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

BANK ACCOUNTS
[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]

 

[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.

=============================================================[170]

 

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]

@

a.

`

‑(#


a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers

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

[1]

‑@
h

(1)

‑¸
hh#(#h

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

[1]

‑[1]hh#@$(a) hh#
((#

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

[1]

‑[1]hh#[1](@*i) (h-(#

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

[1]

‑[1]hh#[1]([1]-@p/a) -pp2(#p

a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleXqq



l
^)
؀I.



׃


Doc InitInitialize Document Style
[1][1]
[1]

[1]0*0*

[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
D
[1]
؄(1) .
a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)
D
[1]
؅(a) .
a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6


?

؁A.



[1]
a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9
Wg


2

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

2

؃a.

[1]
a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<


?

؀I.




[1]
a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@
D
[1]
؆i) .
a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(
D
[1]
؇a) .
2k‑
R[1]UQ[1]'}PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper
P@n

Ջ
[1]$]
X[1]

X[1]
`

hp x‑ (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H? A
y
*
dddyy
*
dddy

HH
1

HH
2

HH
3

HH
4

HH
5

HH
6

HH
7

HH
8

HH
9

H[1]
10

H[1]
11

H[1]
12

H[1]
13

H[1]
14

H[1]
15

H[1]
16

H[1]
17

H[1]
18

H[1]
19

H[1]
20

H[1]
21

H[1]
22

H[1]
23

H[1]
24

H[1]
25

H[1]
26

H[1]
27

H[1]
28 +
Ӌ
"g|^W5WWWii5FFWW5W5WWWWWWWWWWW55WWWWiiiiiiiiiFWii{iiiiiii{i{iiWFWFWW5WiWiWFii5Fi5{iWiiWWFii{WiWF5FWYWWWWWWWWWi5iWiWiWiWiW{{iWiWiWiWiWF5F5F5F5iiiWiWiWiW{i{i{i{iiiWiiiWiWiiiiiiWW/WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNWWWWWWWWWWi{WWWWWWWWiiWWFWWiWFWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW^WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWiWWW5WWWW
WWW2WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW2[1]‑
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

Code 

115 "filing false information in a public record is a

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

takes.

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.




TITLE 26 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

(4190 Edition)
ă


Ch. 1.


X[1]
Determination of Tax Liability, Tax On Individuals
8"
X[1]
Sec. 1.11 Income tax on individuals
(in part)8"


7 
X[1]P
P
(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"


7
X[1]P
P
(b) x‑

Hez$ Citizens or residents of the United States liable


7!
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"


7N&
X[1]P
P
(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
ă
+x-++Ԍ
Ch. 75.P
P
Crimes, Other Offenses, and Forfeitures.



Subchapter DMiscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture Provisions


X[1]


7343. Definition of Term "Person".
8"
X[1]P
P
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"
X[1]
Source:
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"

X[1]P
P
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"

70
X[1] gt> XA[1]

United States v. Condo

[1]x‑

@[ (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"

7
X[1]#x6N

hM;$X[1]H#

United States v. Tweel

x‑

@[ ( 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]

 

[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).

=============================================================[294]

 

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]

 

[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.

=============================================================[295]

 

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]

 

[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."

=============================================================[296]

 

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]

 

[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];

- J. Thayer in PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON EVIDENCE AT COMMON LAW (1898);

[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"];

- Morgan in INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDEN OF PROOF, 47 Harvard Law Review 59 (1933).

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.

=============================================================[297]

 

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).

=============================================================[280]

 

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]

 

[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..."

- Albert Reiss in CONSEQUENCE OF COMPLIANCE AND DETERRENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF POLICE DISCRETION, 47 Law and Contemporary Problems 83, at 86 (Autumn, 1984).

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).

=============================================================[281]

 

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]

 

[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).

=============================================================[282]

 

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]

 

[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.

=============================================================[283]

 

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]

 

[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.

=============================================================[284]

 

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]

 

[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)].

=============================================================[285]

 

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]

 

[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}.

=============================================================[286]

 

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]

 

[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.

=============================================================[287]

 

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]

 

[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.

=============================================================[288]

 

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]

 

[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].

=============================================================[289]

 

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]

 

[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