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

George Mercier

THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

[Pages 229-299]

1. Through the beneficial use of a taxable franchise like Social Security. A lot of folks don't realize it, but the presentation of a Social Security Number to your Employer is a contract with the King to pay taxes, and an acknowledgement of personal Status as a Taxpayer.

QUESTION: How do you get out of this?

ANSWER: This is not an easy thing to do; clever administrative rule making forced on Employers has tightened Employers up -- and they have the money we want. In an Employee/Employer relationship factual setting as a first step, it is first necessary to terminate all written attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction you previously initiated with the King. Some of the steps taken now in this section will not be appreciated until all of the invisible juristic contracts that the King is operating on have been correctively severed -- so one has to read the entire Letter first, and then come back to this section. But as for written attachments of King's Equity Jurisdiction relevant in an Employment factual setting, for most folks, this act transpired when they were a teenager and they signed a form and mailed it to Washington, and requested a Social Security Number. Pursuant to your administrative request, the King issued out a Number, and so now the contemporary beneficial use of that Social Security Number by you in an Employment setting creates a taxing liability; as the Federal judiciary considers participation in Social Security to be a taxable franchise, among other things. But that is only a small part of the story, and this rescission is only a point of beginning. Second, terminate the acceptance and receipt of all benefits that otherwise inure to Social Security beneficiaries, because under Nature remember that no written contract is now necessary, or has ever been necessary, to extract money out of Social Security participants (unless the King in his statutes has explicitly limited himself to collect money only under written contracts for some reason). And in terms of attaching one's liability to contributing premium reciprocity to the King's Social Security handout LARGESSE, the mere rescission of the written Social Security contract, as is now prevalent among Patriots trying to get to the bottom of things is, of and by itself, irrelevant, and does not terminate any taxing liability (as I will explain later).

The fundamental reason why EMPLOYEES are viewed universally by State and Federal judges as being taxable objects is because the EMPLOYEE is clothed with multiple layers of juristic contracts separate and apart from Social Security, by reason of the large array of juristic benefits the EMPLOYEE has accepted by his silence. Therefore, EMPLOYEES are in a commercial enrichment setting, EMPLOYEES are in business, and the gain experienced by EMPLOYEES is very much taxable, since the King participated in creating the financial gain the EMPLOYEE is experiencing. But now that you have been placed on Notice that a rightful moral liability does attach on your acceptance of the King's Employment scenario intervention by throwing invisible juristic benefits at Employees, when you first get hired on again with someone else, as another point of beginning, now let's change the factual setting a bit, and refuse to provide a Social Security Number. [298]

[298]=============================================================

The reason why you can't provide a Social Security Number, of course, is because you do not have one. So although your written rescission filed earlier with the Social Security Administration is, of and by itself, meaningless for taxing liability reasons, it remains a necessary accessory evidentiary element of the total factual setting your new LIBERATED Status lies in, as will be seen later. The presentation of a Social Security Number to others is, under some circumstances, a Federal crime, and properly so -- as a MENS REA is present in the mind of the actor, and CORPUS DELECTI damages are experienced by others. If some playful circumstances ever make their appearance in your life where the dissemination of someone else's Social Security Number would be innocuous, consider giving them Richard M. Nixon's Social Security Number:

567-68-0515.

=============================================================[298]

After they threaten you with termination, as they eventually will do, then provide a number under your objection and over your protest, and notice of waiving and rejecting all benefits otherwise available to you as an Employee; not just retirement benefits, but the immediate environmental protection benefits all Employees experience (by the end of this section, you will see what the immediate benefits are that I am referring to). The objective behind this OBJECTION is to make a STATEMENT. That Objection should cite the King's forced third party relationship to the arrangements, and your Objection to his intervention against your will; his forcing you to accept his benefits that you now hereby waive, refuse, forfeit and forego; and then also claim that such an unwanted and forced relationship with the King violates relational PRINCIPLES OF NATURE not permissible absent the existence of some other invisible contract you may not be aware of; and interferes with your RIGHT TO WORK under the Fifth Amendment. [299]

[299]=============================================================

If you are involved with an invisible contract, i.e., no Social Security Number in effect, but accepting the King's intervention and benefits, then the Constitution does not apply, as the Constitution does not operate to restrain or interfere with the operation of Commercial contracts. Several other important benefits need to be rejected timely and appropriately before triggering sympathy from Judges; and those benefits will be discussed later. Acting like a Tax Protestor by claiming fairness rights found in the BILL OF RIGHTS applicable to factual settings sounding in Tort, while accepting the King's important Commercial benefits inuring to EMPLOYEES, will get you absolutely nowhere in front of a Federal Judge. So this Objection must waive, reject, forfeit, and forego through explicit disavowal, all such Commercial benefits normally deemed to be in effect through silence [and I will explain SILENCE later on, as SILENCE is often high-powered].

=============================================================[299]

These OBJECTION presentations are necessarily status oriented, as they define your non-involvement with trade, commerce, business, and industry -- an involvement which if left uncountermanded, automatically infers a Contract Law factual setting in effect between your EMPLOYER, yourself and the King. But if your new Status falls outside the boundary lines of King's Commerce [where all those who enter therein experience enrichment, created in part by the King's benefit], then there is an inherent RIGHT TO WORK interest in the 14th Amendment as well [TRAUX VS. RAICH, 229 U.S. 33 (1915)]. [300]

[300]=============================================================

Claiming the 14th Amendment as a source of rights (by claiming yourself to be a beneficiary party to the 14th Amendment) will carry the secondary effect of diminishing your Status if not handled properly, since the 14th Amendment is also a source of invisible Admiralty like benefits that create taxation contracts. Arguing 14th Amendment rights [RIGHTS meaning really: 14th Amendment restrainment of Government Tortfeasance] should generally be avoided absent a good knowledge on what adhesive tentacles of King's Equity the 14th Amendment creates for American Citizens. Here, in an EMPLOYMENT setting, first we argue that there are contracts in effect [by reason of no juristic benefits accepted], and then after we correctly get rid of invisible juristic benefits that in turn create invisible expectations of taxation reciprocity -- then, and only then, can we now argue the Tort of fairness in obstructing RIGHT TO WORK restrainments on Government. Tax Protestors experiencing setbacks and hard rebuffments in Courtrooms all across the United States as they argued for rights and quoted the Founding Fathers and all that, never attempted to first get rid of the King's contracts, so automatically from the scratch, Tax Protestors are not entitled to prevail under any circumstances. Once the invisible contract of EMPLOYMENT [and the taxation expectation stigma it creates in the minds of Judges], has been gotten rid of, then unfairness defenses sounding in Tort are entertainable. For example, other Government restrainments lie in areas like INTERNATIONAL LAW, which is in effect by Treaties executed defining minimum Human Rights, etc. The United States State Department has defined the RIGHT TO TRAVEL and the RIGHT TO WORK as being among the multiple ENTENTE meanings of "Human Rights" in those treaties. The very idea that INTERNATIONAL LAW can operate to obstruct domestic tax collection, however correct a force of Law under some limited factual settings, is an idea that Federal Judges will view as being particularly irritating. The United States has many Tax Treaties in effect with foreign jurisdictions, and some of those Treaties contain covenants that very much intervene into domestic tax collection by reason of prohibiting multiple taxation events like DOUBLE TAXATION on various combinations of specialty assets or income streams. If you do not look forward to playfully tussling with Judges, then the exclusion of this argument might be appropriate. In any event, be mindful that INTERNATIONAL LAW is binding only on Juristic Institutions and not on any other PERSON, yet the interposition of INTERNATIONAL LAW is still relevant ere since your Objection is centered in part around clever administrative rule making originating from a juristic source.

"...Treaties have the effect of overruling state and Federal laws. ... This is not generally well known."

- Chief Justice Warren Burger, in the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, September 22, 1985.

What Warren Burger is referring to is known as the interposition of INTERNATIONAL LAW. This INTERNATIONAL LAW is generally binding only on Juristic Institutions themselves -- but for purposes of Gremlin conquest, that's enough. Article VI of the Constitution declares that both the [statutory] laws of Congress and foreign Treaties shall be "...the supreme law of the land," which is a catalytic source of snickering by Patriots to throw invectives at Federal Judges. However, Federal statutes are actually on Status parity with Treaties so that:

"...a treaty may supersede a prior Act of Congress and an Act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty."

- REID VS. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1, at 18 (1956)

This superseding priority of Treaties over Statutes over Treaties over Statutes based on recency of Time is another restated operation of the PRINCIPLE OF NATURE I mentioned in the Armen Condo Letter that contracts we enter into today overrule contracts we entered into yesterday; a Principle which also surfaces as an important structural element in the MERGER DOCTRINE, as lawyers call it, and which surfaces again anywhere and anytime when on replacement contract is entered into overruling a previous contract, just as our Covenants with Father now in this Second Estate overrule and supersede our First Estate Covenants, which in turn fade away into insignificance.

=============================================================[300]

Some ideas to consider and think about while creating your OBJECTION, might be to state perhaps that the Social Security Number you are giving him is being done solely for the purpose of deflecting the otherwise imminent termination of your livelihood, and that the Social Security Number you are giving him was previously rescinded [301]

[301]=============================================================

In a Federal criminal prosecution of an acquaintance of mine, where the defense was Status oriented (however improvident a Defense Line since contracts were in effect), the local United States Attorney objected to the validity of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE RESCISSION because under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the designated agent to accept legal service for the United States is the Attorney General, and the Defendant had only noticed out the rescission to the Secretary of Commerce. Now, whether or not those Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which regulate the exchange of procedure between adversaries in the heat of a judicial battle, are applicable to an administrative IN REM RESCISSION OF CONTRACT, is disputed. But that is not important. What is important is the knowledge that when the King's Attorneys see their criminal prosecution start to fall apart and collapse in front of them, they will then pick apart and cite any off-point anything -- just trying to get your facial RESCISSION declared void. In that particular prosecution, the RESCISSION was FEDERAL EXPRESSED to the Attorney General in Washington as soon as the United States Attorney's Motion to Strike brief was received by the Defendant. So by the time the Trial Magistrate heard the oral arguments, the improper service question was moot, and the Judge offered no validity opinion on that procedural question. So even though the statutory necessity of service on the Attorney General for these administrative rescissions is disputed, for the minimum incremental cost serving such an additional rescission party burdens you, omitting to serve the Attorney General in all Federal administrative RESCISSIONS, NOTICES OF BENEFIT REJECTION, and OBJECTIONS, might be discouraged.

=============================================================[301]

and is presently null and void (and that re-presentation of the number under PROTEST, OBJECTION and REJECTION OF BENEFITS after its prior nullification does not reactivate it); and that you hereby waive, forfeit, forego, and will return where possible, any and all benefits that would otherwise inure to you as an Employee and as a participant in the Social Security retirement program, and that this Objection you are filing is a continuous one, and that any qualified acceptance of bank drafts taken in contemplation of exchange into hard currency is accepted for the administrative convenience of your Employer, and will be endorsed under protest, at law and not in equity, in the future; etc., does not change, alter, or diminish anything relative to your Status or the life of that Objection. Also noticed out should be statements concerning your non-involvement with Commerce; Status as Non-Taxpayer; [302]

[302]=============================================================

The mere unilateral Status declaration by you, that you are not a Taxpayer is, of and by itself, meaningless; however, adducing collateral evidence showing that terminating contract rescissions were effectuated timely is very significant. By the end of this Letter, you will know what contracts are deemed very important by both State and Federal Judges, and just what RESCISSION means something.

=============================================================[302]

rescission of the attachment of a special King's Equity Jurisdiction that uncontested Birth Certificates create under some limited circumstances; and Notice of prior Objections having been filed, objecting to the attachment of Equity Jurisdiction that otherwise lie to Holders in Due Course of circulating Federal Reserve equitable instruments that the King's Legal Tender Statutes [303]

[303]=============================================================

Title 31, Section 5103 ["Legal Tender"]:

"United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts."

- 96 US STATUTES AT LARGE 980 (September 13, 1982).

=============================================================[303]

have enhanced the value of, etc. This Objection, along with your Employer's threats, must all be in writing as a confrontation with the King is coming. (Your Employer will forward the Social Security Number to the IRS, who then in turn will simply assume that you are a Taxpayer, and reasonably so, based upon what little information they have). Since the IRS has some evidence that you are a Taxpayer, the burden then shifts to you to prove that yes, although the IRS does have my number, these are the reasons as to why I am not a Taxpayer. In such a confrontational setting, it ranges from possible to likely that your Employer will lie, have a convenient loss of memory, and otherwise not stick up for you when push accelerates to shove. Since the burden of proof to prove non-Taxpayer and non-Commercial Status now falls on you, depositions which would ordinarily be necessary from your Employer to prove that your Objections were made timely (with the questioning contained therein discussing the circumstances surrounding the surrendering of that Social Security Number to him), now becomes unnecessary. If the Employer's threats to terminate you, and your Objections and Rescissions are all down tight in writing, the factual setting is now undisputed, and depositions are unnecessary; so a little prevention here is important. [304]

[304]=============================================================

When your Employer terminates you, what is being displayed to you is the exterior manifestation of a deeper tremor originating with a contract they have with the King, that a regulatory jurisdiction created. Trying to earn a livelihood in such an Employment setting is not the only place where there is tension in effect between the beneficiaries of regulatory programs (such as participants in King's Commerce), and your private and personal rights as an INDIVIDUAL. For commentary on parallel friction in effect and damages that are created whenever a Juristic Institution erects the barriers of a regulatory jurisdiction -- either for their own enrichment or some other Special Interest, see Richard Stewart and Cass Sunstein in PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND PRIVATE RIGHTS, 95 Harvard Law Review 1193 (1982) [not on point to the Patriot perspective, but accurate in itself].

=============================================================[304]

As for the IRS, the only information they have is a name and your Social Security Number, so as a point of beginning, it is reasonable for them to simply proceed against you as if you are a Taxpayer; and agents trying to collect money for the King should not be viewed as some type of an enemy to kill (they are transient AD HOC adversaries, not enemies). Under normal circumstances, your Case can be won at the administrative level by requesting an Administrative Hearing and using Title 5 and the Code of Federal Regulations with SAVOIR FAIRE, and then taking your Case up the grievance ladder, one step at a time. [305]

[305]=============================================================

"Most important, if administrative remedies are pursued, the citizen may win complete relief without needlessly invoking judicial process... We ought not to encourage litigants to bypass simple, inexpensive, and expeditious remedies available at their doorstep in order to invoke expensive judicial machinery on matters capable of being resolved at local levels."

- Warren Burger in MOORE VS. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494, at 525 (1976).

=============================================================[305]

But just in case, get ready to speak your mind in front of the Supreme Court, if necessary. If physically flying yourself to Washington does not intrigue you, then you might consider paying the requested tax, as you have already lost. [306]

[306]=============================================================

The idea that many folks have in their minds, that their Case is just too petty for the Supreme Court to concern themselves with, is the contemporary resurrection of the ancient Roman maxim of law called DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX, which means the Law does not concern itself with, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The United States Supreme Court does not adapt such a snooty posture.

"It is said that counsel once attempted to argue before Chief Justice Marshall that in the particular instance before the court the invasion of constitutional rights was slight, but he was sternly reminded that the case involved the Constitution of the United States, and that the degree or extent of the invasion had no bearing upon the point."

- William Gutherie in THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, at 39 [University Press, Cambridge (1898)].

Some of these cases are:

1. In 1867, the Supreme Court once gave careful consideration to a Case where the amount of money was only $1. In overruling the State of Nevada and the assertion of what essentially amounted to a State egress tax collected at the borders, the Supreme Court cited as annulment justification the overriding interests inherent in a national RIGHT TO TRAVEL, which consisted of a composite blend of factors, such as the potential interference with the smooth administration with the WAR POWERS, possible friction with the CITIZENSHIP CONTRACT, and obstruction with restrainments inherent in the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE [See CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 73 U.S. 35 (1967)].

2. In SENTRELL VS. NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD, the question addressed turned upon the Constitutionality of a state law enacted by Louisiana that required dogs to be placed on the assessment rolls. A claim arose out of the killing of a dog, and the Supreme Court adjudged the validity of an Act under the 14th Amendment that provided that no owner could recover for the killing of a dog unless the dog had been placed on the tax assessment rolls, and then the amount of recovery would be limited to the amount so assessed. [166 U.S. 698 (1896)].

3. Here today in the 1970's and 1980's, the Supreme Court continues on issuing out WRITS OF CERTIORARI with petty Cases. The El Paso Police Department once arrested a fellow who was walking down their streets; claiming that the suspect "looked suspicious" in a seedy neighborhood characterized by drug trafficking. Zackary Brown refused to identify himself and then angrily asserted that the officers had no right to stop him. Hearing such retortional defiance, the police dragged him down to their station and then threw a criminal prosecution at Brown, citing some slice of LEX that purportedly made it a heinous criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to any statute enforcement officer "... who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." On the floor of the municipal Courtroom, Brown's Defense centered around claims of Constitutional disabilities, but the inconsiderate little Star Chamber political hack Judge tossed his arguments aside; Brown was found guilty and fined $45. The Texas appellate courts refused to hear the appeal since another little slice of LEX barred appeals on cases with fines under $100. Having first exhausted all potential state remedies, the Supreme Court granted CERTIORARI and annulled his conviction. [See BROWN VS. TEXAS, 443 U.S. 47 (1978)].

4. Criminal Defendant William Lawson began building up his rap sheet with the heinous act of walking down San Diego sidewalks, carrying such criminally suspicious items as television sets. Between March 1975 and January of 1977, William Lawson was either detained or arrested 15 times; he had two prosecutions thrown at him and was convicted once; he obtained his favorable hearing in the Supreme Court. [See LAWSON VS. KOLANDER, 461 U.S. 352 (1982)].

In these Cases, the factual setting presented to the Supreme Court favored the Individuals involved, a situation that is not replicated today with Patriots throwing Highway and Tax Protesting actions of all types at Judges -- reason: Invisible contracts are in effect on the factual settings selected for defiance by the Protestor, and so now the Protestors are not entitled to prevail under any circumstances. My contention with the Supreme Court lies with their reluctance to see the geometry of this growing PRO SE movement, and grant CERTIORARI to correctively explain error, a philosophically difficult position for them because while explaining error to the sharp and hot issues Patriots argue on Tax Cases, the inferential effect would be to show the Protestor how to correctly get out from underneath the reciprocity expectations of taxation liability -- and that would be letting the cat out of the bag. In so refusing to rule and explain, the Supreme Court is actually taking an inconsistent POLITICAL POSITION on the Case -- which if you or I argued some illegitimate Ratification attribute of a Constitutional Amendment, we would be told that THAT'S A POLITICAL QUESTION for the Congress to deal with. But as for pettiness, the decision on granting CERTIORARI is not related to the size of the money involved, or the extent of the seriousness of the Constitutional violation involved. The old Roman maxim of law called DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX does not intervene in American Jurisprudence:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual deprecation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be OBSTA PRINCIPIIS."

- Justice Bradley in BOYD VS. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, at 635 (1885).

[The Latin phrase, OBSTA PRINCIPIIS, means to resist the first approaches or encroachments; and the first encroachments are always small and seemingly insignificant]. And in a similar way, looking for a technically close and literal construction of your Celestial Contracts as a way to minimize your involvement with them, deprives them of half of their efficacy, as well, and leads to a gradual depreciation of your Standing before Father. [The reason is because your Contracts with Father are not static (fixed); several of the addendums to your Celestial Contracts contain organic Covenants that self enlarge over time, and so slight deviations by indifference creates an invisible encroachment on those Celestial Contracts; and as the potential attachment of additional Covenants is then deflected away from the corpus of your Contracts, with that follows the deflections of commensurate benefits].

=============================================================[306]

Now that this discussion has shifted over to the administrative adjudication of grievances with the King, I need to digress just a bit and discuss Principles relating to Demands for an Administrative Hearing. [307]

[307]=============================================================

Correct procedure is necessary to achieve the desired end result; when the objective is freedom, the instrumentality necessary to achieve freedom is procedure itself:

"The history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the history of procedure."

- Justice Frankfurter in MORRIS MALINSKI VS. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, at 414 [dissenting] (1945).

=============================================================[307]

In an administrative adjudication, numerous people I know of have requested administrative hearings to discuss the want of jurisdiction that the King or a Prince was asserting generally in many different settings. As part of the strategy involved, failure by the state administrators to grant a hearing would later bar civil tax liability and even a criminal prosecution for the same ACTUS REUS later under the COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, which is an unwritten Common Law Principle. [308]

[308]=============================================================

UNWRITTEN meaning not explicitly written in statutes.

=============================================================[308]

The PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL has many closely related sister Principles of Estoppel; there are PRINCIPLES OF PRECLUSION, [309]

[309]=============================================================

PRINCIPLES OF PRECLUSION can prevent a question once argued, litigated, and adjudged in state courts from being re-argued, re-litigated, and re-adjudged all over again in a Federal Forum, under some conditions. See Footnote #1 to MIGRA VS. WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT, 465 U.S. 75 (1984). This PRINCIPLE OF PRECLUSION is nothing more than Estoppel Doctrine applied to accelerate judicial economy; like all correct Principles, they can and will intervene and operate across all factual settings.

=============================================================[309]

and Estoppels themselves can be either DIRECT or COLLATERAL. There is also a parallel Doctrine called JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL. [310]

[310]=============================================================

The DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL prevents a party from asserting any type of a sworn testimonial position in one proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken by that party in some earlier proceeding. Originally written down [that I could find] by the Tennessee Supreme Court in HAMILTON VS. ZIMMERMAN [37 Tennessee 39 (1857)], this doctrine carries on in all jurisdictions down to the present day. A contemporary prototypical example of JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL is found in FINLEY VS. KESLING [105 Illinois App. 3d 1 (1982)] where lovers once contemplating nuptials are now found passionately enraptured in the heat of vindictive divorce. In his 1974 divorce settlement action, Charles O. Finley once testified under Oath that he owned 31% of the corporate stock of the OAKLAND ATHLETICS BASEBALL TEAM, and that his wife owned 29%, and that his children owned 40%. The Indiana Court involved at that time in 1974 accepted his presentation of the facts, and properly so under those circumstances, with the result being that the 40% claimed by Finely to belong to the children was not involved in his wife's grab for settlement property. But Charles Finely violated a latent PRINCIPLE OF NATURE by lying, with the adverse result being that secondary circumstances surfaced in the future that were not discernible or visible to Charles Finely at the time his lying to conceal assets took place in 1974. His divorce out of the way, the unexpected happened when in 1980 his corporation became financially insolvent, and so now he adapted a plan for liquidation and distribution of the corporation's assets. Now Finley wanted to hog all of the residual corporation assets for himself, including grabbing all of the kid's share for himself (since his previous statements that the kid's owned 40% were insincere and did not reflect his true asset distribution intentions); he sought a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in 1982 that he was the beneficial owner of the 40% block of stock he previously testified was owned by his children. In properly dismissing his 1982 action seeking to grab the children's assets for himself, the Appellate Court of Illinois ruled that:

"Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel... Finley having testified under oath that he owned only 31% of the stock and his children owned 40%, and having succeeded in convincing the Indiana courts that his 40% belonged to the children and was not marital property, cannot now contend that the stock is, in effect, his property."

- FINLEY VS. KESLING, id., at 10.

All Federal forums that I have looked into also invoke this invisible PRINCIPLE OF NATURE to bar the secondary assertion of inconsistent statements by parties attempting to defile themselves. See:

- EDWARDS VS. AETNA LIFE, 690 F.2nd 595, at 598 to 599 (6th Circuit, 1982);

- SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE VS. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 587 F.2nd 428 (9th Circuit, 1978);

- EADS HIDE AND WOOL VS. MERRILL, 252 F.2nd 80, at 84 (10th Circuit, 1980).

See generally, Note, THE TENNESSEE LAW OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, 1 Tennessee Law Review 1 (1922).

=============================================================[310]

But for our purposes, only the COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE will be briefly discussed.

Correctly understood, these Administrative Law Demands are marvelous devices, which, if handled properly, can and will tie the King's and the Prince's giblets down tight: But they need to be viewed, understood, and plead, properly. These Administrative Law Demands many seek are the lessor administrative equivalent of a judicially sought Declaratory Judgment; and so all of the Natural Law requirements and indicia that apply to judicial Declaratory Judgments, also apply to Administrative Judgments. The most important indicia of which is that there must be a JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY at hand, i.e., some type of case or controversy, which if left unresolved will damage a person. [311]

[311]=============================================================

See generally, STANDING, JUSTICIABILITY, AND ALL THAT in 25 Vanderbilt Law Review 599 (1972), by Sedler.

=============================================================[311]

JUSTICIABILITY is closely related to STANDING, [312]

[312]=============================================================

STANDING means your personal interest in the Case. The DOCTRINE OF STANDING is composed of both Constitutional limitations of the jurisdiction of Federal Courts and from prudential rules of self restraint designed to bar from Federal Court those parties who are not very well suited to litigate the claims that they are now asserting. In its Constitutional dimension, the STANDING inquiry asks whether the party before the Court has:

"... such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf."

- WARTH VS. SEDLIN, 422 U.S. 490, at 498 (1975).

The necessary twin elements of STANDING are INJURY IN FACT and CAUSATION. To demonstrate the "personal interest" in the litigation necessary to satisfy the Constitution's requirements in the DUE PROCESS area, the party must suffer a "... distinct and palpable injury" [WARTH VS. SEDLIN, at 501], that bears a "... fairly traceable causal connection" to the challenged action." [DUKE POWER VS. CAROLINA, 438 U.S. 59, at 79 (1978)].

=============================================================[312]

and both are indicia related to make sure that you are in fact, entitled to the relief that you are seeking, and that there is, in fact an actual grievance for the Law to operate on and for the Judiciary to rule upon. [313]

[313]=============================================================

"The jurisdiction [of the Judiciary] is, or may be, bounded to a few objects or persons; or however general and unlimited, its operations are necessarily confined to the mere administration of private and public justice. ... It cannot create controversies to act upon. It can decide only upon rights and cases, as they are brought by others before it. On the other hand, the legislative power [is almost] unlimited."

- Joseph Story in II COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 16 (Cambridge, 1833).

=============================================================[313]

In JUSTICIABILITY averments, you must establish that you have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, [314] and that the dispute sought to be administratively adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context, [315] and that the logical nexus between the Status we assert and the claim sought to be adjudicated are both present, [316] along with the necessary degree of contentiousness. [317] To your advantage, the JUSTICIABILITY DOCTRINE has uncertain and shifting contours, and properly so, as it organically follows the Branches of the Majestic Oak. [318]

[314-318]=========================================================

314: BAKER VS. CARR, 369 U.S. 186, at 204 (1962)

315: FLAST VS. COHEN, 392 U.S. 83, at 101 (1968)

316: FLAST VS. COHEN, id., at 102

317: GOLDEN VS. SWICKLER, 394 U.S. 103 (1969)

318: UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION VS. GERAGHTY,

445 U.S. 388 (1979).

=========================================================[314-318]

To really understand the reasoning behind the judicial requirement for the presence of JUSTICIABILITY in DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS, think of JUSTICIABILITY as being like "tension" in effect between two adversaries. If the tension is not there, then the Judge (either a Judicial Judge, or an Administrative Law Judge) is not dealing with a grievance, he is actually dealing with a hypothetical factual setting that may or may not ever come to pass. If the Judge issued down an Order based upon such a hypothetical factual setting without the element of JUSTICIABILITY in effect, the effect of that Order would be to work a Tort on the adverse Party the Order operates against; this Party did nothing, and in fact may have very well intended to do nothing; but now an Order exists declaring some reversed relational rights (meaning: One of the Parties no longer holds the upper hand). As viewed from a Judge's perspective, the absence of that "distinct and palpable injury" of JUSTICIABILITY renders the Case moot, because there is nothing for the Judge to do; and if anything was done by the Judge, a judicial Tort would be thrown at one of the parties for no more than an exchange of hypothetical factual settings between fictional adversaries. For example, if in fact the Law requires some simple positive act to be performed unilaterally by some Government official regardless of anything you do or don't do, then a proper remedy to compel performance would lie in MANDAMUS, where questions of the existence of the tension of JUSTICIABILITY between adversaries is not relevant. [319]

[319]=============================================================

All government employees operate their kingdoms under contract, and the Tort requirement of damages is not relevant whenever contract enforcement is up for consideration.

=============================================================[319]

And specifically referring to rebuffed Demands for Administrative Hearings, the correct medicine may actually lay in ALTERNATIVE MANDAMUS (meaning: Grant the Hearing, or in the alternative, forfeit your jurisdiction, just the right medicine to deal with bureaucratic recalcitrance).

So merely sending a DEMAND FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING to a state official to discuss their assertion of a regulatory jurisdictional environment on the public highways, without any specific Case or controversy being presented for adjudication, will later Collaterally Estop no one, as no averments of a JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY were made (who is making an assertion of jurisdiction over you? What traffic cop or law enforcement person, and when? What did the traffic cop say? Where is the assignment of policing jurisdiction of that cop down through state statutes from the Legislature? What penal statute did he threaten you with? What does that statute say? (Go ahead and quote the statute, verbatim). Who is your adversary in the demanded Hearing? Where is your personal stake in the outcome of the demanded Hearing? If the Hearing is not granted, how will you be damaged? Those types of JUSTICIABILITY averments have to be included in the body of your Demand for an Administrative Hearing; local Collateral Estoppel victories applied against such otherwise content deficient Administrative briefings will collapse under the scrutiny of sophisticated appellate judges who will examine your Administrative Law Demands from the perspective of trying to find fault with them, if your local District Attorney adversary should ever decide to give you a run for your money.

If you are seeking an Administrative Hearing to discuss the assertion of a regulatory zoning jurisdiction being made against some real property you own, then the specific assertion of such a purported jurisdiction by, perhaps, a Building Inspector must be made; with the specific assertion being applied against you individually. What Inspector made the assertion, and when and how did he make the assertion? How will you be damaged if the Hearing is not granted? What local ordinance code did the Inspector threaten you with, and what does it say? Are you up against incarceration? If so, then come out and say so. Correctly understood, your averments on JUSTICIABILITY are a reduced presentation of the larger factual setting the grievance itself lies in, edited to emphasize the impending damages you will be experiencing if the Hearing is not granted immediately.

(Incidentally, the easiest way to get some Inspector to make an assertion of Civil Law regulatory jurisdiction over your property is to walk up to one, show him your plans, tell him you have no intention to solicit a Building Permit, and then ask him what he intends to do about it. His quoting some local code or penal statute to tell you that Building Permits are mandatory is your JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. [320]

[320]=============================================================

By way of analogy to understand just how serious a prosecution threat is from a Government Employee involved with law enforcement, the Federal Judiciary deems the mere threat of a criminal prosecution, from a Government Employee involved with law enforcement, is a sufficient JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY as to attach potential Federal intervention into the Controversy, by way of a petition for a Federal District Court Restraining Order. Such a Federal Injunction was granted in the background circumstances surrounding LEIS VS. FLYNT/HUSTLER MAGAZINE [439 U.S. 438 (1978)], which was a Counsel Case. Another Federal Injunction was granted in WOOLEY VS. MANYARD [430 U.S. 705 (1976), where the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment attaches to expressions of political dissent on automotive license plates], which held that persons are entitled to Declaratory and Injunctive relief in Federal Courts from threatened state criminal prosecutions. For a discussion about how defendants in state criminal proceedings are often stuck between a "Scylla and Charybdis" (meaning between two dangers, either of which is difficult to avoid without encountering the other), see an extended discussion of the use of Federal Suits to enjoin state criminal prosecutions, starting at page 710. Although this discussion here is about JUSTICIABILITY in general, if you are directly seeking such Federal intervention, there are PRINCIPLES OF ABSTENTION stemming from equitable restraint that Federal Magistrates are also required to honor. See:

- HUFFMAN VS. PURSUE, 420 U.S. 592, at 609 to 610, and Footnote #21 (1975);

- YOUNGER VS. HARRIS, 401 U.S. 37 (1971);

- STEFANELLI VS. MINARD, 342 U.S. 117 (1951);

- DOUGLAS VS. CITY OF JEANETTE, 319 U.S. 157 (1943).

So change the factual setting to accommodate the Law. Federal Magistrates do not rebuff your petitions for Injunctions because they are some SUB ROSA Fifth Column Commie operatives, but because they are operating on a narrow slice of limited jurisdiction, having been given just that limited amount of jurisdiction by the Congress, which in turn is on a limited jurisdictional mission itself by the states.

=============================================================[320]

Make sure the Building Inspector quotes penal statutes in his response to your inquiry, because that is exactly what he will later be throwing at you in exchange for your defiance of his Special Interest Group sponsored Civil Law LEX jurisdiction). [321]

[321]=============================================================

If the Inspector is a clever one, he may perceive that you are trying to pull off something grand with him by your unusual line of questioning, and so extracting the necessary admissions and confessions may be difficult in some cases. One way to handle these sharpie types is to irritate them. For example, among other things, I am a Marijuana Grower [I am quite interested in Horticulture]. When Affidavits which talk about my Marijuana Growing (in glowing terms and which address the Government law enforcement reader downward in playfully snooty and condescending terms to stir up irritation) are read by a police lieutenant bulldog, then his subsequently telling you to your face when he barks and snaps at you, that your specific activity is a crime under state Public Health statutes, and that he would arrest you immediately if he only knew exactly where such cultivation is taking place, is your JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. The police lieutenant did not understand the significance of his statements, but he:

1. Made the specific assertion of the jurisdictional attachment of those penal statutes to me, without any inquiry being made as to my Status; (What if I work for the KGB and have a Russian Diplomatic Passport? He never made a Status inquiry, and yet he doesn't have any right to arrest me. Reason: Through the overruling intervention of INTERNATIONAL LAW, my Diplomatic Immunity Status would preclude everything.)

2. Identified himself as an administrative adversary;

That police lieutenant very much has the required administrative jurisdiction to throw a criminal prosecution at me, and through those threats, he created the necessary JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY that would not have otherwise existed had he not blown his lid over the very idea of being mouthed off to, even if I did have to help him out a little by irritating him.

...By the way, a written Admission to a criminal offense is like an IN REM RESCISSION OF CONTRACT on your Birth Certificate: Because of and by itself, that Admission, like the Rescission, means absolutely nothing. Here in New York State, Criminal Procedure statutes require collaborating evidence to support Admissions, or else the Admission is non-admissible [see PEOPLE VS. VOTANO, 231 NYS2nd 337 (1962)].

"A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed."

- NYS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, Section 60.50.

Yes, the Law operates out in the practical setting, and not on paper; and what is presented on paper is frequently not that important. There is a reason why sometimes what is written on paper becomes important, as I will explain later.

=============================================================[321]

Those are the types of factual averments of JUSTICIABILITY that have to be plead in the body of a Demand for an Administrative Hearing, in order to present the administrators with a Case or Controversy that is ripe for a low level administrative settlement. [322]

[322]=============================================================

In the Case called ROE VS. WADE [410 U.S. 113 (1972)] the Supreme Court talks about a special type of JUSTICIABILITY that may fit your circumstances. The general rule in Federal Cases is that an actual controversy must exist at each stage of appellate or Certiorari review, and not just at the original time the action was initiated (SEC VS. MEDICAL COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 404 U.S. 403 (1972), and Cases cited therein). The special type of JUSTICIABILITY CONTROVERSY is one where the factual circumstances:

"... could be capable of repetition, yet evading review."

- UNITED STATES VS. W.T. GRANT, 345 U.S. 629, at 632 to 633 (1953), as cited with others in ROE VS. WADE, id., at 125.

I see many confrontation settings out on the highway that repeat themselves over and over, yet action is not taken on every infraction.

=============================================================[322]

If that Administrative Hearing Demand of your was submitted to state administrators after a prosecution has begun, then Justiciability is obvious for all parties to see. However, Justiciability still has to be positively plead within the body of the Demand through sequentially presented factual averments, otherwise the Supreme Court won't know that a Justiciable Controversy was offered for a low level settlement.

Now, theoretically, the failure by your regional bureaucrats to grant the Hearing will later estop a magistrate presiding over criminal charges that were brought out of those circumstances that were offered to have been settled, and should have been previously settled, in a lessor administrative forum. [323]

[323]=============================================================

You need to know that all Judges, State and Federal, are quite reluctant to simply toss aside a criminal prosecution (where the defendant is up against very specific and blunt wording in statutes, and where the Government has an eyewitness who saw you commit that heinous act), merely because of the operation of an unwritten Common Law Doctrine that is not provided for anywhere in statutes, due to "Public Policy" considerations, so called.

=============================================================[323]

In a criminal prosecution defense setting, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL has to be Plead properly, and the factual setting has to be very carefully structured in advance to show clearly how the Government is just plain wrong up and down the line, and that this Collateral Estoppel is just the right medicine to hem in Government. [324]

[324]=============================================================

In criminal conspiracy prosecutions, by the nature of the crime, the acts of one person affects the acts of others. So if two persons are charged with conspiracy, and one is acquitted, the charges against the remaining conspirator must be dismissed on appeal [UNITED STATES VS. STARKS, 515 F.2nd 112 (1975)]. The Principle used to require dismissal is Collateral Estoppel; and similarly, if the conviction of one conspirator is reversed on appeal due to insufficiency of evidence, then the remaining conspirator is excused as well [LUBIN VS. UNITED STATES, 313 F.2nd 419 (1963)]. Since the acts of one conspirator depend upon the other to complete the crime, Collateral Estoppel enters the scene to restrain the second act when the first act fails; and this same Principle operates on Administrative Law Demands, at least theoretically -- when a collapse of administrative jurisdiction later restrains an assertion of judicial jurisdiction. [For a discussion on Collateral Estoppel in conspiracy prosecutions, see Barry Tarlow in DEFENSE OF A FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, 4 National Journal of Criminal Defense 183, at 252 (1978)].

=============================================================[324]

So Collateral Estoppel is generally much easier to use in civil grievances, such as civil tax collections. In any event, a Case on appeal should have arguments sounding in Estoppel as background secondary redundant points, when seeking criminal conviction reversion, as Collateral Estoppel itself is still a developing jurisprudential branch, [325]

[325]=============================================================

Up until as recently as 1950, there were still only a handful of Federal administrative agencies in existence, so there was little administrative law going on to be ruled upon.

=============================================================[325]

and, at the present time, is insufficient conviction reversal material to rely on as a "stand alone" defense line. Although appellate judges have been reluctant to make Collateral Estoppel mandatory and binding in favor of the criminally accused, they are less reluctant to make Collateral Estoppel operate against the criminally accused. [326]

[326]=============================================================

PENA-CABANILLAS VS. UNITED STATES, 394 F.2nd 785 (1968) [Collateral Estoppel acts to restrain the presentation of evidence favorable to the accused when that evidence was litigated earlier in another criminal setting.] See generally, THE USE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE ACCUSED, 69 Columbia Law Review 515 (1969).

=============================================================[326]

Having grievances settled at the lowest possible level is a correct Principle of Natural Law. [327]

[327]=============================================================

Correct Principles manifest many benefits that surface at different times and in different settings:

"To preclude parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, protects their adversaries from the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions."

- MONTANA VS. UNITED STATES, 440 U.S. 147, at 153 (1979).

=============================================================[327]

And as usual, it is those lawyers who -- in pursuit of their own financial self-enrichment -- are twisting our Father's Common Law into what appears facially to be unrecognizable garbage. [328]

[328]=============================================================

For example, consider the words of Warren Burger as he talks about lawyers circumventing the administrative process:

"Consistent failure by courts to mandate utilization of administrative remedies -- under the growing insistence by lawyers demanding broad judicial remedies -- inevitably undermines administrative effectiveness and defeats fundamental public policy by encouraging "end runs" around the administrative process."

- MOORE VS. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494, at 525 (1976).

=============================================================[328]

What Warren Burger is saying is true, even though his instant expressions of support for Collateral Estoppel happened to operate against a criminally accused person in Ohio. This piecemeal approach by the Judiciary is disorganized, and results in criminal prosecutions being sustained against Individuals when they really should not be, merely because the proper underlying authority for conviction annulment is non-existent. [329]

[329]=============================================================

"...judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and of their ultimate public responsibility by a vigorous stream of criticism expressed with candor however blunt."

- Justice Felix Frankfurter, as quoted by the editors of THE SUPREME COURT REVIEW, inside front cover [University of Chicago (January, 1984)].

=============================================================[329]

The correct solution for this is for the Supreme Court to grab the bull by the horns and require that Principles of Collateral Estoppel are now binding and mandatory on everyone: Government, the criminally accused, and all parties in civil actions, and no outs. This would be an activist position for the Supreme Court to take, a position that is cutting across their contemporary grain of "narrow opinion" thinking. [330]

[330]=============================================================

Narrow opinion or not, there is a doctrine running through the Supreme Court that states that it is uncertainty itself that attracts disputes and interferes with that judicial economy of minimizing the number of cases that they talk about so much ["... uncertainty attracts disputes..." GEISLER VS. THOMAS COLLIERY COMPANY, 260 U.S. 245, at 260 (1922)]; so it might be provident to write opinions that elucidates well the doctrine being expounded.

=============================================================[330]

The Doctrine of settling grievances at the lowest possible level, of which Collateral Estoppel is a correlative Doctrine, is found replicating itself over and over again throughout Supreme Court rulings. [331]

[331]=============================================================

Remember that the Law is a line, and it is just as easy for anyone to be on one side of the line as it is to be on the other side. For example, if issues that are raised in an administrative setting are ruled adversely against you in some type of an administrative NISI PRIUS hearing, and you fail to appeal that adverse administrative decision, RES JUDICATA bars you from later on relitigating those issues that you lost on, in a higher level Judicial setting. See, for example, UNITED STATES VS. RYLANDER, 460 U.S. 752 (1983);

[Mr. Rylander was dragged into Court before a Federal Judge in an attempt to extract some contract compliance out of him. He asserted some defenses in that Enforcement Hearing, and the Federal Judge ruled against him. Mr. Rylander did nothing to reverse that adverse judgment against him, and so when his Contempt Hearing came around at a later time, Mr. Rylander then re-presented the same issues to the same Judge a second time, and the U.S. Attorney objected. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that issues that were raised, or could have been raised, at the initial judicial Enforcement Hearing were RES ADJUDICATA against Mr. Rylander at his later Contempt Hearing. Reason: Failure to appeal. The PRINCIPLE OF NATURE the Supreme Court was ruling on involves the acceptance of judgments by silence that your failure to appeal seals against you; to hold otherwise would be a Tort against your adversary.]

And in UNITED STATES VS. SECOR [476 F.2nd 766 (1973)], the Defendant there was barred from relitigating his claimed Fifth Amendment privilege at his later Contempt Hearing, since he had raised that same issue in an initial enforcement hearing, lost, and then failed to appeal [id., 476 F.2nd, at 769]. So whenever the monkey gets put on your back, get rid of it -- but quick. By the way, those Enforcement Hearing judgments are not final decisions, and are very much appealable [REISMAN VS. CAPLIN, 375 U.S. 440, at 449 (1964)].

=============================================================[331]

This SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST LEVEL DOCTRINE surfaces in many places. For example, it is found:

1. In the Judicially created DOCTRINES OF EXHAUSTION, PRIMARY JURISDICTION, PRIOR RESORT, and EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, all of which operate to send a grievance down to an administrative agency for different types of rulings for technical reasons, prior to initiating higher judicial intervention;

2. By having the parties first exhaust their lower state remedies in criminal appeals and civil actions prior to seeking higher Federal judicial intervention; this surfaces most frequently in petitions for federal restraining orders to block state criminal prosecutions, and petitions for HABEAS CORPUS;

3. By having parties seek the lowest possible level of a judicial forum first (i.e., the lowest state court possessing the requisite settlement jurisdiction, and the use of federal magistrates instead of District Court Judges to settle small single-Hearing oriented grievances);

4. By a statutory requirement that a lower final demand for money believed due and owing must first be made and precede the higher initiation of the judicial civil lawsuit;

5. By the delegated conferment by the Supreme Court of a Grant of automatic Concurrent Jurisdiction to every single state court in the United States, to hear and rule on Federal Constitutional questions, regardless of any state statutes that may appear to operate to the contrary; state courts also hold concurrent jurisdiction to hear a large volume of federal statutory based grievances;

6. By the mandates of the Supreme Court to all Federal Appellate Circuits not to interfere with or reverse any findings of facts made by Federal District Court Judges, absent very special circumstances (so that the disputed factual setting the grievance was cast in is settled at the lowest possible level);

7. And in the case of the Supreme Court having Original Jurisdiction, they will first send the Case to a lower regional District Court having Concurrent Jurisdiction by statute. (If this Concurrent Jurisdiction is wanting, then after accepting Original Jurisdiction on the Case, the Supreme Court will appoint a regional District Court Judge to be a Special Master to make findings of facts at that low level, which the Supreme Court will then audit and review as the sole appellate forum);

8. And this Doctrine is also expressed in the self-imposed mandates of the Supreme Court to settle grievances by use of a lower statutory construction if possible, rather than magnifying the settlement remedy by use of the higher Constitutional construction;

9. This Doctrine surfaces in the Supreme Court's refusal to consider ruling on arguments and reasoning that were not presented to a lower judicial forum first; and

10. The Supreme Court also wants lower Federal Tribunals to use lower state law to settle grievances, prior to using federal common [Case] law or federal statutes.

And on and on. [332]

[332]=============================================================

Many times this ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE is really invisible by first surfacing in a Courtroom, making its appearance, doing its work, and then disappearing without any trace of identification that it was once there. In 1980, the California Supreme Court ordered the discharge of charges against a criminal misdemeanant without any reference to ESTOPPEL PRINCIPLES, because he had been previously released from civil liability in connection with his heinous crime [see HOINES VS. BARNEY'S CLUB INN, 28 Cal.3rd 603 (1980)].

=============================================================[332]

This SETTLE IT DOWN THERE DOCTRINE even surfaces in The Administrative Procedures Act of Title 5 and the Code of Federal Regulations. Several such rules contained in numerous Administrative Procedures Acts initially seem to obstruct the pursuit of justice by creating artificial impediments on both parties that inhibit the settlement of grievances; but in reality those impediments take on new vibrancy, life, and meaning when viewed from the perspective of the Congress trying to create incentives for both parties to quickly effectuate a settlement of grievances between adversaries, even while the grievance is still swirling in a tempest of administrative gestation. Incidentally, this Doctrine, which is an operation of Nature, is also found producing results in relations between married folks, and between neighbors, and between parent and child, and child and school teacher, and between an Employer and an Employee. Just because we turn around and walk out the Courtroom doors doesn't mean that Nature changes at all, or that a different set of Principles somehow governs life.

All of those are examples of that SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE LEVEL FIRST DOCTRINE; and the Collateral Estoppel Doctrine, which operates to penalize the recalcitrant party that did not settle something at a lower level that was offered to them (as an incentive to avoid doing so again in the future), as applied to Administrative Law Demands, is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE. [333]

[333]=============================================================

And I have seen the operation of that interesting SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST LEVEL PRINCIPLE at work in many seemingly unrelated professional disciplines, from handling grievances in business relationships and diplomatic settings, to handling exception processing in computer hardware engineering, and in the accident recovery procedures in the design of nuclear power plants.

=============================================================[333]

It is simply all over Nature and scientific method. [334]

[334]=============================================================

People who publicly express any one of several principles, closely correlated to this SETTLE IT AT THE LOWEST LEVEL PRINCIPLE may cause irritation in the inner sanctums of ruling power. Consider William of Occam, who was a Fourteenth Century philosopher at Oxford University, and whose teachings were condemned by the Pope; his Principle is known as OCCAM'S RAZOR, and it is this identical same Principle expressed in different words: That entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity (i.e., that there is to be no enlargement of the grievance beyond necessity).

=============================================================[334]

Let us assume that you are a Gameplayer in King's Commerce, so you are a Taxpayer; so if you have a grievance with your Employer regarding the premature withholding of money from your wages under disputed tax liability circumstances, try to settle it with him right then and there, before going up the ladder a step and invoking an Administrative Hearing with the IRS. If you do not try to settle it with your Employer, the letters going back and forth (proving the factual setting surrounding their threats and your objections) will be non-existent; which means that you either made no attempt to settle the grievance right then and there, or in the alternative, you accepted your Employer's last offer. That is the way sophisticated Federal Magistrates view the matter, and if you will but give that model but a few moments thought and imagination, then you too will arrive at the same conclusion: That the reason why you were later rebuffed by a Federal Magistrate is due to your own improper handling of the factual setting you presented to that Judge when prematurely asking for a Restraining Order of some type of tax refund suit. Then after exhausting your potential remedies with your Employer, always first ask for a Contested Case Administrative Hearing with the IRS before going up the ladder one more step and initiating a Judicial Complaint. As you go up the ladder one step at a time, one of the benefits you will be experiencing is finding your adversary making numerous technical mistakes, which when called by you will cause you to win for technical reasons; if you jump the gun like a lot of Tax Protestors do and head straight for the Federal District Courthouse to have it out with your Employer and the King, your grievance will likely have to be addressed solely on the presentment of poorly drafted pleadings and flaky merits (being up to your neck in invisible contracts), since by jumping the gun, no interlocutory steps were offered to your adversary to slip up on. [335]

[335]=============================================================

One of the biggest slip up steps is the fact that the IRS does not give out CONTESTED CASE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS to anyone. Yes, the IRS will schedule an audience with an agent, and in some larger grievances, they will even schedule a Conference in Washington -- when they feel like it; but never is there any Administrative Hearing scheduled that possesses all of the juristic accoutrements that characterize legitimate Administrative Hearings: An Administrative Law Judge possessing the administrative jurisdiction to settle the grievance; true adversary proceedings; presentation of evidence; transcripts; witnesses and cross-examination; administrative subpoenas; and the like.

=============================================================[335]

Any experienced person knows that people, in any field, from business to law to engineering to medicine, in any field, always messes up; and IRS agents and the King's Attorneys in the Department of Justice in Washington mess up each and every single day, over and over again, just like everyone else. [336]

[336]=============================================================

"... it is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal arguments."

- Justice Brennan, in UNITED STATES VS. CHADWICK, 433 U.S. 1, at 16 (1976).

=============================================================[336]

Therefore, by jumping the gun, skipping three steps on the ladder, although you may believe that the end result is closer, you are actually only damaging yourself. The sky never falls in because Principles are violated; only very subtle and difficult to detect secondary consequences surface later on in ways that make their seminal point of causation difficult to discern.

In contrast, if you are not a Gameplayer in Commerce and have rejected all federal benefits, then as a non-Taxpayer you fall outside the procedural administrative mandates of the King's LEX, and it is provident for you to go directly into the Judiciary. [337]

[337]=============================================================

"... a nontaxpayer is outside the administrative system set up for the collection of a refund of overpaid taxes, and is not required to file a claim for refund to recover money taken from him... The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessments and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

- ECONOMY HEATING VS. THE UNITED STATES, 470 F.2nd 585, at 589 (1972)] [sentences quoted out of order].

=============================================================[337]

Should you conclude that it would be provident to initially pursue Judicial Relief, then your requisite array of Status Averments form an integral and important part of the Pleadings, in order to document why you are not a Taxpayer and why you are somehow exempt from the Administrative ladder that applies to every one else. Even though you may not be a Taxpayer, there may be some technical advantages inuring to players who use the Administrative ladder, one step at a time, but the decisional turning point on whether to initially pursue administrative or judicial relief revolves around a purely status oriented question: Are you a Taxpayer or not? By the end of this Letter, you should be able to get a good feel as to the extent to which you have successfully removed yourself out from underneath the King's taxation thumb.

As for the JUSTICIABILITY Question in Demanding Administrative Hearings, unless there is a Case or Controversy at hand, it is foolishness for Government officials to discuss something at an Administrative Hearing that which, if discussed, would neither settle nor adjudicate anything; so if your views are that their granting you the Hearing they don't want to give you would settle something, then that is part of your entitlement pleadings under STANDING and JUSTICIABILITY. In our specific instant case of an Employer, acting in an agency relationship to the King, withholding money from non-Taxpayers who are not involved with Commerce and experience no Federal benefits and is an "excepted subject," [338]

[338]=============================================================

EVANS VS. GORE, 253 U.S. 245, at 261 (1919).

=============================================================[338]

our JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY is the fact that if the Administrative Hearing is not granted immediately, you personally will be damaged by a continuing loss of money that is being withheld from your earnings. That is the kind of hard JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY averment that Judges want to hear, and that is the kind of JUSTICIABILITY that even case-hardened Federal Judges will reluctantly respect. Correlative ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF averments of STANDING (your personal interest in the Case) are also required. Since you are personally being damaged by the operation of statutes, your STANDING is automatic.

And speaking of the Supreme Court (and stay out of any confrontation with the King unless an extensive journey to Washington intrigues you) the only question you should want answered is essentially a STATUS question: Does the King have the right to intervene into simple common law occupations to such an extent that an INDIVIDUAL not in an Equity Jurisdictional relationship with the King and not in Commerce, and rejecting Federal political benefits, can force the acceptance of unwanted benefits, and can force a Federal Taxpayer Status on someone (with the attendant criminal liability associated therewith), and can force the signing of contracts with the King, and all of that prior to being able to experience any livelihood at all? If the Supreme Court responds by saying yes, [339]

[339]=============================================================

The fundamentalists will submit the proposition that since Prophecies have already declared that no one will soon be able to buy or eat without some Taxpayer type of identification, it's best just to throw in the towel now and bag everything; ignoring the fact that Prophecies are conditional, and often are proposed statements of what either could have been or what might be designed to show contrasting consequences for some expected behavior.

=============================================================[339]

the King does have these extreme intervention Rights to force you to accept his political and Commercial benefits against your will and over your objection, because of some important overriding Governmental interests, then let's get this monolithic slab of top down Roman Civil Law out into the open so we can deal with it for what it really is. [340]

[340]=============================================================

Since that decision would be out of harmony with the underlying structural basis of the Declaration of Independence and every Principle of Republican freedom of choice in separating or not separating ourselves from the King (which is one of the meanings of the Doctrine of Separation of Church (the People) and State), and violate PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY (that vitiate the need for any Social Security whatsoever) that our Founding Fathers stood for and initiated, then such an adverse decision would give rise to an opportunity, as a CASUS BELLI, to reflect and re-evaluate our national Status at Law under the RESERVATION CLAUSE of the Declaration of Independence;

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute despotism, it is [our] right, it is [our] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for [our] future security."

So then the question would be whether or not the time has come to deal with the King the same way the King's Agents have dealt with John Singer and Gordon Kahl: Out of the barr