduced still further; automobile production has been receding, and steel production has reflected these tendencies."

And as for the claimed STIMULATING effect high rates of interest would be having on agriculture, in fact Gremlin enscrewment was beginning to produce its desired objective of damages:

"The size of the year's crops is expected to be generally smaller than a year ago. With higher prices the total return to the farmer may be not short of a year ago... The continued pressure on the credit situation has also been reflected by increasing reports from some localities of difficulties of agriculture in securing an adequate supply of credit."

- All three quotations are from the MINUTES OF THE OPEN MARKET INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, September 24, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.

That greasy little Gremlin, Paul Warburg, very much had his nose in all of this. He slipped into a FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Meeting that was held on May 21, 1929, as the alternate for W.C. Potter, and he made a Statement and engaged in conversation that Walter Lichtenstein, Council Secretary, did not feel like recording [see MINUTES OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL for May 21, 1929].

The combined effect of the many manipulative devices pulled by Gremlins in the Fed in the latter 1920's was a great contraction in the economy [see generally a protracted chapter called "The Great Contraction" in A MONETARY HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, 1867-1960 by Milton Friedman [Princeton University Press, Princeton (1963)].



The only existential reason for the Fed's corporate organizational legal structure lies in the fact that the Fed was sponsored, as you know, by a Special Interest Group for their own private enrichment: [218]



"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of the liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

- Justice Louis Brandeis in OLMSTEAD VS. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, at 479 (1927).

Although the Gremlins who sneaked the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT through Congress were by no means well meaning, they did try to convey the image that this piece of legislation was so oriented.



A network of Gremlins operating under the intellectual aegis of Rothschild nominee Paul Warburg and associates, who prodded and tricked an otherwise reticent and naive Congress into enacting the initiating legislation in 1913. [219]



Greasy little Gremlins like Paul Warburg are steeped in the strategic use of deception as a tool to accomplish their objectives; and like the mentor from the First Estate, Lucifer, they find many circumstances come to pass where the use of such deception has yielded impressive immediate benefits -- yet Father continues to warn against it. This deceptive intellectual orientation of Gremlins has been so ingrained in them from the First Estate, that Gremlins find the accurate presentation of facts now to be very difficult to construct. This deception surfaced, for example, when one Gremlin was speaking highly of another Gremlin:

"... it is known only to a very few exactly how great is the indebtedness of the United States to Mr. Warburg. For it may be stated without fear of contradiction that in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than any other man in the country... the Federal Reserve Act has frankly accepted the principles of the Aldrich bill; and these principles... were the creation of Mr. Warburg and Mr. Warburg alone... But having set out on the task [to create the Federal Reserve], there was no stopping [Paul Warburg], and from year to year essay upon essay flowed from his facile pen, giving more precision and point to his fundamental principles until he was recognized as the real leader in the new movement. The Federal Reserve Act will be associated in history with the name of Paul Warburg..."

- Gremlin Edwin Seligman offering introductory remarks in IV PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE #4, at 387 [Columbia University, New York (April, 1914)]; there then follows numerous essays written by Paul Warburg praising the circulation of paper currency and the Federal Reserve System.

Yet Paul Warburg did not intellectually create the Federal Reserve System -- the Rothschilds did, but the Rothschilds wanted to stay in the background and blend themselves into the shadowy corners of Europe; Paul Warburg was hired by them to take all the flack among those who could be expected to probe a little deeper in searching for the Fed's Gremlin sponsors.

"Paul Warburg is the man who got the Federal Reserve Act together after the Aldrich Plan aroused such nationwide resentment and opposition. The mastermind of both plans was Baron Alfred Rothschild of London."

- Elisha Garrison in ROOSEVELT, WILSON AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE LAW [Christopher Publishing Housing, Boston (1931)].



Designed by Gremlins the way it was, [220]



The illicit statutory sponsorship of the Federal Reserve Board is often disputed by collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA clowns who, without possessing any factual elements to countermand the background workings of determined Gremlins, continue to point to Congress itself as the institution responsible for the creation of the Federal Reserve. Gremlin Paul Warburg himself has had a few words to say about just where the true origin of statutes is to be found:

"I am told that Congress and the State Legislatures make the laws... Instead of saying that legislators make the laws, it would be far more correct to say that legislatures merely put the finishing touches on the law. To say that they "make the laws" is like saying that the books are made by bookbinders, forgetting that there are authors, printers, and proofreaders too.

"... The motive power in lawmaking is all supplied from somewhere outside the legislative halls... Some intellect outside the realm of active politics first conceives an idea. It spreads to the minds of other individuals, slowly at first, but gradually gaining momentum. Presently there is an organized movement in its favor; then comes the deluge of propaganda, until the proposal becomes an issue and the politicians begin to take note of it. A law is half made, and more than half made, when a large body of aggressive support has been mobilized among the voters; yet during this part of the process the legislative bodies have nothing whatever to do with it."

- Gremlin Paul Warburg explaining himself in Volume I THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM: ITS ORIGINS AND GROWTH, at 3 [MacMillian Company, New York (1930)].



and because of its private corporate ownership and lack of public accountability to the Congress and to the public. [221]



General Public accountability of the Fed is appropriate to the extent that the Fed has been endowed by its creator with a limited juristic mission in monetary areas touching a general public interest; and one of the most important instruments of Federal Reserve power lies in the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE. Numerous attempts just to get some minimal public dissemination on transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings has fallen on death ears; shrouding their daily maneuverings behind a veil of secrecy -- a veil they would like to maintain erected for as long as possible (time has a way of greatly diminishing the possible adverse reaction that unfavorable information triggers). The Congress was once propositioned with the idea of requiring the FOMC to publish publicly, detailed minutes of their meetings. In trying to disable the Congress from doing this, an old Gremlin stratagem was relied upon: Agree with the necessity for the idea being expounded (so now your adversary is off guard), but create impediments to the idea by raising technical reservations that appear to be difficult to overcome and otherwise discredit the idea as being infeasible for some technical reason. And in overcoming HR 4478, this is just what Gremlins in the Fed did (Gremlins do not want Government in the sunshine) [see the testimony of imp bureaucrat Fredrick Schultz as he said he agreed with the objectives, but then turned around and threw technical reservations at the idea to try and discredit the idea on its merits, in A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT ["Hearings Before a Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy on HR 4478 of the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs"], 97th Congress, First Session (September, 1981)].



The Fed has never been audited by the GAO, [222]



"It is no secret that I have long been concerned about the aloofness of the Federal Reserve from both the executive branch and the Congress. Although the Federal Reserve System is a creature of Congress, it is not subject to any of the usual Government budgetary, auditing and appropriations procedures."

- Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Committee on Domestic Finance, in THE FEDERAL RESERVE AFTER 50 YEARS ["Hearings before the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd Session, Volume 1, page 8 [GPO, Washington, D.C. (January and February, 1964)].



the Fed as a privately owned corporation is able to provide its European owners with an exceptionally lush American gold mine they would not otherwise experience if title to Federal Reserve stock were ever to be reclaimed by the Congress under EMINENT DOMAIN JURISDICTION, or simple repeal, or repurchased under a reservation in its charter. [223]



But don't expect such a repurchase to ever take place; the Federal Reserve Board gives the Congress all profits from certain selected trading activities. In the latter 1970's, this was amounting to approximately $10 billion a year; not an easy loss of revenue for a greedy fat Congress to go without. So the Congress does not want to disturb the Fed, and your letters to them, encouraging them to do so, will continue to fall on death ears.



So the Fed exists as a private independent corporation because it was created to act as a financial enrichment velocity accelerant for its owners [I have a hunch that it is also the single most profitable wealth institution in the world, outdancing and outdazzling the top Fortune 100, as well as the Vatican and several "for profit" political jurisdictions]. The Status of the Federal Reserve System as a Tortfeasor is not related to its legal charter organization as a corporation, and neither would its Tortfeasance be changed, either negative or positive at all, if it ever were to be absorbed into the Executive Presidential bureaucracy of Article II. As an Executive Article II agency, then it would still control inflation since it would still be controlled by Gremlins; and it would continue to control interest rates and relative levels of prosperity through its regulatory mechanisms. [224]



Those Rothschild Gremlins never stop with their conquests. After mentioning the dominance of the Rothschilds in European financial affairs, a United States Senator once wrote:

"... it might be... possible for 20 or 30 individuals if they controlled the United States Federal Reserve Board, the Bank of England, the Bank of France, and the Bank of Germany, to enter into a conspiracy to regulate the volume of the world's currency, thereby resultantly controlling the prices of the world's commodities, so vitally affecting the happiness, contentment, occupation, and prosperity of the world's population. If successful in effecting such a control, by expanding the world's currency they could inflate prices of all the world's commodities and then distribute at fictitious values the securities which they had accumulated. After such accomplishments the could then decrease the volume of money thus resultantly deflating or diminishing the prices of all the world's commodities with resultant greatly diminished prices in securities and then buy back at bargain prices the securities that they had distributed previously at inflated prices. If such a conspiracy existed and continued unchecked this expansion of the volume of money with increased prices and distribution of securities held by the few followed by a period of decreased volume of money with resultant decreased prices of all the world's commodities with reaccumulation of securities at bargain prices would ultimately result in all the people outside of the few conspirators becoming practically vassals and peons with the inevitable result that the people themselves would rise up in their wrath and take from the conspirators their wealth and probably their lives."

- Senator Jonathan Bourne, Jr. of Oregon, expressing comments on the Wheeler Bill (S. 2487), in Senate Document #109 entitled INDEPENDENT BIMETALLISM OR BOLSHEVISM, 72nd Congress, First Session, pages 8 and 9 [GPO (June 15, 1932)].

Senate Bill 2487 provided for the free coinage of silver and gold at a ratio of 16-to-1.



That this Tortfeasance is transparent to its organized form is true because all Torts originate with people, and at the Fed, there is now a man as chairman who is uniquely qualified to operate as a joint Tortfeasor with the Rothschilds and work MAGNUM OPUS Torts on us all: Gremlin Paul Volcker. [225]



After characterizing Gremlin Volcker's politics as being something of an enigma, the NEW YORK TIMES went on to say that Paul Volcker:

"... recognizes 'that Gold and the fates have put him in a unique position,' a role for which he believes... that he is singularly well equipped."

- THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Sacrificial Way of Life for Reserve Chairman"], page 26 (Sunday, June 19, 1983).

Yes, Mr. Volcker is VERY well equipped for his mission -- but not to usher in a generation of prosperity; neither is his Federal Reserve position attributable to "God and the fates," but actually to his brother from the First Estate, Lucifer, whom Paul Volcker once betrayed -- and now Lucifer is going to get even at Father's Last Day.



This is the same Treasury Department staff member Paul Volcker who played a supporting role in the theft of American gold bullion deposits from Fort Knox in the 1960's, [226]



The theft of American gold bullion deposits from the Fort Knox Depository in Kentucky by the Four Rockefeller Brothers, in which Paul Volcker participated, was a smooth inside job -- a job which only duplicated a previous inside Treasury job that was pulled off earlier in 1943:

"... 14,000 tons of silver from the Treasury reserve of American paper money was secretly taken from the Treasury vaults (although still carried publicly on the Treasury balance sheets)..."

- Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 855 [MacMillian Company, New York (1974)].

[Mr. Quigley wants us to believe that the 14,000 tons of silver in its entirety went into an Oak Ridge Government building for electrical wiring].



and the same Paul Volcker who now holds a controlling executive position in the Fed, a position that when he campaigned for it in 1978, he openly called for the "controlled disintegration" of the United States. [227]



During a speech at a FRED HIRSCH MEMORIAL LECTURE at Warwick University, Coventry, England, on November 9, 1978.



Since the corporate structure of the King's peripheral Commercial interests, of and by themselves, do not provide the King with a mechanism to work Torts on us he would be otherwise restrained from doing through executive agencies, I have no objection to the King creating corporations, and I would suggest that arguments to the contrary will likely be rebuffed by the Supreme Court. [228]



During Constitutional ratification discussions, our Founding Fathers did not want to even talk about the possibility that a National Bank might be created someday, due to the possible rejection the draft Constitution might encounter as it went from one State to the next for Ratification:

"The power to incorporate a bank is not among those enumerated in the constitution. It is known, that the very power, thus proposed, as a means, was rejected, as an end, by the convention [of 1787], which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made in that body, to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to create corporations. But the whole was rejected; and one of the reasons of the rejection urged in debate was, that they then would have a power to create a bank, which would render the great cities, where there was prejudices and jealousies on that subject, adverse to the adoption of the Constitution [Volume 4, Jefferson's Correspondence, pages 523 and 524]."

- Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 128 ["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).

However, just because the CREATION OF CORPORATIONS CLAUSE never made it into the final draft of the Constitution, does not disable the United States today from creating corporations, since many other enabling acts were written into the Constitution that, although sounding nice and making the Constitution look complete in appearances, were actually jurisdictionally unnecessary.



If at all you question the legal authenticity of my conclusory statements, then please read M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, [229]



17 U.S. 316 (1819).



and tell me that the Congress cannot create corporations or nationally chartered banks. In that case, the Supreme Court specifically talks, at length, about the Constitutionality of creating corporations, and the implied powers of Congress to do so. [230]



"That a national bank is an appropriate means to carry into effect some of the enumerated powers of the Government, and that this can be best done by erecting it into a corporation, may be established by the most satisfactory reasoning. It has a relationship, more or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes, to that of borrowing money, to that of regulating trade between the states, and to those raising and maintaining fleets and armies. And it may be added, that it has a most important bearing upon the regulation of currency between the states. It is an instrument, which has been usually applied by Governments in the administration of their fiscal and financial operations."

- Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 134, ["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).



Also foolish is the line that I hear that no tax could possibly be due to the King, because the IRS is not an Article II Executive Agency and functions as a private contracting corporation. [231]



The IRS is not a Federal Agency; see:




- 39 THE FEDERAL REGISTER, Number 62 (26 March 1974), Section 1111.4, et seq.



I see no general impediment to the King hiring private contractors to assist him in tax collections. [232]



Responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the Revenue Laws is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to Title 26, Section 7801(a). In turn, by one more layer of delegation, the Internal Revenue Service is vested with the tax collection responsibilities for the Secretary. See DONALDSON VS. UNITED STATES, 400 U.S. 517, at 534 (1970), and 39 THE FEDERAL REGISTER 2417, et seq. (1970).



Private contract bounty hunters have been used to find criminal fugitives for centuries, so why aren't you Protestors objecting to that? Incidentally, in the old days of our Mother England in the 1700's, there was a practice going around Europe called PRIVATEERING, which is when small privately owned armed navies would roam the High Seas in search of prizes to steal for themselves. A PRIVATEER, then, is an armed vessel, owned, fitted out, and manned by private parties with a legal commission from a political jurisdiction authorizing it to capture the vessels and cargo's of the enemy. This legal commission, called a LETTER OF MARQUE, impressed upon the PRIVATEER'S banditry an aura of legitimacy in International Law, without which Privateers would be hung as pirates by any nation's ships fast enough to capture one. But back safely at home, the LETTER OF MARQUE also served as a legal basis for an Admiralty Court to condemn the captured property, the Prize, and assign it over to the Privateers themselves who stole it (this was also called PRIZE JURISDICTION). [233]



PRIVATEERING and all of its associated intrigue of smuggling, thievery, and pirates, was once quite active on the High Seas from the 1600's up until the American Civil War. On the North Coast of Africa there was once numerous occasions in the early 1800's when American hostages were grabbed and military engagements were entered into against those little hoodlums called the BARBARY CORSAIRS. [See THE BARBARY CORSAIRS by S. Lane-Poole, State Mutual Books and Periodical Service, New York (1985)]. PRIVATEERING was somewhat abolished, or perhaps toned down, by the DECLARATION OF PARIS in 1856; but PRIVATEERING was extensive during the Civil War, and the United States Congress soon would be giving President Abraham Lincoln a grant of jurisdiction to commission Privateers. [See THE BARBARY COAST by Henry Field, C. Scribner's Sons, New York (1893); and THE BARBARY SLAVES by Stephen Clissold, P. Elek Publishers, London (1977)]. For a short story on PRIVATEERS during the Civil War, see the NEW YORK TIMES for Tuesday, September 29, 1863, page 1, in an article entitled "Another Privateer Fitting Out," discussing how the Confederate ship THE FLORIDA was offered French police protection from seizure from Union ships by France while she was parking at Brest shipyards for repairs. Yet, a variation on PRIVATEERING continued into the 1900's, as Russian volunteer vessels once seized neutral commerce in the Red Sea [see Edwin Moxen in RUSSIAN RAIDS ON NEUTRAL COMMERCE, 3 Michigan Law Review 1 (1904)]. For a discussion from a legal perspective on Privateering and LETTERS OF MARQUE, see THE FIRST FEDERAL COURT by Henry J. Bourguignon, page 3 [American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (1977)]. Today, PRIVATEERING is a crime for American Citizens [see Title 18, Section 1654 "Arming or Serving as Privateers"].



[In remarkably similar ways today in the United States, private contracting Privateers are at work in the IRS, acting under a legal commission, which largely precludes the imposition of Civil Rights damages because of their operating under the recourse protective umbrella (color) of Governmental authority; and like the Privateers of old, today's tax loot is also handed over to a private party: To the owners of the Federal Reserve System, for payment on the King's National Debt. And even more astounding in parallel, today's IRS collection of loot and banditry is also governed under a Federal Court acting under the rules of Admiralty Jurisdiction, as I will explain later on.]


That analogy between the PRIVATEERS of old out on the High Seas, and of today's private contracting termites inside the IRS sounds pretty good, doesn't it? The requisite blend of comparative background elements of thievery are present, an underlying tone of IRS illegitimacy runs throughout the analogy, and that, generally is the kind of talk Tax Protestors like to hear... "looters," "theft," "banditry" and the like. Yes, analogies like that are music to the ears of Tax Protestors EXTRAORDINAIRE like Irwin Schiff, [234]



HOW ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES [Freedom Books, Hamden, Connecticut (1982)].



and Representative George Hansen. [235]



TO HARASS OUR PEOPLE: THE IRS AND GOVERNMENT ABUSE OF POWER [Positive Publications, Washington, D.C. (1984)].



But just one tiny little problem surfaces here which makes the PRIVATEERS TO IRS TERMITES analogy fall apart and collapse, a tiny little problem Irwin Schiff and George Hansen do not want to talk about -- a tiny little problem most folks had better start to talk about, NOW, before getting in front of Father at the Last Day: An invisible Contract. Today, the Protestor has entered into a series of invisible contracts with the King, numerous contracts which are invisible to the Protestors, as I will explain later on, so now all of those termites in the IRS are merely collecting monies rightfully due the King by contract, whereas in contrast the PRIVATEERS of old had no such contract in effect to grab the property belonging to others. Therefore, if I was a Federal Magistrate, I don't know if I would be as patient as some of the State and Federal Magistrates I have seen in hearings and trials in trying to explain error to a Constitutionalist, so called, but whose words were falling on death ears. One prime example of how the carefully chosen words of a Federal Judge falls on death ears, occurs when a petitioner is being rebuffed when throwing a challenge to the Constitutionality of either the Federal Reserve System or Federal Reserve Notes at the Judge. One of the reasons why Federal Magistrates and the United States Supreme Court are so reluctant to declare the Fed or its Notes as being unConstitutional [aside from the fact that many Federal Judges find the idea to be philosophically uncomfortable and ideologically irritating] is because, as a matter of Law, the use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes falls under the governing doctrine applicable to Commercial Contract Law Jurisprudence, so the Constitution is largely irrelevant right from the beginning, as the entire closed private domain of King's Commerce is a benefit/privilege created by the Congress, and there is nothing in the Constitution to restrain it. [236]



Federal Judges took their cue long ago to lay off legislative prerogatives in this area of circulating paper money:

"The case of TREVETT VS. WELDON, in 1786, in Rhode Island, is an instance of this sort... The judges in that case decided, that a law making paper money a tender in payment of debts was unconstitutional and against the principles of magna carta. They were compelled to appear before the legislature to vindicate themselves; and the next year... they were left out of office for having questioned the legislative power."

- Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 469, footnote 1 (Cambridge, 1833).



Assuming for a moment, ARGUENDO, that the interposition of Contract Law was irrelevant, then aside from that there are a large number of separate and distinct sources of jurisdiction the King can claim as authority to issue out debased paper currency. But before listing those sources, we need to back up a step. An examination of the Federal Reserve's Charter also reveals that, in Warburg's devilishly brilliant cleverness, the Congress never recited any specific sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction when it created the Fed. Nowhere in its Charter does it say something like "... the powers of Article I, Section 10 are hereby invoked..." An examination of numerous other statutory programs reveals that the Congress rarely ever bothers to recite its claimed sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction for those programs either (in those Acts that I have searched through). Since the Congress did not recite any Constitutional sources of authority when it allegedly passed the Federal Reserve Act, [237]



Whether or not there was a legal minimum quorum in the United States Senate on that pre-Christmas December day of 1913, is disputed.



this now means that whenever a Protestor comes forward today and throws a Case at a Federal Judge where the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is being challenged, the United States Attorney General is thereby free to throw any set of defensive arguments back at the Protestor that the Attorney General feels like, in order to justify the Constitutionality of the challenged Act of Congress. The bottom line is that the Attorney General can and will claim sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction at some future date that the Congress never really contemplated when it originally created the program (if a quorum ever really did exist to create the Fed). However unfair this appears to be, would someone please show me where the Constitution requires the Congress to recite its enabling Jurisdiction on each Act it passes? The Framers were also negligent in this respect, and so there is no such recital requirement, and so now the Attorney General is free to come up with a long list of claimed sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction that the Protestor never ever dreamed of; a list that the Congress never really considered at the time of possible enactment; a list that Federal Judges are well acquainted with; a list that I will be showing you later on.


But first, we need to cover some background material so the concepts I am about to explain can be understood easily. Remember that correct Principles of Nature operate across all factual settings; if the Principle is correct, what works in one factual setting will work for similar reasons in another setting. So with that in mind, if we had a power boat built for us, and that boat had say, 12 gas tanks built into it (perhaps distributed throughout the hull as ballast to achieve some desired weight and loading balancing effects), or if we were piloting an L-1011 jet aircraft with the numerous bladder, wing, and fuselage fuel tanks that it has located throughout its body, then in order for the boat or jet to be stopped dead cold, all fuel tanks individually need to be empty, first. If so much as one fuel tank has any fuel in it at all, then the boat or jet will continue forward at maximum cruising velocity, without any letup, until all tanks are completely empty. Only the complete exhaustion of all fuel from all of the separate fuel tanks, without any exceptions, will return the jet or boat into that quiescent state of rest that it once came from. The fact that one or several of the fuel tanks may be vacant of fuel will offer no propulsion impairment or reduction in velocity -- NONE WHATSOEVER.


As we turn from a high-powered machine or aviation setting where a manufactured product is under propulsion from multiple and independent sources of fuel, as we turn from that setting to a setting where a legal product was also manufactured by men, like the Federal Reserve Board (Incorporated), we found out that its propulsion also originates from multiple sources of jurisdictional fuel. And so in order to return the Federal Reserve Board to its quiescent STATUS QUO ANTE state of non-existence, of pre-December, 1913, then a large number of separate and distinct sources of Constitutional fuel need to be individually voided. If so much as one single source of Constitutional fuel is left remaining -- just so much as one single Clause -- by having survived the blows of a Protestor in adversary judicial proceedings, then the Federal Reserve Board will carry on at maximum cruising velocity with the same identical full force and effect as if the Protestor had never thrown anything at the Fed. Mindful of this background information, now we can discuss the multiple sources of jurisdictional fuel that the King has got up his sleeve to retortionally throw back at pesky little Protestors.


While examining the main Legal Tender and National bank related cases in the Supreme Court, [238]



- M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316 (1819);

- HEPBURN VS. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870);

- KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871);

- JULLIARD VS. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).



we see that the right of the Congress to create a bank and have that bank issue out national currency, as well the right of Congress to designate anything it wants as Legal Tender, is a power directly related to the right of the Congress, by both express and incidental powers:


1. To declare war; [239]

2. To suppress insurrection;

3. To raise and support armies; [240]

4. To provide and maintain a navy (notice the words "maintain" and "support," as they mean financially through taxes and money);

5. To regulate Interstate Commerce; [241]

6. To facilitate the laying and collecting of taxes; [242]

7. Existing as an attribute of Sovereignty; [243]

8. To coin and circulate money pursuant to Article I, Section 8;

9. To pay debts and facilitate the borrowing of money on the credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8); [244]

10. To provide for the common defense and general welfare.


[239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244]====================================


[239] The Legal Tender statutes were enacted in the Civil War era, when national resources were stretched thin:

"... to handle the vast amount of means necessary for the prosecution of this war, to enable the people to pay in and the Government to pay out, we must have a larger and more abundant currency that we have heretofore found to be necessary. The accustomed currency [of hard gold and silver] is wholly inadequate. The Government has for many years used only gold and silver for this purpose, and it is deeply lamented that it is obliged to depart from this desirable standard. But we are left with no option."

- Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech before Congress on February 5, 1862 [CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.].


[240] "... the National Government [can] exercise... its powers to establish and maintain a bank, implied as an incident to the borrowing, taxing, war, and other powers specifically granted to the National Government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution."

- HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 (1937).


[241] "The power to regulate commerce is general and unlimited in its terms. The full power to regulate a particular subject implies the whole power, and leaves no residium."

- Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 513 ["Powers of Congress -- Commerce"] (Cambridge, 1833).


[242] "Here the substantive power to tax was allowed to be employed for improving the currency."

- KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 544 (1871).


[243] "The power to coin money is one of the ordinary prerogatives of Sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised in order to preserve a proper circulation of good coin of a known value in the home market... In England, this prerogative belongs to the Crown; and in former ages, it was greatly abused; for base coin was often coined and circulated by its authority, at a value far above its intrinsic worth; and thus taxes of a burdensome nature were indirectly laid upon the people."

- Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 17 ["Powers of Congress -- Coinage"] (Cambridge, 1833).


[244] "A bank has a direct relation to the power of borrowing money, because it is an unusual, and in sudden emergencies, an essential instrument, in the obtaining of loans to Government. A nation is threatened with a war; large sums are wanted on a sudden [basis] to make the requisite preparations; taxes are laid for this purpose; but it requires time to obtain the benefit of them; anticipation is indispensable. If there is a bank, the supply can at once be had; if there be none, loans from individuals must be sought. The progress of these is often too slow for the exigency; in some situations they are not practical at all."

- Joseph Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 139 [footnote -- "Powers of Congress -- Bank"] (Cambridge, 1833).


====================================[239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244]


all of which were involved, to a lessor and greater extent, at the time the LEGAL TENDER ACTS were enacted by the Congress in the Civil War era of the 1800's. [245]



"We do not propose to dilate at length upon the circumstances i which the country was placed when Congress attempted to make Treasury Notes a Legal Tender. They are of too recent occurrence to justify enlarged description. Suffice it to say that a Civil War was then raging which seriously threatened the overthrow of the Government and the destruction of the Constitution itself. It demanded the equipment and support of large armies and navies, and the employment of money to an extent beyond the capacity of all ordinary sources of supply. Meanwhile, the public Treasury was nearly empty, and the credit of the Government, if not stretched to its utmost tension, had become nearly exhausted. Moneyed institutions had advanced largely of their means, and more could not be expected of them. They had been compelled to suspend specie payments. Taxation was inadequate to pay even the interest on the debt already incurred, and it was impossible to await the income of additional taxes. The necessity was immediate and pressing. The army was unpaid. There was then due to the soldiers in the field nearly a score of millions of dollars. The requisition from the War and Navy Departments for supplies exceeded fifty millions, and the current expenditure was over one million per day. The entire amount of coin in the country, including that in private hands, as well as that in banking institutions, was insufficient to supply the need of the Government for three months, had it all poured into the Treasury. Foreign credit we had none. We say nothing of the overhanging paralysis of trade, and of business generally, which threatened loss of confidence in the ability of the Government to maintain its continued existence, and therewith the complete destruction of all remaining national credit.

"It was at this time and in such circumstances that Congress was called upon to devise means for maintaining the army and navy, for securing the large supplies of money needed and, indeed, for the preservation of the Government created by the Constitution. It was at such a time and in such an emergency that nothing else would have supplied the absolute necessities of the Treasury, that nothing else would have enabled the Government to maintain its armies and navies, that nothing else would have saved the Government and the Constitution from destruction, while the Legal Tender Acts would, could any one be bold enough to assert that Congress transgressed its powers? Or if these enactments did not work these results, can it be maintained now that they were not for a legitimate end, or 'appropriate and adapted to that end?' in the language of Chief Justice Marshall? That they did work such results is not to be doubted. Something revived the drooping faith of the people; something brought immediately to the Government's aid the resources of the nation, and something enabled the successful prosecution of the war, and the preservation of national life. What was it, if not the Legal Tender enactments?"

- KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 539 (1871).



And the correlation in effect between the right to enact Legal Tender Statutes and the various War Powers of the Congress applies both in times of war, [246]



- KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871).



and also in times of peace. [247]



JULLIARD VS. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).



So what is important for Tax Protestors to understand is that when they attack either the Federal Reserve in whole or part, or the designation of its CIRCULATING EVIDENCES OF DEBT at Legal Tender -- and the Protestor goes through all of the Supreme Court rulings on the MONEY COIN CLAUSE in Article I, Section 8, [248]



As a point of beginning, Article I, Section 10 limits itself to the STATES ["No State shall..."], and not to the Congress.

"The states can no longer declare what shall be money, or regulate its value."

- KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 545 (1871).

Protestors trying to argue now that Article I, Section 10 restrains the Congress -- meaning something directly contrary to what is written, is considerable foolishness.



and all the Constitutional Convention debates on the MONEY COIN CLAUSE, and the material discussed in secret Convention meetings back in 1787, and all of the Legislation enacted pursuant thereto, and all of the quotations from the Founding Fathers, such as in Max Farrand's works [249]



THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 [Yale University Press, New Haven (1937); 4 volumes].



or "The Federalist," and numerous other private correspondence, and all the lower court opinions on CHOSES IN ACTION and coins and debasement theories, and of their citations on the monetary disabilities of the United States; after the Tax Protestor goes through all that work and effort, he has only told the Supreme Court about 10% of what the Supreme Court needs to hear in order to invalidate the Status of Federal Reserve Notes as Legal Tender instruments: Because the right to create banks and let that bank circulate Legal Tender is also related to WAR POWERS and the SUPPRESSION OF DOMESTIC INSURRECTIONS, to RAISING TAXES, [250]






the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, the Article I, Section 8 MONEY COIN CLAUSE, and the RAISING AND FINANCING ARMIES AND NAVIES CLAUSES, and of course SOVEREIGNTY itself -- and they are independent stand-alone sources of jurisdiction that have to be attacked individually, just like a jet or boat with several fuel tanks needs to have each separate tank vacated before the vehicle will come to a stationary state. [251]



"It is absolutely essential to independent national existence that Government should have a firm hold on the two great Sovereign instrumentalities of the sword and the purse, and the right to wield them without restriction on occasions of national peril. In certain emergencies Government must have at its command, not only the personal services -- the bodies and lives -- of its Citizens, but the lessor, though not less essential, power of absolute control over the resources of the country. Its armies must be filled, and its navies manned, by the Citizens in person. Its materials of war, its munitions, equipment, and commissary stores must come from the industry of the country. This can only be stimulated into activity by a proper financial system, especially as regards the currency."

- KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 [Justice Bradley, concurring] (1871).



Will someone please tell me how to challenge the Fed based on the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE? [252]



"The power of Congress over interstate commerce is 'complete in itself, may be executed to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution'."

- UNITED STATES VS. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, at 114 (1940).



What grant of intervening and manipulative power is more broad than the Interstate Commerce Clause? With that Clause, anything goes. How are you going to attack Federal Reserve Notes as being a defective use of the RAISING AND FINANCING OR ARMIES AND NAVIES CLAUSES? [253]



Remember the Legal Tender statutes were born in the fires of the Civil War, when there was a great exigency and importance associated with the idea of raising a lot of money very quickly; yet, there were also disagreements on the floor of the Congress, and reservations were expressed then as to the Constitutionality of the proposed paper money that would be circulating:

"The sum of the whole argument has been made in favor of the Constitutionality of the power of Congress to declare the Treasury notes contemplated by this bill a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, may be stated in these three propositions:

"First, Congress may declare these notes a legal tender because it is not inhibited;

"Secondly, the Government must maintain itself, and Congress may exercise all the power and adopt any measure it judges necessary for that object;

"Thirdly, that the power to declare these notes a legal tender is a means necessary and proper to the full execution of the power to regulate commerce.

"This provision is as inexpedient as it is unconstitutional. It is a legislative declaration of national bankruptcy. It is saying to the world that this Government is unable to meet its obligations at their real value; and must compound with its creditors at a discount...

"This provision attempts the impossible thing of giving to paper the value of gold..."

- Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech in Congress on February 5, 1862 [CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.]



The answer is that you are not going to. There are some sharp attorneys like Edwin Vieira (Mr. Solyom's attorney), [254]



Edwin Vieira represented Richard Solyom in a Stated related EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING, and challenged the right of a State to force the acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes as the QUID PRO QUO for his land that the State wanted to grab. Edwin Vieira argued the monetary disabilities of Article I, Section 10 in an action against a STATE, which at least is a correct point of beginning -- a lot more than what I can say for Tax Protestors throwing Article I, Section 10 arguments at THE CONGRESS. Edwin Vieira also wrote a book discussing the monetary powers and disabilities of the United States Constitution; see PIECES OF EIGHT by Edwin Vieira, Jr. [Devin-Adair, Old Greenwich, Connecticut (1983)].



and on the other hand there are some INTELLIGENTSIA clowns; and any judicial rebuffment experienced by attorneys throwing Protestor caliber arguments at Federal Judges is a FULLY EARNED ACCOUNT >phrase originated by Ayn Rand<, as any flaky arguments centered singularly around just the GOLD AND SILVER COIN CLAUSE of Article I, Section 10 are just plain stupid: You are misleading your readers, delivering naught to your clients for your fees, and as attorneys you should know better. [255]



You lawyers use that license of your's as a tool to impress and intellectually intimidate people, and since that is your standard, I would then hold you to it and order your disbarment if I had any supervisory jurisdictional interest in your license, just like Jerome Daly from Minnesota was once suspended from the Practice of Law for his flaky money arguments. In the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT for Credit River, Minnesota, on December 7, 1968, Jerome Daly once scored an impressive victory before a jury, on what was largely a stipulated factual setting of FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION on a $14,000 mortgage that Jerome Daly had defaulted on. Seemingly, he was off to a good start, but a continuing series of rebuffments later on before judges cast his money arguments off on an illicit tangent, and when he refused to back off, his license was suspended.



Other rulings also affirm the broad application of monetary powers. Later on in VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO, [256]



75 U.S. 533 (1869).



the Chief Justice, speaking for the Supreme Court, ruled that it is the Constitutional right of the Congress to provide a currency for the whole country; and that this might be done with coin, or by United States Notes, or by notes of banks chartered by the Congress. Other cases replicate the same line. For example:


"In VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO [75 U.S. 533 (1869)], decided at the present term, this court held, after full consideration, that it was the privilege of Congress to furnish this country with the currency to be used by it in the transaction of business, whether this was done by means of coin, of notes of the United States, or of banks created by Congress." [257]



HEPBURN VS. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870).



So asking a Federal Judge to declare the Federal Reserve System or its Notes as being unConstitutional based on the MONETARY CLAUSE of Article I, Section 8 is facially only a small slice of the larger total argument pie that Judges need to hear. [258]



When I advocate folks taking cognizance of the fact that the King has many different independent sources of jurisdiction to pull from in order to justify the existence of the Federal Reserve Board and those paper notes that his Legal Tender statutes have designated to be his currency, please do not construe that with any philosophical inclination on my part that might appear to favor the King issuing out such paper based circulating instruments that excite Gremlins so much in elevated enscrewment ecstacy; I am different from Protestors only in the limited sense that I always evaluate both sides of an issue before throwing something at a Judge. Refusing to badmouth adversaries does not mean that you agree with them philosophically, nor does it inferentially suggest that one is in alignment with the adversary's objectives; refusing to badmouth means no more than realizing that the true remedy for correcting these currency Torts will not lie in a Courtroom. Therefore, by examining the case from the adversary's perspective, frequently I uncover real error in positions taken by Protestors, but by examining the case from the King's perspective, that does not mean that I am sympathetic with the King's MODUS OPERANDI or his objectives. Unlike Protestors, I do not walk into a judicial confrontation with anyone assuming that I am absolutely right, convinced that there is nothing the other fellow has to say that is of any value, and then simply expecting justice to be administered in my favor -- such a person is necessarily in a very UNTEACHABLE state of mind -- he will miss many low profile movements going on that are suggestive of error. There may very well be some error in my position that I did not see (or understand the significance of), so my excursions into judicial arenas are always exploratory in nature, and I keep myself in a teachable state of mind (a MODUS OPERANDI Protestors would be wise to consider emulating).



One of the reasons lies in the right of Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce through its COMMERCE CLAUSE (and arguing deficiencies in that jurisdiction is foolishness). So any Constitutional infirmity or tension in effect between the Federal Reserve System and Article I, Section 8 offers no reason whatever for dissolving the Fed; as the COMMERCE CLAUSE neatly picks up all the loose ends where the restrictive coinage jurisdiction conferred by Article I, Section 8 might possibly be imperfect, and renders Judicial dissolution of the Fed inappropriate. [259]



Some Federal Reserve Protestors I know are planning to throw some novel protesting arguments at Federal Judges. Having concluded that quoting Constitutional restrainments is unlikely to perfect judicial dissolution of the Federal Reserve System [and correctly so as a factual matter], these Protestors have decided to step down one level and just cite judicial reasoning in an attempt to dismantle a small appendage of the Fed, called the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE, or FOMC. By researching Supreme Court cases back in the 1930's, an era when Judicial annulment of Nelson Rockefeller's social welfare LEX [through his public nominee, imp FDR] was in vogue, these Protestors intend to cite Cases like:




and then pursuant to reasoning in those Cases, argue that the delegation of regulatory commercial matters by the Congress to a non-juristic business association of some type, is unConstitutional:

"But would it be seriously contended that Congress could delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups as to empower them to enact the laws they deem to be wise and beneficent for the rehabilitation and expansion of their trade or industry? Could trade or industrial associations or groups be constituted legislative bodies for that purpose because such associations or groups are familiar with the problems of their enterprises? And could an effort of that sort be made valid by such a preface of generalities as to permissible aims as we find in [this NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT that the Supreme Court is about to run into the ground]? The answer is obvious. Such a delegation of legislative power is unknown to our Law and is utterly inconsistent with the Constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress."

- SCHECHTER POULTRY VS. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, at 537 (1935).

No where in the Constitution does it state that "... the Congress shall not delegate any of its regulatory powers over Commerce to business associations..." -- as there are numerous negative restrainments and positive requirements deemed binding on the Congress, but no where appearing in the Constitution; many are reasonably inferred as existing incidental to what the Constitution otherwise expressly mandates.

By going after just the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE appendage within the Fed, and not the Fed itself, these Protestors are emulating a successful MODUS OPERANDI used extensively by Gremlins themselves -- by selectively hacking away at something here a little, and there a little -- slowly and patiently.

Whether or not these Protestors will ultimately succeed is inconclusive at the present time. There is some merit to their DELEGATION QUESTION arguments as limited just to the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE itself within the Fed; and these arguments are not overruled by the other wide ranging fundamental sources of jurisdictional fuel the King has to create the larger Federal Reserve.

... And for Protestors searching for something to throw at the Gremlin's enrichment Goliath, that's enough.

I am concerned about whether or not these Protestors can create a sound JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, which is another question; to the extent that the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE massages around and regulates with juristic force banks and related financial institutions, STANDING is necessarily limited to the affected parties absent an evidentiary presentation of the cascading train of damages originating within the inner sanctums of the FOMC, that were eventually experienced by the Plaintiff. I would feel more comfortable with the probable outcome of this impending Case if an FOMC regulated institution itself appeared as the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, these Protestors will find that judicial reaction will be mixed -- there are Federal Judges who are sympathetic with their arguments (as there is merit to them), while there are other TOUGH COOKIE Federal Judges who will take advantage of the factual opportunity this impending Case presents to them, by throwing snortations at the Protestors.



Yes, Virginia, Paul Warburg knew what he was doing. But even that is not the full story.


QUESTION: How are you Protestors going to attack Federal Reserve Notes on the floor of the United States Supreme Court? How are you going to attack Sovereignty itself? Are you going to try and attack the essence of Sovereignty itself by quoting from the devil himself? If you can't find a quotation from Lucifer slicing down Sovereignty, then maybe a quotation from one of his hard working Gremlin assistants might be a point of beginning. [260]



Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski writing in BETWEEN TWO AGES: AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, once advocated that the fiction of Sovereignty must be replaced with reality:

"The doctrine of sovereignty created the institutional basis for challenging the secular authority of established religion, and this challenge in turned paved the way for the emergence of the abstract conception of the nation-state. Sovereignty vested in the people, instead of Sovereignty vested in the king, was the consummation of the process which in the two centuries preceding the French and American revolutions radically altered the structure of authority in the West and prepared the ground for a new dominant concept of reality...

"The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: 'International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.' But as the nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty, the psychological importance of the national community is rising, and the attempt to establish an equilibrium between the imperatives of the [Corporate Socialist Rockefeller Cartel's] new internationalism and the need for a more intimate national community is the source of frictions and conflicts."

- Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES: AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, at 70 and 56 [Viking Press, New York City (1970)].



Well, an attack on Sovereignty like that, although a majestic goal for Gremlins as they tear down our existing Constitution and the Juristic Institution it created, and try and replace it with their own, is not much. So now just how does an inherent prerogative of the Sovereign, of this right to issue out money any way he feels like it, violate the King's Charter? Answer: There is no violation -- there is no express Clause restraining the Congress to circulate only that currency that physically contains gold and silver -- and you are not going to get the chance before the Supreme Court to attack it. [261]



Juristic institutions descend to the level of Commercial game players whenever they enter into the world of Commerce; so it can be argued that Sovereignty takes a back seat under some circumstances [this interesting Supreme Court Doctrine on the declension in status and loss of Sovereignty whenever the King enters into Commerce, appears in this Letter later with discussing those CIRCULATING EVIDENCES OF DEBT, Federal Reserve Notes].



Our Founding Fathers did not tie the King's giblets down tight enough with that level of explicit and blunt language that all Kings need to be restrained by. [262]



For example, the original draft versions of the Second and Fifth Amendments were far more specific and restrictive than the negotiated comprised milktoast versions that finally made it through the Congress of 1787. Yes, the Constitution was an INSPIRED DOCUMENT, but an INSPIRED DOCUMENT does not mean PERFECT DOCUMENT:

"We believe that God raised up George Washington, that He raised up Thomas Jefferson, that He raised up Benjamin Franklin and those other Patriots who carved out with their swords and with their pens the character and stability of this great Government which they hoped would stand forever, an asylum for the oppressed of all nations, where no man's religion would be questioned, no man would be limited in his honest service to his Maker, so long as he did not infringe upon the rights of his fellow men. We believe those men were inspired to do their work, as we do that Joseph Smith was inspired to begin this work; just as Galileo, Columbus, and other mighty men of old... were inspired to gradually pave the way leading to this Dispensation; Sentinels, standing at different periods down the centuries, playing their parts as they were inspired of God; gradually dispelling the darkness as they were empowered by their Creator so to do, that in culmination of the grand scheme of schemes, this great nation, the Republic of the United States, might be established upon this land as an asylum for the oppressed; a resting place [a sanctuary] it might be said, for the ARK OF THE COVENANT, where the Temple of our God might be built; where the PLAN OF SALVATION might be introduced and practiced in freedom, and not a dog would wag his tongue in opposition to the purposes of the Almighty. We believe that this was His object in creating the Republic of the United States; the only land where His work could be commenced or the feet of his people come to rest. No other land had such liberal institutions, had adopted so broad a platform upon which all men might stand. We give glory to those Patriots for the noble work they did; but we given first glory to God, our Father and their Father, who inspired them. We take them by the hand as brothers. We believe they did nobly their work, even as we would fain do ours, faithfully and well, that we might not be recreant in the eyes of God, for failing to perform the mission to which He has appointed us."

- Orson F. Whitney, in a discourse delivered at the Tabernacle on April 19, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at 200 [London (1886)].



And so any attack on Federal Reserve Notes will require such an explicit and bluntly worded Constitutional Amendment, and that is a political operation for the Legislatures to handle, not something lending itself well in nature to a Judicial remedy. At best the Judiciary can rule on cases with the outcome carefully designed to give the Congress an incentive to get going. An honest assessment of the total factual setting of monetary history in the United States will emphasize general naivete among the members of the American legislatures in 1787: They didn't know what they were doing, collectively speaking, although there were a few who did raise their voices in opposition to paper money, like Roger Sherman. [263]



For example, in the Continental Congress on August 28th, 1787, "Article 12 was being discussed. Article 12 was proposed to be as follows:

"Article XII. No state shall coin money; nor grant letters of marque and reprisals; nor enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of Nobility."

"Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roger Sherman moved to insert after the words COIN MONEY the words TO EMIT BILLS OF CREDIT, NOR MAKE ANY THING BUT GOLD AND SILVER COIN A TENDER IN PAYMENT OF DEBTS, thus making those prohibitions against paper money absolute.

"Mr. Ghorum thought the purpose would be well secured by the provision of Article XIII, which makes the consent of the General Legislature necessary, and in that mode, no opposition would be excited; whereas an absolute prohibition of paper money would rouse the most desperate opposition from its partizans.

"Mr. Sherman thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the Legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it."

- see Max Farrand's II RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at page 439 [Yale University Press, New Haven (1911-1937)].

Notice how Mr. Sherman and Mr Ghorum were concerned, knowledgeable and aware of the exterior opposition to prohibiting the emission of paper bills. There was opposition lying around the Countryside, opposed to making hard gold and silver mandatory with no legislative discretion allowed to substitute paper bills for gold and silver coin. So the reason why we have fraudulent Federal Reserve Notes running around today is because our Founding Fathers failed to tie the King down yesterday -- and Federal Judges are not Commie pinkos when tossing out arguments attacking Federal Reserve Notes. Our Founding Fathers specifically declined to make explicit and blunt prohibitions against the emission of paper bills because they knew then that few people wanted such a mandatory restrainment operating on the Congress, and our Fathers in 1787 did not want to create opposition to the proposed new Constitution designed to replace the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. So what we are left with today is the milktoast of Article I, Section 8. Gremlins have merely take advantage of what our Fathers circumvented back then; and our Fathers found themselves in such a position because a lot of folks did not want prohibitions against the emission of paper bills. We did this to ourselves, and Patriots are snickering at the wrong people.



Remember that the Britannic Crown was still quite popular then, and the American Revolution was a minority rights operation, with many bleeding heart native Americans opposing severance from the Crown. And there were also just too few George Masons to go around. The experientially wise know that you never, ever deal with a King with negative restraining clauses in contracts except under the most explicit and blunt words that the English Language offers, because the King will always figure out ways to claim some implicit permission to work his way around a restraining clause that is sounding in milktoast; but our Fathers didn't do that. And compounding the problem drafting such specific language, sprinkled in between the floor debates and political comprises, were a few traitors of strong influence (like Alexander Hamilton, who married indirectly into the House of Rothschild). [264]



Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler, the second daughter of Phillip Schuyler, at the bride's home in Albany, New York, on December 14, 1780. The bride's mother was Catherine van Rensselaer, daughter of Colonel John R. van Rensselaer, who was the son of Hendrik, the grandson of Killiaen, the first Partroon, and Engeltke (Angelica) Livingston. The bride had been characterized as:

"... a brunette with the most good natured, dark, lovely eyes that I ever saw, which threw a beam of good temper and benevolence over her entire countenance."

The bride was just over 23, and the groom was 25. Alexander's courtship with Elizabeth that year had been very brief, as the arranged marriage that it was. While others have uncovered payment records in the British Museum in London from the Rothschilds to their nominee Alexander Hamilton, an examination of his political orientation [particularly his drive to create a national bank] magnifies his Gremlin stature. There is quite a large number of Alexander Hamilton related biographics and profile sketches floating around. See "THE INTIMATE LIFE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON," by Allan Hamilton [Charles Scribner's Sons, New York (1910) [quote on the bride's description, id., at page 95]; and "ALEXANDER HAMILTON: YOUTH TO MATURITY, 1755 - 1788," by Broades Mitchell [MacMillian Company, New York (1957)].



who knew exactly what they were doing, for and on behalf of their sponsors. [265]



There has always been a period of Time in the United States when well sponsored imps have ascended into positions of political prominence; sometimes into Juristic Institutions, and other times they operate on the outside, perhaps as a director of a foundation, a historian, or a university professor of some type. One such imp, financially sponsored by Rockefeller Cartel interests, has been Rexford Tugwell, who likes to create the image that he is a historian. In one of his books, entitled THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION, he really shows off his Gremlin colors. He tries to throw derogatory characterizations at our Founding Fathers by pointing attention over to such things as the acreage of land once owned by Thomas Jefferson and other economic profile information; but the fact that the Four Rockefeller Brothers are financially sponsoring little Tug himself to write a new Constitution to enrich the Brothers is, of course, something this little imp, speaking with a forked tongue, remains silent on. And he has, of course, just the right solution for all those CRUCIAL American legal ailments: A new Constitution >see TEXT FILE on THE NEWSTATES CONSTITUTION, available on some BBS's for downloading< -- designed along Corporate Socialist lines that would enrich his sponsors in the Rockefeller Cartel. Under this new Constitution, large private corporations assume several of the functions once held exclusively by Juristic Institutions -- such as criminal prosecutions, the regulation of business, issuance of commercial licenses, and, of course, there is no Trial by Jury. Rexford Tugwell shows off his true Gremlin colors by coming down on those great triple Gremlin irritants: LAISSEZ-FAIRE, INDIVIDUALISM, and the INDEPENDENCE of national Sovereignty:

"So much for the Constitution. But it did not end there; continuing suspicion of authority allowed LAISSEZ-FAIRE to thrive beyond its time and allowable scope; and the propensity to contrive produced an affluence we did not use to advantage because we held to INDIVIDUALISM and INDEPENDENCE in theory although we created a system of social and economic complexes requiring integration and organic management. If these generalizations are accepted, they describe a curious and unanticipated outcome. It is not certain, for instance, how much of our affluence is owed to the INDIVIDUALISM that now threatens to choke its own further growth...

"Yet the myth of INDEPENDENCE and INDIVIDUALISM persists, mostly nowadays as a political appeal, but it furnishes assurances to unthinking citizens. These words are regarded with cynical tolerance by intellectuals; but they still have an appeal to the electorate, and they will until a more realistic approach has made its way into people's minds...

"The laws establishing [administrative] agencies did not clearly recognize that the businesses involved were using resources belonging to the people, and lacking this, their authority to make allocations was hazy. They were handicapped also by the prevailing belief in LAISSEZ-FAIRE..."

- Rexford Tugwell in THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION, at 17, 27 and 145 [Harper & Row, New York (1974); Sponsored by the Rockefeller's FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC in Santa Monica, California].

Notice what difficulty Gremlins like little Tug have in restraining themselves not to throw invectives at those heinous institutions of INDIVIDUALISM, LAISSEZ-FAIRE, and the INDEPENDENCE of national Sovereignty. Gremlins do not want INDIVIDUALS to amount to something great on their own volition [they want men to remain boys, and for everyone to keep their diapers on by looking to Government for security, for protection, and as a source of remedies for society's problems]; they do not want LAISSEZ-FAIR [they want total top down Government control of everything, so that when Government controls it, then they can control it]; and Gremlins do not want the world divided up into multiple independent Sovereignties [they want a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, under their control]. Those are the great Gremlin objectives, and getting rid of that United States Constitution -- and everything else Majestic, Celestial, and developmental of INDIVIDUALS that it represents -- is a glorious dream for imps to bask in. [For other attacks on the Founding Fathers by sponsored self-proclaimed "historians," see imp Charles Beard in AN ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION [The Free Press, New York (1913)]; who uncovered detailed financial profile information on the Founders, and then came to the conclusion, as he was paid to do, that the Constitution was just a legal instrument to self-enrich its creators. Like his brother Rexford Tugwell, CHARLES BEARD SHOULD BE THE VERY LAST ONE TO TALK.]



One might think that with the passage of time, an increase in political SAVOIR FAIRE might just develop nationally. But no. If a Constitutional Convention were held over again today, as is quite close to happening, I am afraid of the consequences. We need a Constitutional Convention today in the 1980's like we need the Ortega Brothers >of Nicaraguan infamy< in the United States Senate representing the State of New Hampshire. Conservatives believing a new Constitutional Convention, called for the purpose of a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, are playing into the hands of Gremlins, who fully intend to use that Constitutional Convention to replace our Father's Constitution with their own; in fact that is how the Constitution of 1787 was proposed to the States, as a replacement for the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. And if you don't think Gremlins are smart enough to use parliamentary devices to work their way around wording in some State Resolutions calling for such a Convention (attempting to limit the subject matter discussed in the Convention to just the content of the BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT), then you have no knowledge whatsoever of Gremlins, and you are not even qualified to exercise such political judgment today when in fact Gremlins now hold the upper hand in the United States. [266]



If you CONSERVATIVES were smart, you would not consider donating money or voting for any candidate expressing sympathy with either the milktoast Democratic or Republican Party Platforms; such a candidate is no adversary of Gremlins. As far as I am concerned, if in fact the Gremlins can pull off this Constitutional switch at the impending Constitutional Convention, then they fully deserve the avalanche of benefits such a juristic instrument will generate for them. I admire victors of battles for their tactical SAVIOR FAIRE, even though I may not be sympathetic with their doctrines or objectives.



And Gremlins are not about to let a Constitutional Convention come and go in the United States without putting up a good fight. [267]



"In connection with the attack on the United States, the Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith [that] there would be an attempt to overthrow the country by destroying the Constitution. Joseph Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution would hang as it were by a thread, and at that time... the Elders of Israel, widely spread over the nation, will, at the crucial time... [participate by providing] the necessary balance of strength to save the institutions of Constitutional Government. Now is the time to get ready."

- Ezra Taft Benson in CONFERENCE REPORTS, page 70 (October, 1961).



If you want to get a good preview and feel for the class of new Constitution that such a convention would produce, just examine the caliber of Presidents elected in recent history. [268]



If you are unaware of the interest certain Gremlins have towards using that impending Convention for their own proprietary purposes, then consider these words from our Gremlin friend EXTRAORDINAIRE, Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"The approaching two hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation's formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1987 -- the two hundredth anniversary of the Constitution -- could serve as a target date for culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements, the workings of the representative process, and the desirability of imitating the various European regionalization reforms and of streamlining the administrative structure. More important still, either date would provide a suitable occasion for redefining the meaning of modern democracy -- a task admittedly challenging but not necessarily more so than when it was undertaken by the founding fathers -- and for setting ambitious and concrete social goals."

-Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES:AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, at 258 [Viking Press, New York City (1970)].

Those "social goals" that Brzezinski wants involve a NEW ECONOMIC ORDER which Brzezinski openly admits would seriously threaten "the traditional American values of individualism, free enterprise, the work ethic, and efficiency." -- but pesky little anachronisms like those are nuisances today, and his employer David Rockefeller has no room for nuisances. What David decrees is what's important, and David has decreed that Corporate Socialism is important.


NOTICE: George Mercier is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generaly presented as "" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of used throughout.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commecial enterprise and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct; use the service in a way that harms us or anyone connected with or whose work is presented; damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site) or interfere with anyone's use and enjoyment of the website.
All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the site or material contained within.

Presentation Copyright 2007, 2009
All Rights Reserved