I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S

George Mercier

THIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT

[Pages 89-130]

[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE CONTRACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unfairness in Contract Law of outside interference in contract

administration is irrelevant in measuring contract performance itself.

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

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

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

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

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

effect of your livelihood being terminated directly restrained you from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

meaning loss of livelihood).

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

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

legitimate mitigating circumstances to justify why you could not honor

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

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

anything for an enforcement judge to take notice of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judgment. [118]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

interest in any relative or collectively weighed anything. You,

individually and personally, have either progressed under your Contract,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assigning either a terminating or concluding attribute to the execution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it really began it. THE MEASURE OF WORTH LIES IN THE PROCESS OF ITS

EXECUTION AND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT IS CARRIED OUT BY ALL OF THE

PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT." - Bernard Baruch in THE MAKING OF THE

REPARATIONS AND ECONOMIC SECTIONS OF THE TREATY, at page 8 [Harper &

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

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

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

when he participated in partially negotiating the Treaty of Versailles

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

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

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

attribute in Nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

excuse their incredible abominations under Lucifer's brilliant

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

into a 7203 prosecution judgment with a bank account contract and

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

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

damages, unfairness, excessive Eighth Amendment punishment for a mere

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

of these elements of Tort Law pronounced very well through numerous

Supreme Court rulings and Constitutional clauses; but they are not

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

pseudo-clever Illuminatti Gremlin and well-meaning Constitutionalist who

still needs intellectual development on Contract Law Jurisprudence, are

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

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

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

although absolutely correct in another judgment setting of pure natural

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

those Judgment Day and 7203 judgment settings that the Illuminatti

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

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

[119]

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

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

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

it is interesting to note that this impending Judgment Day arrangement

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

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

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

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

procedure itself assists in separating embryonic Eloha from their

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

structural arrangement sound like it comes from someone who knows what

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the lack of national collective interest on the extreme significance of

that Judgment Day accelerant statement replicates the lack of national

collective interest on the extreme significance of bank accounts and

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

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

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

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

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

serious attitude such a procedure requires which largely explains why

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

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

gauge the importance of the knowledge).

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

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

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

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

licentiousness and whoremongering, and although that behavior doesn't

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

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

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

orgies have consented -- and furthermore, biological benefits are

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

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

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

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

[120]=============================================================

Furthermore, just to make things seem psychologically interesting back

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

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

somehow. Like contemporary Witches emulating their mentors in Sodom by

performing Fertility Rites on the Witches' Sabbath, an interesting

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

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

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

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

Virginia 23455].

=============================================================[120]

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

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

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

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

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

today have no concern for the inappropriate use of those ecstatic

circumstances which initiate mammalian reproduction). Heathens don't

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

unchanging straight doctrinal line, without any skew to accommodate the

pleasing intellectual music devils propagate that are sounding in the

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

enhanced relative levels of technical knowledge ["this is the

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

sophistication, relegates such anachronistic Stone Age bugaboo standards

to a classification status demeaning to your enlightened standing.

[121]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1975).

=============================================================[121]

What then gives Father the right to expect technical compliance with

such ecstatic extracurricular circumstances that every person knows

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

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

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

when administered clinically during the formative years under a

therapeutic factual setting will actually correct impending deviancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

he was strong enough to indulge the entertainment of some enticing

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

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

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

David thought about the possibilities [of getting involved with this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

folks in Christiandom incorrectly believe is important, but actually

David lost his Celestial Status in the impending Heavenly realms that

lie ahead because of an infracted Contract under circumstances that

created no damages whatsoever [David mentions that he entered into

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

prohibits promiscuous masculine excursions into the interior contours

of feminine musculature, under certain circumstances. The defense

argument that such ecstatic circumstances create a wide ranging array

of beneficial biological and psychological side effects (which is

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

like Tax Protesting arguments sounding in the Tort of Constitutional

unfairness are not relevant when Federal Judges are enforcing express

Commercial contracts (even though the Protestor is also factually

correct as well in his Constitutional research). And Protestors

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

good Christian folks will lose the Celestial Kingdom and take an

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

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

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

overruling dominate position in settling Judgments. Father's Covenants

were deliberately designed to provide PERSONS operating under its

jurisdictional penumbra with a confluence of contrasting incentives to

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

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

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

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

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

because impending Gods will themselves be ruling over angels and the

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

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

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

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

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

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

- II SAMUEL 23:3 et seq.

=============================================================[122]

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

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

effect. But wait,

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

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

me no baptism certificate in my closet."

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

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

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

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

Father taking out Contracts in the angelic language we were then

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

that's when.

This then is the Grand Key towards understanding why people want

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

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

Heavenly Father, those previous existing First Estate Contracts give

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

individually and collectively down here, should our degenerate Contract

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

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

Contract Law Jurisprudential judgment setting at the Last Day where Tort

Law arguments of EVIL ACCOMPLISHED IN THE GOOD NAME OF JUSTICE are

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

accomplish his revenue raising objectives, and then later enforceable

against us under threat of incarceration otherwise not permissible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

default. And on and on. [123]

[123]=============================================================

Illuminatti Gremlins, vipers, Bolsheviks, witches and other associated

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

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

another prime example of well meaning people arranging their acts and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

about the relationship in effect between fault for damages and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=============================================================[123]

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

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

Contracts with Father; [124]

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

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

of Nature that provides for a superseding layer of Covenants replacing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unnecessary after the Crucifixion perfected that phase of ATONEMENT.

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

First Estate Contracts being replaced with another layer of NEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

personally near the end of this Letter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

354, at 360 [London (1856)].

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

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

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

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

you do need to fulfill difficult Contracts. [126]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baptism, has had the inestimatable privilege of making a personal

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

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

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

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

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

making people. The greatest and most important blessings our Heavenly

Father has for his faithful sons and daughters are received by

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

(April, 1945).

=============================================================[126]

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

wisdom of ignoring the terms and conditions of contracts we sometimes

improvidently get ourselves into: That people who are well seasoned

experientially realize that although ignorance may very well be bliss

in the dreamy ALICE IN WONDERLAND emotional aura it psychologically

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

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

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

first objective of our existence is to know and understand the

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

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

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

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

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

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

111, at 111 [London (1869)].

=============================================================[127]

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

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

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

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

by adapting a posture of avoiding responsibility through claims of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

137 [London (1873)].

=============================================================[128]

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

interesting secondary element surfaces in the Restraining Order and the

chronologically correlative criminal prosecution of Armen Condo. Not

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

even know of their existence. [129]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

122, at 197 (1819).

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

This state of affairs of throwing criminal prosecutions against people

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

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

Agents in Washington. Staff members in the Treasury Department have

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

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

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

morality and ethics, based on a voluntary attachment of Equity

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

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

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

Amendment, and kind of winds up by saying that:

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

Amendment tells us we need to."

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

internal disagreement within the Treasury Department on the long term

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

Condo and Irwin Schiff are prime exemplary models to explain this

interesting change in viewpoint now in intellectual gestation within the

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

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

concern expressed regarding the growing Tax Resistance Movement, so

called. [130]

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

growing number of taxpayers are developing negative perceptions of the

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

COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS finds that Americans perceive

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

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

increase in negative perception." - Steven Kaplan and Phillip

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

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

Shannon in CHANGING PUBLIC ATTITUDES ON GOVERNMENT AND TAXES [Advisory

Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D.C.

(1980-1983)].

=============================================================[130]

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

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

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

resistance and defiance to the assertion of tax collection authority by

the King. [131]

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

Congressmen themselves knew of this impending state of defiance back in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representative Robert Adams, speaking in opposition to the proposed

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

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

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

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

ears.]

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

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

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

that the combination of both inflation and the percentage progressive

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

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

[132]=============================================================

Throughout the years, numerous Hearings have been held and Bills

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

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

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

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

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

Hearing expressed knowledge on the enscrewment orientation of

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

knowledge jells into something tangible in the corridors of Congress is

largely a function of overcoming the Gremlins who now control the

Congress.

=============================================================[132]

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

percentage. [133]

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

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

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

escalating taxing percentage grabs to enscrewment levels more

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

the first $4,000

3% on the next $4,000

5% on the balance.

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

Nutshell"], page 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIMITS: ALTERNATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE POWER TO TAX, 32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

percentage progressive nature that would accelerate into such noticeable

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

that even ordinarily blind, disinterested, naive and politically benign

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

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

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

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

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

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

additional benefits or commensurate services were being experienced or

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

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

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

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

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

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

with him in accepting his benefits in Commercial Equity is purely

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

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

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

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

experience the most extreme and intolerable levels of income

confiscation ever known to Americans: Without any reciprocity by the

King, without any apparent QUID PRO QUO [135]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

incrementation in tax extraction. These projection plots were not

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

the results and findings were circulated among some administrative

personnel and they eventually made it over to two Congressional

committees.

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

predicted that open defiance would come some day as such expected

aggressive tax levels are simply not bearable by average folks,

previously quiescent, who would then start to question the legitimacy

of the tax itself. [136]

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

other top tax bureaucrats have repeated the warnings initially contained

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

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

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

in THE INCOME TAX: HOW PROGRESSIVE SHOULD IT BE? by The American

Enterprise Institute, featuring cross discussions on the question of

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

1969)].

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

The catalytic effect of such aggressive tax levels would be the

deprivation of the ability of such average folks to provide minimum

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

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

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

a report entitled TAX CHANGES AND THE COMPOSITION OF FIXED INVESTMENT:

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

conducted to inform the Joint Congressional Committee on Internal

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

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

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

researches its own macro-economic taxation models isochronously

(ISOCHRONOUS means at regularly occurring intervals of time).

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

One of the questions that was hypothetically addressed in the

accompanying report is the concern th