I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
THE RESIDENCY CONTRACT
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.]
invisible contract that is difficult to see is the Residency Contract. By being "resident" within a
particular Kingdom for a certain length of time, it is presumed that you have
accepted those juristic benefits which that regional Prince of your's is
offering you. 
these appellants, indeed, shared during the taxable year the benefits of the
expenditures by the State for the various activities of its Government. As the trial judge pointed out, the public
schools were available to their children; they had the benefit of police
protection for themselves, their families and their property; they could use
the public roads daily; the courts were open for resort by them if necessary;
and so with every other benefit and privilege provided by the State or its
agencies, such, for instance, as water supply and sewerage. They entered upon the enjoyment of these
benefits, and should be liable to a share in the taxation levied to maintain
them, in the absence of any distinguishing factor in their situation."
WOOD VS. TAWES, 28 Atlantic 2nd 850, at
we know that the acceptance of benefits locks folks into contracts, we also
know how to get out of unwanted contracts; our distinguishing factor in our
situation is going to be, of course, a NOTICE OF REJECTION OF BENEFITS filed
appropriately and timely. Until
benefits have been rejected, invisible contracts are in effect and we are not
entitled to prevail under any circumstances.
Here, in WOOD VS. TAWES, Residency Protestors tried unsuccessfully to
weasel out of state income taxes. This
WOOD VS. TAWES case was heard before by the Maryland Court of Appeals -- but
its reasoning and justification is very similar to other state judges in all 50
states. Of those benefits that are
listed above, you should know that acceptance of the twin state POLICE PROTECTION
BENEFIT and AVAILABILITY OF THE STATE COURTS BENEFIT are universally viewed by
judges in all English Common Law Countries world wide as being sufficient, all
by themselves, to lock folks into RESIDENCY CONTRACTS, as silence by
inhabitants is deemed acceptance of those particular juristic benefits. In a nice way, this Maryland Court is trying
to say: You accepted those juristic
benefits -- so pay the tax and stop trying to be cheap. Yes, protestors are irritating to judges; so
let's reverse the factual setting presented for a grievance settlement, and
let's first work our adversaries into an immoral position by vacating the
transfer of juristic benefits to us.
Now, when the state tax commission asks for money, now that there is no
QUID PRO QUO equivalence on the record, now as a moral question, we are
entitled to prevail. However, if we
have kids going to public schools then we will not be able to get rid of all
benefits offered by the state, and our NOTICE OF REJECTION OF BENEFITS means
nothing since it is incomplete -- and we should not protest state income taxes
while accepting benefits, because we are not entitled to prevail.
benefits are legitimate, then the reciprocity your regional Prince expects back
from you in the form of a state income tax, is very reasonable, and the Supreme
Court has so ruled:
"(States) can tax the privilege of
residence in the State and measure the privilege by net income, including that
derived from interstate commerce."
VS. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, at 255 (1946).
entire area of State Income Taxes lies generally outside of Federal
intervention, except to the narrow extent to which several slices of
restrainments resident in the United States Constitution hem in your regional
state is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the
Constitution, if by the practical operation of its power in relation to
opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has afforded, to
benefits which it has conferred by the fact of being an orderly, civilized
VS. J.C. PENNEY, 311 U.S. 435, at 444 (1940).
more so, Tax Protestors arguing philosophically doctrinaire and other economic
questions on State Taxation schemes are frequently rebuffed by Federal Judges
who defer the question back to the States.
the economic wisdom of state net income taxes is one of state policy not for
CEMENT VS. MINNESOTA, 359 U.S. 450, at 461 (1959).
basic power of taxation is an attribute of Sovereignty, and is inherent in
every Government unless explicitly denied or limited by its Constitution; 
we proceed to examine [the Case's] argument, and subject it to the test of the
Constitution, we must be permitted to bestow a few considerations on the nature
and extent of this original right of taxation, which is acknowledged to remain
with the states. It is admitted that
the power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very
existence of Government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to
which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose
to carry it. The only security against
the abuse of this power is found in the structure of Government itself. In imposing a tax the legislature acts upon
its constituents. This is in general a
sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."
VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316, at 428 (1819).
I am referring only to the expectations of reciprocity inherent as Sovereignty
in the several States, and not the United States Government, which is a very
unique jurisprudential structure of the world's political jurisdictions.) Properly rephrased, what that means is that
the jurisdiction of Government (remember during this Residency Contract
discussion, I am only talking about the several States) to first throw benefits
at folks, and then in turn demand and get reciprocal taxation compensation back
in return for having done so, is simply unlimited -- unless the Juristic
Institution in its constitutional structure has been explicitly restrained
(limited) from asking for reciprocity back in return. And when dealing with a State taxation scheme, we need to focus
in on the State's statutes and its Constitution, rather than the United States
Constitution, because as a general rule the States are free to throw benefits
at folks, and then demand and get reciprocity back in return -- generally
unhampered, unencumbered, and unrestrained by the Federal Constitution. 
the other hand, the Constitution, by words, places no limitation upon a state's
power to tax the things or activities or persons within its boundaries. What limitations there are spring from
applications to state tax situations of general clauses of the
VS. CARTER & WEEKS, 330 U.S. 442, at 426 (1946).
place to disable a State's expectations of reciprocity has its seminal point of
origin in the Juristic Institution's own Charter -- and an examination of your
regional Prince's Charter will reveal that not very much reciprocity
restrainment exists there, if any.
power of taxation rests upon necessity and is inherent in every independent
State. It is as extensive as the range
of subjects over which the Government extends; it is absolute and unlimited, in
the absence of constitutional limitations and restraints, and carries with it
the power to embarrass and destroy."
VS. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 380, at 380 (1915).
background legal setting applies to us, Residents are objects accepting
juristic benefits, and so now Residents are PERSONS over which the State has
reciprocal expectations of taxation jurisdiction, largely unhampered by the
Federal Constitution, because you are a benefit acceptant object lying within
the contours of its geographical perimeters.
the power of taxation is not confined to the people and property of a
state. If may be exercised upon every
object brought within its jurisdiction.
This is true. But to what source
do we trace the right? It is obvious,
that it is an incident of Sovereignty."
Story, in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 490 (Cambridge, 1833).
State has some jurisdiction over you simply because you are an object in that
kingdom, however, whether or not that level of jurisdiction ascends to the
reciprocal level of taxation jurisdiction when no benefits are being
transferred down to you, is another question.
obligation of one domiciled with a state to pay taxes there, arise from
unilateral action of the state Government in the exercise of its most plenary
of sovereign powers, that to raise revenue to defray the expenses of Government
and to distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits. Hence, domicile in itself establishes a
basis for taxation."
VS. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, at 279 (1931).
ask ourselves the usual question: Just
what benefits are being thrown at us this time, in order to justify one more
juristic layer of taxation? 
of this Court, particularly during recent decades, have sustained
nondiscriminatory, properly apportioned state... taxes... when the tax is
related to... local [in-State] activities and the State has provided benefits
and protections for those activities for which it is justified in asking a fair
and reasonable return."
AUTO BODY VS. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274, at 287 (1976).
application of the rule will vary with the quality and nature of the
defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act
by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of
conducting [commercial] activities within this forum state, thus invoking the
benefits and protections of its laws."
VS. DENCKLA, 357 U.S. 235, at 253 (1957).
to the extent that a [person] exercises the privilege of conducting activities
within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protections of the laws of that
state. The exercise of that privilege
may give rise to obligations..."
SHOE VS. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, at 319 (1945).
point of beginning, Residents accept the benefits offered by State
Sovereign may impose upon everyone domiciled within his territory a personal
tax, which is 'the burden imposed by Governments upon its own Citizens for the
benefits what that Government affords by its protection and its laws.' Any domiciled person is subject to this tax,
though he be an alien or a corporation."
Beale in JURISDICTION TO TAX, 32 Harvard Law Review 587, at 589 (1919).
fact that a state conducts certain programs for its Residents does not mean
that these benefits are available to all who live within its borders. 
right to use certain state benefits often depends upon whether the Resident can
meet certain qualifications. See
generally, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS AFTER SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 70 Columbia Law
Review 134 (1970).
New York State, we open up the State Constitution no farther that the first
line in Article 1, Section 1, and we find the recital of benefits the United
States Supreme Court was referring to:
"No member of this state shall be
disenfranchised, or deprived of any of these rights or privileges secured to
any Citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his
YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, Article I, Section 1 ["Rights, privileges, and
franchise secured"] (1938).
speaking, State Residents are State Citizens; and Citizens, as members of the
State body politic, possess election rights of suffrage. 
Citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by
YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 1.
benefit inuring to State Residents is the protectorate operation of the State
Police Powers. 
power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized
Government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the
Taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value
of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in
which he shares -- such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements,
and schools for the education of his children.
If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or
otherwise benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly
within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be said to owe an
allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property
within the domicile of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion
than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power
of the Legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law."
REFRIGERATOR VS. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 195, at 202 (1905).
use if this power, a wide ranging array of benefits can be thrown at folks in
justification for the enforcement of the reciprocal demands of taxation. 
manifestation of the operation of the Police Powers, so called, is the creation
of regulatory jurisdictions designed to restrain color and race discrimination:
"... the police powers of a State
under our Constitutional system is adequate for the protection of the civil
rights of its Citizens against discrimination by reason of race or color."
Douglas in BOB-LO EXCURSION COMPANY VS. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28, at 41 (1947).
multiplying little slices of invisible benefits here and there, States create a
large array of benefits that are impressive to Federal Judges -- and even the
14th Amendment surfaces as an expression of Law in State Residency Contract
"Since the 14th Amendment makes one a
Citizen of the state where ever he resides, the fact of residence creates
universally recognized reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of
allegiance and support by the Citizen.
The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and
measure is largely a political matter."
BROTHERS VS. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954).
addressing the Residency Question itself, which is a sister to Citizenship, two
Cases come to my mind:
COOK VS. TAIT, 
U.S. 47 (1924).
is primarily a Citizenship Contract Case, the Supreme Court ruled that income
received by a Citizen of the United States while resident in Mexico is taxable due
to benefits received while outside of the United States (the old acceptance of
benefits story: When benefits offered
conditionally have been accepted, there lies a contract and it becomes immoral
not to require a mandatory exchange of reciprocity). The Court then listed those benefits that American Citizens
carried with them no matter what their geographical situs was. 
just like the King can tax his Citizens when they have asset streams out of the
country, States can tax their Residents on asset streams the Residents own
outside the perimeters of the State.
"A state may tax its residents upon
net income from a business whose physical assets, located wholly without the state,
are beyond its taxing power... That the
receipt of income by a resident of the territory of a taxing sovereignty is a
taxable event is universally recognized.
Domicile itself affords a basis for such taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence
[accepting residency benefits] and the attendant right to invoke the protection
of its laws [the police protectorate benefits, contract enforcement benefits,
and others], form responsibility for sharing the costs of Government. 'Taxes are what we pay for civilized
society...' See COMPANIA GENERAL DE
TABACOS DE FILIPINAS VS. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [275 U.S. 87]. A tax measured by net income of residents is
an equitable method of distributing the burdens of Government among those who
are privileged to enjoy its benefits."
YORK EX REL COHN VS. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, at 313 (1936) [Statements were
quoted out of order.].
SHAFFER VS. CARTER, 
U.S. 37 (1920)
Resident of Illinois was experiencing income from property he owned in
Oklahoma. It was held that Oklahoma can
tax non-Residents on their property located within the Oklahoma boundary situs,
and the reason is that protective benefits were accepted by that Oklahoma
property and so the state is entitled to a part of the financial gain that
property realized (which is also a correct statement of Nature, although the
Supreme Court did not use those words.)
[income] tax, which is apportioned to the ability of the taxpayer to pay it, is
founded upon the protection afforded by the state to the recipient of the
income in his person, in his right to receive the income and in his enjoyment
of it when received. These are the
rights and privileges which attach to domicil within this state."
YORK EX REL COHN VS. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, at 313 (1936).
taxation key in both of those Cases was the acceptance of benefits. 
arguing state taxation jurisdiction Cases before judges, one of the permissible
arguments to make is a subjective value cost/benefit question. In listing some of the arguments that could
have been made by a Tax Protestor, but were not, the Supreme Court said that:
"We note again that no claim is made
that the activity is not sufficiently connected to the State to justify a tax,
or that the tax is not fairly related to benefits provided the
AUTO BOY VS. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274, at 287 (1976).
as a point of reference, the Constitution's INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE disables
certain State Income Taxing schemes from taking effect, under some limited
conditions. See UNITED STATES GLUE
COMPANY VS. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321 (1917), which discusses several such
factual settings where challenged State Income Taxing schemes were either
affirmed or annulled on questions that turned on the COMMERCE CLAUSE.
from a Judge's perspective, what this means is that it is permissible for a
political jurisdiction to throw some benefits at you, and then demand, and get,
some QUID PRO QUO financial compensation in return for having done so. In this respect, due to Sovereignty,
Governments differ from Individuals in the respect that Individuals have to
document with evidence the voluntary acceptance of a benefit [of which silence,
but the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, can be reasonably inferred in some
circumstances] from someone else before bringing that other person to his knees
in a Courtroom; Government, however, simply throws benefits at everyone at
large, and the acceptance of the benefit by silence is automatically assumed
absent explicit, blunt, and timely benefit rejection and disavowal by you. The several States as independent
Sovereignties also possess this inherent power, except as limited by the United
States Constitution. 
have had frequent occasion to consider questions of state taxation in the light
of the Federal Constitution, and the scope and limits of national interference
are well settled. There is no general
supervision on the part of the nation over state taxation, and, in respect to
the latter, the state has, speaking generally, the freedom of a sovereign, both
as to objects and methods."
CENTRAL RAILROAD VS. POWERS, 201 U.S. 245, AT 292 (1905).
as it applies to occupancy, Residency Status is very much a privilege in the
sense that contracts are in effect; by your silence, after talking occupancy in
some Prince's kingdom, you attached a reasonable expectation of using the
Prince's police protectorate powers, among taking advantage of other juristic
benefits; and so now state statutes that define a reciprocal taxation liability
being expected back in return after you have lived in that kingdom for some 60
to 90 days, or whatever, and then continues liability attachment unless you
have been out of his kingdom for more than six months in any one year, etc. are
all morally correct and provident.
the 'controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it
can ask return.' Since by 'the
practical operation of [the] tax the state has exerted its power in relation to
opportunities which it has given, to protection which it has afforded, to
benefits which it has conferred...' it 'is free to pursue its own fiscal
policies, unembarrassed by the Constitution...'"
CEMENT VS. MINNESOTA, 358 U.S. 450, at 465 (1959).
silence, benefits offered conditionally by your regional Prince were accepted
by you through your refusal to disavow them, so invisible contracts where then
and there created by your acts (your act of refusing to reject and disavow the
juristic benefit). 
we deem it clear, upon principles as well as authority, that... a State may
impose general income taxes upon its own Citizens and residents whose persons
are subject to its control..."
VS. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 52 (1919).
State Income Tax Protestors, who merely make the declaration, while in the
midst of some type of state income tax enforcement proceeding, that they
"are not residents" or are not "state citizens" are wasting
their time. 
or not RESIDENTS of a state are automatically classifiable as STATE CITIZENS
varies based on several factors; sometimes these two words mean the same thing,
and sometimes they do not. Although a
light reading of the 14th Amendment would lead folks to believe that residents
are Citizens of the state wherein they reside, there is a distinction in effect
between "resident" and "Citizen":
"Of course the terms 'resident' and
'citizen' are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important
[like in] (LA TOURETTE VS MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465, at 470 (1918))."
VS. YALE & TOWNE, 252 U.S. 60, at 78 (1919).
purposes of analyzing a taxation scheme under the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment, the terms RESIDENT and CITIZEN are essentially
interchangeable; see AUSTIN VS. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 420 U.S. 656, footnote 8 (1974).
unequal the Government benefit distribution skew is between these two
classifications, important for the moment, for taxation purposes RESIDENTS are
equally taxable objects like CITIZENS.
fact that you may have recorded that declaration in a public place, and may
have also made the declaration timely, are not relevant factual elements that
inure to your advantage, since the substance of your arguments is
meaningless. Your Residency Contract is
not unilaterally terminated by your mere declaration that you are not a
Resident; contractual termination has to occur for a good substantive
reason. One such reason would be
Failure of Consideration (meaning, that you explicitly and timely rejected all
state and municipal benefits). Now that
there has been a failure of benefit transference, now you have a substantive
attack to make on the assertion of a Residency Contract on you. Your objective is to terminate the
is a distinction between the termination of a contract, and the repudiation of
contract. REPUDIATION is to reject,
disclaim, or renounce a duty or obligation that is owed to another party --
since the retention of the benefits derived from the operation of the contract
continues the life of the contract in effect.
To repudiate a contract is to merely give advance notice to the other
party that you intend to breach the contract for some reason [see UCC 2-708
"SELLER'S DAMAGES FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE OR REPUDIATION" and 2-711
"BUYER'S REMEDIES IN GENERAL," see also Samuel Williston in
REPUDIATION OF CONTRACTS, 14 Harvard Law Review 421 (1900).] In contrast to that, to TERMINATE a contract
is to end and cease the existence of the contract altogether [see UCC 2-106
"DEFINITIONS: 'CONTRACT",... 'TERMINATION'"]. Under TERMINATION, all rights, duties, and
obligations arising between the parties cease altogether, and there are no
lingering reciprocal expectations retained by either party.
If you want to win your State Income Tax
Cases, then do not throw arguments sounding in the Tort of unfairness at the
Judge; do not pretend that the invisible contract does not exist, and do not
argue that it is unfair to hold such a contract against you since either
nothing "was signed" or that the Protestor baby talk of "minimum
contacts" or "nexus" required by the Supreme Court in their line
of State Jurisdiction Cases was not met (as your physical household inhabitancy
in that kingdom overrules those types of questions designed to address factual
settings where Geography Jurisdiction itself is a disputed element). 
geography was very much disputed in 1959 when, as Governor, Nelson Rockefeller
gave his taxing grab one more turn of the screws to Parties of the New York
State Personal Income Tax -- as this time, Residents of New Jersey, who work in
New York City and pay New York Income Taxes as the reciprocity for the use of
the Commerce Jurisdiction of New York State, decided to take matters into their
own hands. They persuaded U.S. Senator
Clifford Case of New Jersey to introduce a proposed Constitutional amendment
into the Congress in March of 1959 which would have prohibited the several
States from taxing the income of non-Residents. Although Nelson Rockefeller's tax increase was the catalytic
trigger for initiating this amendment, however, as is usually the case the
truth itself is obscure and difficult to find, because during Hearings held in
Congress, emphasis was shifted over to paint a larger regional picture of an
"unfairness" taxation problem by pointing to the double taxation of
New Jersey Residents both by New York and also by Pennsylvania for those who
commuted into Philadelphia. During
Senate Hearings, the question arose as to how to protect the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the State of New York from the prospective loss of revenue --
revenue that was generated from such non-Residents [certain people seemed very
concerned that Nelson Rockefeller not be deprived of so much as one thin dime
of tax money to spend]. Would there be
any reciprocating QUID PRO QUO that New Jersey would yield in exchange for
financial benefits lost to New York State?
"The reciprocal exemption of New York
residents from a New Jersey income tax on nonresidents working in New Jersey
might well constitute sufficient QUID PRO QUO."
Clifford Case in HEARINGS BEFORE... THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED
STATES SENATE, page 17 ["Constitutional Amendment: Taxation By States of Nonresidents"],
86th Congress, First Session, April, 1959; acting on Senate Joint Resolutions
29 and 67 [GPO, Washington (1959)].
turn around from a juristic situs on political arguments made in Congress, over
to the unbridled snortations disseminating outward from a Federal Judge's
Courtroom, nothing changes either, as the same PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that Judges
hold errant Tax Protestors to [that your expected QUID PRO QUO reciprocity is
mandatory when juristic benefits were accepted by you], also applies to nullify
prospective opposition to political arguments.
By Senator Case's identification in advance of the QUID PRO QUO that New
York State would be gaining if this amendment gets Ratified, the impending
opposition of this amendment by New York State is placed into a known expected
manageable mode -- a strategic model for handling grievances that Tax and Draft
Protestors would be wise to consider adapting into their MODUS OPERANDI of
errant defiance. Through this Letter, I
have identified certain key benefits that Federal Judges have their eyes
fixated on when signing a Commitment Order to a Federal Penitentiary on Tax and
Draft Protesting Cases. Your failure to
nullify, in advance, the Principle of BENEFITS ACCEPTED/RECIPROCITY NOW
DEMANDED in the arguments of your impending adversaries, will prove to be
self-detrimental, as this PRINCIPLE OF NATURE can and will make an appearance
in any setting. And if you do win on
some off-point technical grounds, your apparent victory will be carrying over
with a lingering illicit savor.
Secondary consequences will also be created in the wake of having
deflected attention off to the side while the true reason for winning that
particular battle remains obscured, and also by having been deprived of the
important intellectual benefits associated with battles that are fought and
won/lost on their merits. Failure to
identify the true cause of a battle loss or win is to render the efforts
expended on behalf of your battle largely naught, and leaves a person's
judgment no better off coming out of the battle than they were when first going
You must address the Contract question head on, that by the act of your silence a Residency Contract was entered into, and you must come to grips with that fact. 
The power to tax, the power to throw benefits at folks and then demand, and get, financial reciprocity:
"... is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-existensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a State extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest of principles, exempt from taxation."
- M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316, at 429 (1819).
The local state tax collector did not receive any Notice of your Rejection of Benefits, so his assertion of a reciprocal tax against you is provident, up to a limited point. And so winning, on point, will be predicated upon your correctly addressing the existence of the contract in arguments for what it really is, and then attacking the content substantively on the hard mandatory requirement of benefit enjoyment [which does not exist in your Case due to Failure of Consideration], a defense line that causes contracts so deficient in Consideration to fall apart and collapseunder attack in adversary judicial proceedings. When trying to get out of contract where one of the parties is a Juristic Institution, a few low-level Trial Judges will find your position to be novel and philosophically uncomfortable, and so you should brace yourself for some snortations descending down to the floor of the Courtroom from the Bench. I did not realize this at first, but some Judges are actually jealous of people turning around so smoothly walking away from a juristic taxation contract; the Judge went to Law School, and then possibly went to work for a law firm, and then they were called to be a Judge; in their minds they look back and see all that money they threw out the window to Government year after year only to wind up in the pockets of some Special Interest Group, and here you are, actually GETTING AWAY WITH what they did not know how to do themselves, and what is nowhere documented in statutes.