I N V I S I B L E   C O N T R A C T S

                         George Mercier

 

                     ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

                         [Pages 300-385]

 

 

Words appearing below in ALL CAPS appeared in italics in the original text.

 

 

      2.    Next, we turn now and address the legal procedures used to crack Protesting giblets when an invisible Federal taxation reciprocity contract has been layered on us from that heavy and overweight King we have in Washington, with the administration and enforcement of those invisible contracts falling under a very curt, short, accelerated, and abbreviated legal procedure called ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  I will be discussing two separate items under this section --

 

            1.    First, the legal procedure of ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, which is not necessarily related to taxation; and

            2.    A specific ADMIRALTY TAXATION CONTRACT itself.  Federal Judges do not call this contract an ADMIRALTY CONTRACT, but my use of this nomenclature occurs by reason of relational identification, because there are invisible financial benefits originating from the King that involve LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY, which is characteristic of ADMIRALTY.

 

The legal procedure known as ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION applies in Federal areas concerning tax collection, because once a PERSON takes upon any one of the many invisible taxation contracts that the King is enriching his looters through, then ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION as a relational procedure can be invoked by the Judiciary and the King's termites in the IRS to get what they want out of you:  Your money.

 

Admiralty is a subdivision of King's Commerce such that all of King's Commerce that takes place over waterways and the High Seas (at least, such a geographical restriction of Admiralty to navigable waterways of all types is now only theoretical), is assigned to be government by a special set of grievance settlement and evidentiary rules, just custom tailored to Commerce of that nature... at least that was the case in the old days when Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate business transactions with the King out on the High Seas.

 

Back in the old days, back way early in England's history, our Fathers saw that the rules governing the settlement of grievances that occurred on land just didn't seem to fit right into grievances that merchants had with each other on some Commerce that transpired out on the High Seas.  A large portion of business involved the transportation of merchandise from one place to the next.  For example, on land, goods that were damaged in transit for some reason were generally always recovered from the accident for valuation and insurance adjustment purposes, and eye witnesses were often present to describe how the damage happened, i.e., whether a gust of high winds came along, or some other carriage violated rights-of-way and caused the accident, or that thievery took place.  In that way, fault and damages could be properly assigned to the responsible party.  But transportation that crosses over water is very different, indeed.  Whenever high gusts of squall wind came about on the High Seas as merchandise was being shipped from, say, England to India, then many ships were lost at sea.  No one saw the ship sink, the merchandise is gone for good, the crew is gone as well, and months and years transpire in silence as a ship that was expected to arrive in a foreign port never appears.  It could have been piracy, a Rogue Wave, or the weather, or that the captain and crew made off with the boat to the South Pacific, but in any event, there is no other party to be sued, and no one knows what happened (there were no radios then).  In some cases, searching expeditions were sent out to look for the lost ship, and so years would pass between the initial sinking or stealing, and a declaration to the fact that was accepted by all interested parties.

 

Question:  How do you assign negligence for damages out on the High Seas?  No one saw anything happen; no one has any evidence that anything happened.  Who was at fault, and why?

 

On land, assigning fault and making partial recovery by the responsible party is quite common, but not so out on the High Seas.  So this special marine jurisdiction (and "jurisdiction" meaning here is simply a special set of rules) was developed organically, piece by piece and sometimes Case by Case, which grew and developed to limit liability exposure to the carrier and others, and also minimized the losses that could be claimed by forcing certain parties to assume risks they don't have to assume when merchandise is being shipped over land.  Also, some of the other special rules applicable to grievances brought into a Court of Admiralty are that there is no jury in Admiralty -- never -- everything is handled summarily before a Judge in chronologically compressed proceedings.  Also, there are no fixed rules of law or evidence (meaning that it is somewhat like an Administrative Proceeding in the sense that it is a free-wheeling evidentiary jurisdiction -- anything goes).  [383]

 

[383]=============================================================

In such a loose evidentiary arena, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is generally considered the ultimate form of proof in Maritime and Admiralty litigation matters.  Again, this is so by reason of the special factual setting that Admiralty grievances have their gestation in.  For example, in Admiralty such factors as "seaman status" or unseaworthiness are generally not admitted and must be demonstrated through a series of logically connecting factors.  The only way to demonstrate the existence of these factors and the conclusions that they have a significant meaning within the confines of Admiralty Law is through strong proof of circumstantial evidentiary chains leading to inferences of the various types of status.  In COX VS. ESSO SHIPPING [247 F.2nd 629 (1957)], a seaman brought an action for Maritime Tort damages after he fell twenty feet to the deck of the ship.  The maritime jury was not instructed that it was not Cox's duty to choose seaworthy equipment (which allegedly caused the fall) or to select good equipment from bad, but rather under ADMIRALTY JURISPRUDENCE, it was the duty of the shipowner to select good equipment from bad.  By the trial court having improvidently instructed the jury along such a biased evidentiary skew, failure to explain the special assignments of negligence liability inherent in ADMIRALTY mandated reversal on appeal.  But it was CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that won the Case.

==============================================================[383]

 

And so when limitations of liability were codified this way into the King's Statutes, this was actually Special Interest Group legislation to benefit insurance carriers.)  [384]

 

[384]==============================================================

The insurance companies never change their MODUS OPERANDI in their very successful manipulative use of legislation to limit the amount of money they have to pay out on claims.  For example, few people realize it, but here in the United States, up until the early 1950s there were no commercial nuclear power plants in operation, and none were going to be built.  Reason:  No insurance carrier wanted to underwrite and pay for the potential losses involved if an accident occurred.  The insurance companies knew that some day there would be problems surfacing with one of those nuclear plants -- insurance companies know risk and risk management better than anyone else on the fact of this Earth.  So electric utilities who wanted to build nuclear plants, but could find no insurance carrier, acted in combination with insurance carriers in sponsoring the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT in Congress, which limited the potential liability of Tort claims of a domestic nuclear accident to $500,000,000.  [Remember that Tort claims are lawsuits between parties where there is no contract in effect between the parties to govern the grievance].  See the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT today in Title 42, Section 2210.  Had there been no PRICE-ANDERSON LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ACT, there would be no Commercial nuclear power plants built in the United States.  For a brief history of the development of nuclear power in the United States, see the Supreme Court in DUKE POWER VS. CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, 438 U.S. 59 (1978).  The well-known involvement of the private insurance companies and their influence on the legislation bringing forth the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT is discussed in DUKE POWER, starting at page 64, et seq.

=============================================================[384]

 

Insurance company risk analysts are brilliant people, and they now know, like they have always known, exactly what they are doing at all times when sponsoring statutes that limit the amount of money they have to pay out in claims.  [385]

 

[385]=============================================================

"The [Federal] Limitations of Liability Act has been applied to even small boats like outboard motorboats... but the law is... understood and [insurance] underwriters in particular know exactly what they are dealing with."

      -     A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A PARTY; FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS, [Part II] in Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United States Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, discussing Senate Bill 1876, at page 697 (May, 1972).

=============================================================[385]

 

And due to the extended time factors that were involved in the shipping of Commerce out on the High Seas in old England, rules regarding the timeliness of bringing actions into court, just never fit just right with a ship lost for months or years before the involved parties even knew about it.  So something originated out on the High Seas known as DOUBLE INSURANCE; which is a general business custom, continuing to be in effect down to the present time, for carriers to purchase double the value on merchandise transiting in a marine environment (insuring Commercial merchandise in transit for twice their cash value), and this insurance doubling was later enforced by English statutes to be mandatory, due to the "inherent risks involved."  [386]

 

[386]=============================================================

DOUBLE INSURANCE means collecting double the premium, but the number of ships lost at sea did not double, so the claims did not double.  The insurance companys' lobbyists were busy behind that legislation, as they made their descent then on the Parliament in vulture formation, just like today.  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY defines DOUBLE INSURANCE as existing where:

      "...the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect to the same subject and interest."

            -     BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, Fifth Edition ["Double Insurance"].

This is a correct definition of what is known as DOUBLE INSURANCE, but that is not the DOUBLE INSURANCE once forced on Admiralty carriers in another era (and, of course, you just don't need to concern yourself with something illicit being pulled off by an insurance company).

=============================================================[386]

 

Do you see the distinction in risk and procedure between Commerce transacted over the land and Commerce transacted over the High Seas?  As we change the situs from land to water, everything changes in the ability to effectuate a judicial recovery for goods damaged in transit.  And everything in Commerce comes into the Courtroom eventually, so setting down a variety of courtroom rules just custom tailored to marine business also developed in time, and properly so.

 

So in the right geographical place (meaning in the right risk environment), the application of special marine rules to settle Commercial grievances is quite appropriate.  And insurance, i.e., the absorption of Commercial risk by an insurance underwriter in exchange for some cash premiums paid, has always been considered by the Judiciary to be an Admiralty transaction.  In other words, even though the merchandise is not being shipped over water, and even though the business insurance policy has absolutely nothing to do with a marine environment or a physical High Seas setting, the issuance of the policy of insurance now attaches Admiralty Jurisdiction right then and there.  [387]

 

[387]=============================================================

Such a seemingly expansive use of Admiralty Jurisdiction initially triggers an inquisitive attitude questioning such an expansive application of Admiralty.  But the Judiciary is merely replicating the legal environment out on the High Seas that risk insurance was born in.

      "Polices of insurance are within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the United States."

            -     DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 7 Federal Cases 418, Case #3776, at page 444 (1815) [that Case also has a very extensive history of Admiralty Jurisdiction discussed in it].

Consider the words of Federal District Court Judge Pelag Sprague:

      "...I consider the jurisdiction of the Admiralty over polices of insurance, to be the settled law and practice of this circuit."

            -     YOUNGER VS. GLOUSER MARINE, affirmed on appeal, 2 Curt. C.C. 323; as cited in DECISIONS OF THE... DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN ADMIRALTY AND MARINE CAUSES, 1841-1861 (1854).

=============================================================[387]

 

And all persons whose activities in King's Commerce are such that they fall under this marine-like environment, are into an invisible Admiralty Jurisdiction Contract.  Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas, and if the King is a party to the sea-based Commerce (such as by the King having financed your ship, or the ship is carrying the King's guns), then that Commerce is properly governed by the special rules applicable to Admiralty Jurisdiction.  But as for that slice of Commerce going on out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment.  At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more.

 

Anyone who is involved with Admiralty or Maritime activities are always Persons involved with Commercial activities that fall under the King's Commerce, but since Admiralty and Maritime are subdivisions of King's Commerce, the reverse is not always true, i.e., not everyone in King's Commerce is in Admiralty or Maritime.  Admiralty Law Jurisdiction is a body of legal concepts, international in character, which has its own history of organic growth concurrent both within the parallel Anglo-American development of King's Equity and Common Law Jurisdictions, and in addition to organic growth from outside Anglo-American Law.  Admiralty Law has been around for quite some time, and it very much does have its proper time and place.  Admiralty Jurisdiction goes back quite farther than just recent English history involving the Magna Carta in 1215; it has its roots in the ancient codes that the Phoenicians used, and it appears in the Rhodesian Codes as well.

 

Generally speaking, Maritime Jurisdiction is the IT HAPPENED OUT ON THE SEA version of Common Law Jurisdiction and Jury Trials are quite prevalent; Admiralty Jurisdiction is the IT HAPPENED OUT ON THE SEA version of summary King's Equity Jurisdiction, and generally features non-Jury Trials to settle grievances (as Kings have a long history of showing little interest in Juries).  [388]

 

[388]=============================================================

Trial by Jury has never, ever been a feature of prosecutions held under summary Admiralty Jurisdiction rules.  See:

      -     UNITED STATES VS. LAVENGEANCE, 3 U.S. 297 (1796);

      -     WHELAN VS. THE UNITED STATES, 711 U.S. 112 (1812);

      -     THE SARAH CASE, 21 U.S. 391 (1823).

=============================================================[388]

 

Just what grievance should lie under ordinary Civil Law, or should lie under Admiralty Jurisdiction is often disputed even at the present time, and has always been disputed.  [389]

 

[389]=============================================================

"...the precise scope of [American] admiralty jurisdiction is not a matter of obvious principle or of very accurate history."

      -     Justice Holmes in THE BLACKHEATH, 195 U.S. 361 (1904).

=============================================================[389]

 

Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas, while Maritime Jurisdiction could be said to be the COMMON LAW of the High Seas.  If you and I (as private parties) entered into Commercial contracts with each other that has something to do with a marine setting, that would be a contract in Maritime.  If you or I contract in Commerce with the King (such as shipping his guns across oceans), then such an arrangement would fall under Admiralty Jurisdiction.  This distinction does not always hold true any more, as lawyers have greatly blurred the distinction by lumping everything into Admiralty.  [390]

 

[390]=============================================================

An exemplification of lawyers simply lumping everything into Admiralty would be a treatise that teaches lawyers how to do exactly just that:  See a huge seven volume set of Admiralty Jurisdiction practice Law and Rules called BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY, by Matthew Bender Publishers in New York City.  (Kept current with frequent updates to subscribers).

=============================================================[390]

 

This is why Admiralty is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas and navigable rivers and lakes (or at least, should be).  A least, that is the way it used to be.  Up until the mid-1800s here in the United States, very frequently merchants paid off each other in gold coins and company notes, i.e., there was no monopoly on currency circulation by the King then like there is today.  So in the old days, it was infrequent that the King had an involvement with private Maritime Commerce.  And there was an easy-to-see distinction in effect back then between Maritime Jurisdiction contracts that involved private parties (or Maritime Torts where neither parties in the grievance are agencies or instrumentalities of Government) and Admiralty Jurisdiction, which applied to Commercial contracts where the King was a party.  (Remember that Tort Law governs grievances between people where there is no contract in effect.  So if a longshoreman fell on a dock and broke his leg, his suing the owner of the dock for negligence in maintaining the dock should be a Maritime Tort Action).  However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty:  Reason:  The beneficial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.

 

In England, which has long been a jurisprudential structure encompassing Maritime and Admiralty Law, open hostility and tension has flared on occasion regarding the question of applying a marine based jurisdiction on land.  During the reign of King Richard II, there was a confrontation between inland Equity Jurisdiction Courts and the assertion of normally sea based Admiralty Jurisdiction Courts.  The confrontation resulted in a King's Decree being issued to settle the grievance.  That Decree provided that:

 

      "The admirals and their deputies shall not meddle from henceforth of anything done within the realm, but only of a thing done upon the sea..."  [391]

 

[391]=============================================================

13 RICHARD II, c.5. (1389)

=============================================================[391]

 

This Decree abated the encroachment grievance for the time being, but other encroachment questions arose later on, because the use of fee based summary Admiralty Jurisdiction raises revenue for the Judges, and is administratively quite efficient, and therefore all factors considered, the inherently expansive nature of Admiralty is quite strong, and as such, Decrees issued by Kings trying to limit the contours of Admiralty were simply tossed aside and soon forgotten.  So now one meaningless Royal Decree was soon followed by another:

 

      "...of all manner of contracts, pleas, and quarrels, and other things arising within the bodies of the counties as well by land as by [the edge of] water, and also by wreck of the sea, the admiral's court shall have no manner of cognizance, power, nor jurisdiction; but all such manner of contracts, pleas, and quarrels, and all other things rising within the bodies of counties, as well by land as by water, as afore, and remedied by the laws of the land, and not before nor by the admiral, nor his lieutenant in any wise."  [392]

 

[392]=============================================================

15 RICHARD II, c.3. (1391)

=============================================================[392]

 

In the reign of King James the First, the disputed boundary controversies between the Courts of Common Law and the Admiralty Jurisdiction Courts continued on, and "even reached an acute stage."  [393]

 

[393]=============================================================

The ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, Volume One ["High Court of Admiralty"], page 171 (1929 Edition).

=============================================================[393]

 

We find in the second volume of Marsden's SELECT PLEAS IN THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY, and in Lord Coke's writings [394]

 

[394]=============================================================

REPORTS, Part 13, page 51; and COKE'S INSTITUTES, Part IV, Chapter 22.

=============================================================[394]

 

that despite an agreement made in 1575 between the justices of the King's Bench and the judge of Admiralty, the judges of the Common Law Courts successfully maintained their right to prohibit suits in Admiralty upon contracts that were made on shore.  (Notice who your friends are:  Judges sitting over Common Law Courts).  Other complaints of encroachment by Courts of Admiralty into land based grievances surfaced during the rule and reign of King Henry the Fourth.  [395]

 

[395]=============================================================

This resulted in his statutes being modified to restrain the expansion of the Admiralty Courts.  See 2 HENRY IV, c.11 (1400).

=============================================================[395]

 

So, Admiralty Jurisdiction is by its historical nature an expansive and adhesive Jurisdiction for Kings to use to accomplish their Royal revenue raising and administrative cost cutting objectives.

 

Our Founding Fathers also had an inappropriate assertion of this expansive Admiralty Jurisdiction thrown at them from the King of England, which was a strong contributing reason as to why the American Colonists felt that the King had lost his rightful jurisdiction to govern the Colonies.  [396]

 

[396]=============================================================

In the DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 1774, we find the following words:

      "Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of the county."

            -     JOURNALS OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, edited by W.C. Ford, Volume I, page 63 et seq.

=============================================================[396]

 

Yes, King George was very much working American Colonial giblets through an Admiralty Cracker; and so Admiralty has had a long habitual pattern of making appearances where it does not belong, of creating confrontations, and of being used as a juristic whore by Kings functioning as Royal pimps:  And all for the same identical purpose:  To enrich the Crown and nothing else.

 

This concept of using Admiralty as a slick tool for Revenue Raising is an important concept to understand, as this procedure to raise revenue through an invisible Admiralty Contract is now surfacing in the United States in the very last place where anyone would think a marine based jurisdictional environment belongs:  On your Internal Revenue Service's 1040 form, as I will explain later on.

 

What is important to understand here is not merely that there has been an expansive atmosphere of perpetual enlargement of the jurisdictional contours that characterize Courts of Admiralty that has been in effect for a long time in old English history, but what is important is why this state of expansion continuously took place:

 

      "The present obscure and irrational state of admiralty jurisdiction in America is the consequence of the long feud between the English common law and admiralty judges, clerks and marshals, who competed for jurisdiction by fees, not salaries, until 1840.  They, therefore, competed for jurisdiction of profitable litigation between merchants, but were happy to escape unprofitable cases.  In particular, the common law judges sought exclusive jurisdiction whenever a jury of vicinage could be empaneled."  [397]

 

[397]=============================================================

A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A PARTY; FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS [Part II] in Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United States Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, discussing Senate Bill 1876, at page 639 (May, 1972).

=============================================================[397]

 

So the reason why King Richard II and the other Kings of England had to keep issuing out restraining Decrees, to hem in the Admirals with the ever-expanding jurisdiction that they were assuming, was because those admirals were financially compensated based on the number and types of Cases they accepted to rule on -- so they obviously accepted and asserted Admiralty Jurisdiction over the maximum number of Cases practically possible; and why should they care about "mere technical details" as to whether or not that grievance really belonged under Admiralty or not?  Why should they concern themselves with the mere question of jurisdiction when the more important event of looting a Defendant was so imminent?  Why should they concern themselves with the comites of limited inter-tribunal jurisdiction when an operation of banditry was so close at hand?  What the old Admiralty Judges wanted was to savor, experientially, the conquest of financial enrichment, and with such fee compensated Courts, Admiralty Judges got what they wanted.  Can't you just hear the old Admiralty Judge now:

 

      "Why, the Plaintiff brought this Case into my Court, I've got jurisdiction!"

 

Here in the 1980s in the United States, have you ever heard this same identical line when challenging some rubbery little Star Chamber Town Justice on a speeding ticket?  That determined little Justice of the Peace wants just one thing from you:  Your money.  Like the Admiralty Courts of old England, his little Star Chamber is also fee based.  And he represents everything curt, accelerated, and inconsiderate when ignoring your traffic infraction citation jurisdictional arguments that was also curt, accelerated, and inconsiderate when fee based Admiralty Courts assumed jurisdiction on Cases they had no business taking in 1300 A.D.

 

Those old Admiralty Courts wanted the self-serving financial enrichment that filing fees paid by Plaintiffs gave them.  And so in seeking Admiralty Jurisdiction relief, Plaintiffs expected and got quick, fast, and summary relief.  And being financially compensated the way they were, are you really surprised that Admiralty Jurisdiction Courts were simply expected by custom to be the shortest, curtest, most summary, and chronologically most abbreviated form of adjudication imaginable?  Who has time for a Jury in Admiralty?  I can just hear a poor fellow try to argue rights in an old Admiralty Court back then.

 

      "You want what?  You want Due Process in this Court?  You want your Magna Carta rights?  Ha!  [SNORT]  This is Admiralty.  Judgment entered in for the Plaintiff.  Next Case."

 

Today in the United States, just like in those days of King Richard II, there is now an assertion of Admiralty and Maritime Law going on in places where it does not belong, and it is now trying to make an appearance where it has no business.  Admiralty Jurisdiction has in many respects, "come ashore" and now "meddles" with much of our domestic "realm," as it currently affects almost every element of our inland Commercial society.  Today's practice of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction is found not only in its appropriate home in that slice of business of King's Commerce that is going on out on the seas, but also on the navigable rivers of the United States, as well as world-wide off-shore well drilling activity.  Admiralty Jurisdiction rules are used to settle claims and grievances regarding cargo, international conventions, financing, banking, insurance, legislation, navigation, hazardous substances from nuclear power plants, stevedoring (the unloading of a vessel at a port), and undersea mining and development.  An examination of some Commercial contracts that aerospace defense contractors enter into with the Pentagon and each other (from general contractor to subcontractor) reveals slices of Admiralty very much now in effect.  It is probable that Admiralty Jurisdiction will also surface sometime in the future to settle Tort claims arising out of the CIA's planting of ICBMs on the ocean floor up and down the East Coast in the 1960s under instructions from David Rockefeller, using that ship Howard Hughes built especially for this purpose, called the GLOMAR EXPLORER.  Every few years since 1977, strange stories have appeared in the news regarding whales beaching themselves on American coasts.  On February 6, 1977, a large number of whales began beaching themselves at Jacksonville, Florida for no apparent reason; commentators conjectured that the whales must have lost their sense of navigation.  Soon, 120 whales had mysteriously beached themselves at Jacksonville.  [398]

 

[398]=============================================================

See the NEW YORK TIMES ["Rescuers Head Whales Back from Florida Beach"], page 14 (February 7, 1977).

=============================================================[398]

 

NBC Television News reported that evening that no autopsies were going to be performed on the whales, but NBC was fed inaccurate information.  When privately dissected by doctors who knew what to look for, those whales had empty stomachs [meaning that the whales had not eaten in a while and were sick], and also had heavy plutonium poisoning in their lungs, originating from one of the undersea missiles leaking plutonium, located on the seabed 290 miles ESE of Jacksonville, at 30 9.9' North and 77 8.44' West, which is one of those aging CIA underwater ICBM's sites.  What the whales were up against was a fungus like infection that had interfered with their breathing, originating from the water-born plutonium; and when dragged out back to sea from the Jacksonville beaches, the whales returned to the beach [negating the "loss of navigation" theories].  The whales preferred to die on the beach, rather than carry on life in their underwater agony.  Those beached whales were collected and buried at the Giren Road Landfill in Jacksonville, Florida, but today, they should not be forgotten.  Whales are mammals like you and me, and soon, rather than mammalian whales acting strange (like running up a stream, and refusing to go back into the ocean) and others trying to die by beaching themselves, people are next; [399]

 

[399]=============================================================

Exploratory plutonium poisoning trials were conducted at the American Legion Convention in Philadelphia on July 21 to 24, 1976; and as expected by the Gremlins who administered the poisons through an atmospheric discharge, the symptoms that surfaced were of a flu-like nature [see ["20 Flu-Like Deaths in Penn Still A Mystery"] in the NEW YORK TIMES for August 4, 1976, page 1].  The TIMES article noted the puzzling sickness variation of what appeared to be a flu; but without possessing requisite background factual knowledge on the invisible high-powered toxicity involved, the medical doctors stumbled from one erroneous diagnostic conclusion to another [id., at 1].  [Also note the Government's selection of patriotic war veterans for their SUB ROSA plutonium poisoning tests, as opposed to some lesser sub-class of Americans, such as perhaps convicted felons serving life sentences without parole in a federal cage somewhere for heinous crimes committed, or perhaps irretrievably insane occupants of numerous mental hospitals scattered around the countryside.  In other words, assume for the moment that you were in charge of selecting the "test group"; would you select American war veterans innocently enjoying a convention gathering in Pennsylvania of their peers, who had previously put their lives on the line for "god and country," who had served their country honorably and patriotically?  Furthermore, please note that somewhere, right now, the person or persons responsible for this atrocity, who are guilty of felonious murder in the First Degree (20 American Legion veterans were murdered), and/or who were accessories to this multiple murder, have yet to be brought to justice.  Where is "America's Most Wanted" now?]

=============================================================[399]

 

and municipal medical examiners performing autopsies are not oriented to perform plutonium toxicity density examinations in the cadavers they ponder over, so the real cause of strange behavior and death will likely be puzzling for a while.  [400]

 

[400]=============================================================

Very few American doctors are skilled in recognizing the symptoms of atomic particulate plutonium poisoning; plutonium is not measurably radioactive in that it does not radiate ionizing electrons at a rate sufficient to trigger geiger counters.  This type of radiation toxicity is easily misdiagnosed, and not just for medical reasons, but for political and LACK OF JUDGMENT reasons stemming from the manipulative withholding of public information on uncontrolled atmospheric plutonium distributions by Gremlins.  The symptoms of such ionizing toxicity replicates closely the symptoms associated with a flu like illness, but since medical doctors are unaware of any public concern for radiation toxicity, the uncomfortable idea of a THREE MILE ISLAND scenario is tossed aside by the diagnosing physician, and the more comfortable but incorrect diagnosis of a hybrid flu-like illness is then substituted in its place.  For a discussion on some of the uncontrolled atmospheric discharges of radioactive elements in the United States, see THE MEDICAL BASIS FOR RADIATION ACCIDENT PREPAREDNESS by Hubner and Fry, Editors [Elsevier-North Holland (1980)], which discusses publicly suppressed radiodines discharge "accidents" in 1974 and 1978 in New Jersey, and 1978 in Algeria.  And it is my hunch that other similar radioactive incidents have also occurred worldwide, with knowledge of the existence of those events also being publicly sequestered.  Bureaucratic Gremlins nestled in Juristic Institutions have also withheld public dissemination about radioactive atmospheric contamination originating from the now abandoned Central Core Vault of the United States Gold Bullion Depository located at Fort Knox Kentucky, which is leaking radioactive plutonium 239 that the Government improvidently stored there in 1968.  Folks placing reliance on Government for both radiation accident recovery assistance as well as deflecting the occurrence of the toxic poisoning event altogether ar exercising defective judgment -- individual responsibility is the correct management technique; and, as a point of beginning, factual knowledge is required.  For beneficial advisory information in this area, see generally ARE YOU RADIOACTIVE?  PROTECT YOURSELF by Linda Clark [Devin-Adair in Old Grenwich, Connecticut (1973); republished by Pyramid Publications in Moonachie, New Jersey (1974); republished by the Cancer Control Society in Los Angeles (1977)].  The isochronous dietary incorporation of potassium iodine is known to manifest great relief from radioactive poisoning, due to its "sponge" like effect in going after those determined little plutonium contaminates that home in on your thyroid gland; and this remains true even though some physicians, speaking through institutions sponsored by Gremlins, do not want you to take any such preventative measures [Dr. David Becker, et al., discourages such use in THE USE OF IODINE AS A THYROIDAL BLOCKING AGENT IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, appearing in 252 Journal of the American Medical Association, at page 659 (August 2, 1984).  For a story of the financial sponsorship of the American Medical Association in the late 1800s by Gremlin EXTRAORDINAIRE John Rockefeller, Sr., see Volume II of WORLD WITHOUT CANCER -- THE STORY OF VITAMIN B17 by G. Edward Griffin [American Media, West Lake Village, California (1980)].]

=============================================================[400]

 

But when correctly identified, the King's Admiralty Jurisdiction will be there to settle those impending claims, as the source of the Tort is juristic.  There are a lot more numerous sources of plutonium now available to contaminate American drinking water supplies than just some aging undersea missiles, and whatever plutonium cannot slip into your drinking water by itself, will one day have the liberating assistance of a terrorist.  And it is my conjecture that when the first hotel is built on the Moon or some other remote astral place, Admiralty Jurisdiction will be right there to make an appearance when the doors open.  [401]

 

[401]=============================================================

Admiralty Jurisdiction has a long term habit of "following" Government around when new conquests are made.  When His Britannic Highness would conquer a foreign land, Consular Courts of Admiralty followed His Majesty's conquests to the far corners of the globe.  While India was under British colonial rule, Vice-Admiralty Courts were established in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay.  Similarly in China, Japan and Turkey, while under British colonial rule, a layer of Admiralty Jurisdiction was smothered on them.  Parliament enacted the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act in 1890 to automatically confer Admiralty Jurisdiction on Civil Jurisdiction Courts, where ever His Highness exercised his dynastic dominion.

=============================================================[401]

 

Here in the contemporary United States, the very first Federal Court ever established by Congress, was a Court of Admiralty.  [402]

 

[402]=============================================================

See THE FIRST FEDERAL COURT by Henry J. Bourguignon [American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (1977)].

=============================================================[402]

 

And so the use and availability of Admiralty Jurisdiction is deemed very important to our King; and for the identical same reasons why Admiralty Jurisdiction organically grew into the most summary, shortest, and swiftest form of "Justice" imaginable in the old fee based Admiralty Courts:  Because the King is financially enriched by the maximum number of assertions of Admiralty Jurisdiction that he can get.  So likewise our King today is being financially enriched by his expansively asserting "Courts of Admiralty" where they rightly do not belong.  Today in the United States, a King's Agent (some hard working private contracting Termite who works for the IRS) simply sends a letter to an Employer stating that a particular Employee's wage deductions are being disallowed, or this fine is being levied, and the Employer jumps instantly and sends the money into the IRS without even telling the Employee that the summary confiscation took place.  No opportunity to be heard in opposition, no expectation of even being heard in opposition to the Notice, just summary confiscation.  And the more the King confiscates without any Administrative Hearings preceding the confiscation, the richer the King gets, just like in the old fee based Admiralty Courts of old England -- so you can just forget about getting any Contested Case Administrative Hearing on a grievance with the IRS.

 

The reason why summary Admiralty Jurisdiction is of concern to us is because our King is using jurisdiction attachment rules applicable to an Admiralty Jurisdictional environment to us interior folks out here in the countryside where Admiralty Jurisdiction does not correctly lie.  (The only ordinary land based folks who should properly be under King's IN PERSONAM Admiralty Jurisdiction are Government Employees (Federal and state), Military Service personnel, and those who specifically contract into Admiralty Jurisdiction (such as Employees working for a Defense contractor with a Security Clearance, and private contractors hired by Government to perform law enforcement related work)).  The King and the Princes are using Admiralty Jurisprudence reasoning to effectuate an attachment of Enfranchisement on Natural Persons, by virtue of all Citizens, so called, being made a Party to the 14th Amendment; well, that is the process by which Admiralty attaches, however the confluence of reasons why the King so attaches Admiralty all focuses on just one Royal objective:  The King wants your money, and he is going to hypothecate you, and use invisible contracts in Admiralty to get what he wants.  [403]

 

[403]=============================================================

When a Natural Person is "enfranchised," such a PERSON takes upon himself the status of a corporation, which isn't very much.

      "The corporation is an artificial creation of the state endowed with franchises and privileges of many kinds which the individual has not."

            -     The Wisconsin Supreme Court in THE INCOME TAX CASES, 148 Wisconsin 456, at 515 (1912).

However, the low status of corporations that numerous Patriots emphasize in status distinction arguments is actually not that important [meaning, you are not hitting the nail right on the head], because such a low relational status is only the net effect of having accepted benefits the state created; and when benefits conditionally offered by the state are accepted by you, as a human being, then contracts are in effect and alleged status distinctions are irrelevant.  This is the real meaning of "enfranchisement" -- a contract is in effect that is largely invisible -- because juristic benefits carrying taxation hooks on them were accepted by you.  Some of the invisible juristic benefits that are automatic in corporations are:

      "The corporation,... enjoys under our laws many privileges separate and apart from simply doing business, such for instance as the legal status to sue and be sued in the Courts of our state, continuity of business without interruption by death or dissolution, transfer of property interests by the disposition of the shares of stock, advantages of business controlled and managed by corporate directors, and the general absence of individual liability, among others."

            -     The Supreme Court of Louisiana in COLONIAL PIPELINE VS. TRAIGLE, 421 U.S. 100, at 106 (1974).

=============================================================[403]

 

Most folks think that, well, the 14th Amendment just freed the slaves, or maybe something noble and righteous like that.  Not so.  Every single Amendment attached to the Constitution after the original Ten in the Bill of Rights, is in contravention to the original version of 1787 for one reason or another, and each of the AFTER TEN were sponsored by people -- Gremlins, imps -- operating with SUB SILENTIO sinister damages intentions.  Under the 14th Amendment, there now lies a state of Debt Hypothecation on the United States that all Enfranchised persons bear some burden of, [404]

 

[404]=============================================================

To hypothecate means generally to pledge assets to someone else, without delivering either Title or possession of the asset.  Debt Hypothecations are sometimes used when the collateral does not lend itself well to Title or possession security, such as borrowing a Certificate of Deposit to be held by a bank in your name, when the person who really owns the money has practical control over it (such as through his signature on the deposit card).  In contrast, when borrowing money to finance a new car, the Title, so called, is normally mailed by your regional Prince to be in the possession of the first lien holder, so car loans are not considered to be Hypothecated Debts.

=============================================================[404]

 

i.e., all citizens who are a Party to the 14th Amendment can be made personally liable for the payment of the King's debt.  So now when the King comes along with his statutes and claims that, despite his own 14th Amendment, his Enfranchised subjects are now going to be limited in their liability profile exposure to national debt, important financial benefits are being conferred upon Citizens, and the King believes that Admiralty Jurisdiction, with all of its giblet cracking accoutrements, attaches right then and there.  [405]

 

[405]=============================================================

An exemplary accoutrement of what Admiralty Jurisdiction can pull off that Common Law did not allow, was the summary seizure of property in criminal Cases, pending a posting of bail by the Defendant:

      "Historically, maritime attachment originated as a means of obtaining by attachment of the defendant's property the same security for payment of a judgment against the defendant's property which was obtained by the marshal's body arrest and holding to bail of the defendant's person.  ...  Just as when a defendant's body was arrested in personam, he was required to give bail in order to be released from the custody of the marshal, so when his body could not be found for such arrest IN PERSONAM, his property was attached by the marshal and held to bail in the same way."

            -     A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A PARTY; FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS, [Part II] in Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United States Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, discussing Senate Bill 1876, at page 645 (May, 1972).

=============================================================[405]

 

The King and the Prince are using twisted logic to justify this assertion of Admiralty Jurisdiction where it does not belong:  Where it belongs is out on the High Seas where it came from.  Royalty now believes that the legal environment of Limited Liability conferred on risk takers sufficiently replicates the original legal risk environment of Limited Liability that organically grew up out on the High Seas to be Admiralty Jurisdiction.  Remember that Limited Liability itself is a legal trick of enrichment used by insurance companies as debtors to reduce the amount of money they have to pay out on claims; yes, Limited Liability is a marvelous legal tool for the insurance companies to bask in.  From the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT that cuts nuclear power plant losses to the Warsaw Convention that cuts airplane crash losses, [406]

 

[406]=============================================================

The international WARSAW CONVENTION of October, 1929 was ratified by the United States Senate in June of 1934.  Section 21 of that Convention Limits the amount of money air carriers need concern themselves with on claims payments for Tort damages.  And as International Law, it is binding on all courts in the United States.

=============================================================[406]

 

from ADMIRALTY LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY ACT [407]

 

[407]=============================================================

Title 46, Section 181 to 183.

=============================================================[407]

 

on marine shipping to medical doctors malpractice suits, [408]

 

[408]=============================================================

In the mid 1970s, medical doctors in California "went on strike" to protest high insurance premiums they paid for protection against on medical malpractice claims thrown at them for Tort damages they worked on their clients (such as being told to surgically cut out a defective left kidney, and the doctor takes out the right kidney on the operating table, thus leaving the poor patient with no kidneys -- surprisingly, mistakes like that are actually quite frequent, and doctors have no one to snicker at but themselves).  Numerous state legislatures enacted statutory limitations on the amount of money trial courts could award for medical malpractice suits.  In California, it was the MICR ACT of 1975, but those statutory wealth transfer schemes were later declared to be unconstitutional [see AMERICAN BANK VS. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, 660 P.2nd 829 (California, 1983), and ARNESON VS. OLSEN, 270 N.W.2nd, 125 (North Dakota, 1978)].

=============================================================[408]

 

Limited Liability is nothing more than a brilliant wealth transfer instrument for Special Interest Groups to bask in, and all very neatly accomplished through the use of statutes.  [409]

 

[409]=============================================================

Limited Liability for Tort claims is very much a marvelous tool for insurance carriers to amass wealth through; but there is always a pathetic footnote to be told when Special Interest Groups reign supreme in the corridors of Legislatures.  For a sad discussion on the legislative massaging by insurance company produced statutes mandating the Limited Liability of Tort claims for damages from airplane crashes, has relaxed both the level of safety interest by insurance carriers in the airplane products that they insure, as well as also diminishing economic incentives by the airlines themselves for safer operations (particularly in TCA's), see IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN AN AIRLINE? by Robert Poole, 10 Reason Magazine 18 (January, 1979).

=============================================================[409]

 

So in a limited sense, the legal environment of Admiralty Jurisdiction could be properly said to apply to any Commercial setting where a debtor owes money to other people as risk insurance, with the amount of debt payable by the risk insurance carrier being artificially lowered by statutory Limitations of Liability.  The true origin of the adhesive attachment of ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (which is just legal procedure) lies in the existence of invisible contracts that are in effect, with the contracts being of such a maritime nature that grievances arising from them are settled pursuant to Admiralty Jurisdiction rules.

 

Let us be objective like an umpire or a judge for a moment, and stop thinking in terms of what we want and don't want for ourselves, so we can Open our Eyes to see what is really there, by trying to view things from the perspective of an adversary.  [410]

 

[410]=============================================================

Remember that throughout Life, in all factual settings, always try to evaluate the position of the other party with an open mind; quite often we will find that the other party has a strong case and that there has been some error in our reasoning or standing.  No, it is not an easy procedure to be objective; the snickering by a Protester of what is being viewed in the Courtroom [of a judge throwing one successive retortional snortation after another at the Protester, seemingly ventilating expressions of philosophical discomfort with the arguments and the position of defiance taken by the Protester] -- snickering at the judge is much easier than adopting the following procedure into our MODUS OPERANDI:  Maybe let us assume, just for a moment, that we are in fact not correct when trying to weasel out of WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE and correlative traffic ticket scenarios where invisible contracts actually govern the grievance (as I will explain later).  Rather than adopting the MODUS OPERANDI of a Protester by the presumption he is right, and that the judge is a moronic Commie pinko philosophically opposed to the defiant political position being taken by the Protester, let us assume, just for a moment, that the expressions of judicial ensnortment being thrown at us might originate with something else.  Maybe, just maybe, the snortations from on high are actually the final stages of judicial expressions of discontentment, with our own argument error, and the incorrect position we are taking, and might not originate with the political overtones associated with the philosophical position of our naked defiance -- a defiance exhibited in areas very few people would dare to defy.  Let us enlarge the basis of factual knowledge that we are using to exercise judgment on and to form conclusions with, by adopting a new MODUS OPERANDI:  By taking the judge's snortations under advisement at first, and asking ourselves a series of deep probing questions to try and enlarge the factual picture we are viewing.  Let's try out this new MODUS OPERANDI on the following news article.  Like the scene in the Courtroom we will only initially accept what is presented to us as a point of beginning and take it in under advisement, and we will not arrive at a conclusion until after we have asked ourselves several deep probing questions:

 

                   "A TANK IN THE PARKING LOT"

 

      "Many obscure imports have made their way through Baltimore's port, but this one was a true rarity:  a Soviet T-54 tank.  It was discovered last week near Pier 10, perched on top of a flat bed trailer in the parking lot of a farm-supply company.  Not quite sure just why the tank was there, a specially equipped unit of the Baltimore police force dismantled the T-54's two .250 caliber machine guns and carted them off for safekeeping while they searched for the owner.  A call to nearby Fort Meade did nothing to clear up the mystery.  Eventually, the truck driver responsible for the tank called the police to report two stolen machine guns.

      "The tank, of 1950s vintage, belong to the Egyptian army and had been transported to Baltimore on the U.S. barge LASH ATLANTICO on its way to Teledyne Continental Motors in Muskegon, Michigan for repairs and rebuilding.  The driver parked the T-54 for more than a week while he went off in search of a special permit to transport the overweight load on Maryland's roads.  In the end, the police returned the guns, and the tank continued its decades-long voyage from Moscow to Muskegon."

            -     This news article on the tank was extracted verbatim in its full text from TIME MAGAZINE ["A Tank in the Parking Lot"], page 23 (May 6, 1985); That article is Copyright (c) 1985 Time-Life, Inc.  Next to this news article, there appears a photograph of the huge tank, sitting on top of a tractor-trailer's flatbed.]

If in reading that news article while leafing through TIME MAGAZINE we adopted the MODUS OPERANDI of Protesters, we would then exercise our judgment and come to our conclusions based largely on the information immediately presented to us in the news article; so, with this interesting story on how the Baltimore police quickly grabbed some guns from a tank on its way to Michigan -- we would conclude that, well, it is rather obvious that the police acted properly, decisively, boldly, and exercised good judgment in returning the guns to the tank after they straightened out everything.  Gee, that was pretty good work on their part -- so let's turn the page and see what else is going on in the world.

...To most folks reading that article, that was the typical reaction; here is an old tank in Baltimore going through its foibles and headaches just trying to get to Michigan -- but it is also the same caliber of judgment that a Tax Protester exercises his decisions and conclusions on, digesting largely only that slice of factual information that is immediately presented to the Protester to feed his intellectual judgments and opinions.  And the Tax Protester replicates the MODUS OPERANDI of the general public by simply accepting the factual picture that is presented to them -- by the Protester in the ensnortment tornado of a Courtroom, and by the general public in the coziness of their living room reading some news article.  In both settings, no probing or deeper questions were asked, and no hypothetical WHAT IF scenarios were entertained [hmmm, WHAT IF maybe the judge is right?].  And so as a result, the general American state of political ensleepment continues on, accepting comforting reassurances from news articles that the police are alert, on their toes, and that all is well, and indifferent to the possibility that termites are running the house in Washington; just like the Protester continues on in argument error from one WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE courtroom to a traffic ticket courtroom, indifferent to the possibility that invisible contracts govern the grievance and that he is not entitled to prevail for any reason [except for the several technical reasons protesters frequently win on, such as WANT OF JURISDICTION, the COUNSEL QUESTION, etc., that are not related to the merits of the grievance itself].

...So let us now reread the story of the tank once again, but this time, things will be different -- because this time we are going to start asking ourselves a few probing and razor sharp questions:

      1.    The first and only question that I would like to ask is:  Why is a tank, manufactured in Russia, and now owned by Egypt, being freighted and transported halfway around the world -- shipped literally to the other side of the globe -- to have some mechanical work done on it; sent to a factory located in one of the most expensive hourly labor cost nations on Earth, sent to a factory that did not manufacture this tank; why is Egypt willing to spend the $20,000 or so to get the tank to Michigan, spend the big bucks to have the work done here, and then spend another $20,000 or so in freight to get the tank sent back to Egypt?

...That is the Question I want some answers to.  Simple COMMON SENSE is telling me that whatever mechanical and machining work that needs to be done, can be done in Egypt.  Have you ever been to Alexandria or Cairo, Mr. May?  Even if you have not, you should still be ordinarily aware of the fact that Egypt has, at a minimum, SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles on its streets, and that a very large pool of mechanical talent exists locally to repair and re-machine parts for all types of vehicles.  Do people in Egypt send their Datsuns back to Japan to remachine the transmission?  Does Frank May, living in New Jersey, send his MERCEDES-BENZ to Australia or South America for repairs?  Even discontinued automobiles, such as STUDEBAKERS, PIERCE-ARROWS, and PACKARDS are not sent to Australia for even total restoration jobs or mechanical work -- New Jersey has quite a pool of such shops right then and there.  A MERCEDES-BENZ would never be sent to Australia from New Jersey, except for very special reasons, and ordinary mechanical work is not a special reason.  The reason why such long voyages are not undertaken for work on heavy vehicles is because of the ridiculous freight charges incurred, and simple lack of necessity to do so by reason of very competent local situs talent.  So the Question is begging:  Why did Egypt send that tank to the other side of the planet -- to Michigan -- for repairs?  Let us say, just for a moment, that the tank talked about was a very highly complex machine that required the maintenance attention of specially factory trained experts [which was not the case with a tank out of the 1950s -- those tanks had no more back then than an engine, a unique transmission, and firing power]; great, let's say that technical expertise was required -- but that still does not answer the question:  Why was that tank sent to Michigan for repairs instead of anywhere else in the Middle East or the Mediterranean Coast -- or even Russia itself where the tank was manufactured?

...We find the ANSWER to this QUESTION the same way that the Protester would find the Answer to his Question:  Why is this judge snorting at me?

The Protester needs to ask himself a hypothetical Question:  What if I am wrong for some reason I don't know of?  But Protesters never ask that Question -- his tremendous volume of Tort Law arguments and of Case Law from another era is staggering and impressive, and the mere possibility that error might be present in the defiant position being taken, because of something invisible controlling the grievance that he is unaware of, is not even being considered.  Unlike the Protester, we will now consider the possibility that factual elements governing Egypt's motive in sending that tank to the other side of the globe for repairs were not presented to us in that news article; and we will now consider the possibility that the factual picture presented to us is distorted slightly (although not necessarily intentionally by the news media's reporters who wrote the article).

...The reason why the tank was transported from one side of the planet to the other side, from Egypt to Michigan [if in fact the tank even originated in Egypt], the reason why someone was willing to spend those big bucks just to get the tank here, is because that Russian tank is on a special trip:  On a one-way trip into the United States, and not for the cover story of its needing mechanical repairs.  That tank will never leave the United States.  When that tank is finally at its home somewhere in the United States, it will be hidden away in some barn, some warehouse, some garage, or some old industrial building converted into an AD HOC Russian military storage depot.  This author has photographs of other Russian military hardware sitting inside American army bases; generally that hardware is stored behind fenced areas.  The word sent around the base is that those Russian tanks "...were captured somewhere," when in fact they are literally brand new and are stored here very much with not only Russian consent, but with Russian supervision as well.

This tank in TIME MAGAZINE is waiting for a great and grand Russian Day to appear, that long awaited Russian Day of conquest, when along with the other extensive hardware that has been slowly and quietly smuggled into the United States over a 20 to 30-year time period, it will be brought forth out into the open in some variation of a RED DAWN attack on the United States [a provoked attack based partially on military hardware already sitting at its final destination inside the United States], to bring about the great Bolshevik objective of merging the United States with Russia.  Yes, Russian intellectual element of conquest are involved here, as the quick lock down of American military installations will be justified to the world at that time as being necessary to prevent a nuclear war -- when in fact the political sponsorship of a Patriot to the Presidency would accomplish the same thing under less intensive circumstances.

The Russian strategy for North American conquest, through the slow accumulation of a handful of tanks, personnel carriers, and jeeps each week, is a brilliant strategic move that the Bolshevik Gremlins are now controlling the American House in Washington want to see occur, even though those Gremlins in Washington are the very targets Russia is really going after.  That's right, the tank described in that news article will never leave the United States -- until, at least, it has first been used offensively in military operations against the United States.

...Yes, that tank is on a one-way trip into the United States [if in fact it ever gets to Teledyne Continental].  See what happens when we accept information presented to us, and take it in under advisement, holding its acceptance out in abeyance as a point of reference, until we first ask ourselves some peripheral questions about it from several different view points?  What happens when asking ourselves deeper questions than was presented to us, is that great Truths come forward to us, are appreciated by us, and our Eyes are Opened.  This is a procedure that should be followed in all settings -- business, commerce, work, school, family life, everything -- and particularly in ecclesiastical settings, as we ask ourselves a sequence of the single most important Questions that could ever be asked down here:  WHO AM I?  WHAT AM I DOING HERE?  WHERE AM I GOING?

...The Answer is that you are literally, Mr. May, the offspring of Celestial Beings, and that a germ of Deity dwells within you -- THAT IS WHO YOU ARE.  You were brought forth into this world bristling full of Gremlins and their intrigues from the presence of your Father in Heaven -- THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE.  The correct procedure to return to Father's presence once again is to take seriously His advice He once gave you in the First Estate when we were all then speaking His angelic language:  Enter into Covenants with me, be proven in all things, and a successively ever enlarging number of planets and offspring will be yours [remember that Contracts draw lines which enable behavior to be measured and tested against; Tort indicia places facts on continuum measuring the absence, presence, and extent of damages.  I personally would not want to get involved with a God who was fixated on the mere absence of damages] -- THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE GOING.

=============================================================[410]

 

If we could lay aside, just for a moment, the presumption by many that judges are Fifth Column pinkos and are otherwise morons, and now examine the King's reasoning on Admiralty Jurisdiction attachment (that his Title 46 statutes have Limited the Liability that Enfranchised Persons have encumbered themselves into through the 14th Amendment), then unfortunately for Protesters, we find that there is some merit to the King's contentions, and the reason is because special financial benefits are being accepted by Enfranchised Persons, and so now an invisible contract is in effect, with the result being that if a grievance comes to pass on the contract, somewhat unpleasant Admiralty settlement rules will prevail.  [411]

 

[411]=============================================================

"Trials [in Admiralty Jurisdiction]... take place without the intervention of a jury, and without any fixed rules of law or evidence.  The rules on which offenses are to be heard and determined... are such rules and regulations as the President... shall prescribe.  No previous presentment is required, nor any indictment charging the commission of a crime against the laws; but the trial must proceed on charges and specifications.  The punishment will be -- not what the law declares, but such as an [Admiral] may think proper..."

      -     President Andrew Jackson in the CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, page 916 (February, 1866).

=============================================================[411]

 

      [When I was first told about the story of the 14th Amendment, I was told a story by numerous people and groups, who should know better, that parents can bind their offspring into Equity Jurisdiction relationships with Royalty; and I heard this same line of reasoning from numerous different sources.  When I heard that line, I tossed it aside as a brazen piece of foolishness; the idea of having parents assign debt liability to their offspring by evidence of a Birth Certificate was then, and now remains, as utter foolishness.  I was correct in my ideological rebuffment of that line of liability reasoning, as one person cannot bind another absent a grant of agency jurisdiction.  But later through a Federal Judge I realized that there are special financial benefits that persons documented as being politically Enfranchised at birth experience later on as adults when they are being shaken down for a smooth Federal looting; and it is this acceptance of benefits as adults, in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, that attaches contract tax liability, and not the existence of a Birth Certificate document itself.  This concept some folks propagate -- that we are locked into juristic contracts by our parents since it is the parents who have caused the Birth Certificate to be recorded -- is not correct:  As a point of beginning, one person cannot bind another.  But most importantly, all the Birth Certificate and correlative documents in the world will not separate a dime in taxation from you until such time as you, individually, and personally, have started to accept juristic benefits.  The Law does not operate on paper; what is on paper is a statement of the Law, but that does not trigger the operation of the Law.  All the documents with Royalty in the world will not separate a dime from you, until juristic benefits have been accepted by you out in the practical setting.  In a sense, Birth Certificates can be properly construed as documents evidencing your entitlement to RIGHTS OF FRANCHISE, if you decide to exercise those rights later on when you come of age, but the reciprocal taxation liability Enfranchised folks take upon themselves occurs by operation of contract -- the invisible contracts that quietly slip into gear whenever juristic benefits are being accepted:  Now, here, today -- and by you, personally and individually.  The relational status of your parents to Government, past and present, is an irrelevant factor BIRTH CERTIFICATE PUSHERS are incorrectly assigning significance to.  Those who warned me of the adhesive Equity tentacles of the 14th Amendment were absolutely correct in their conclusory observations of the effects of the 14th Amendment, but they were incorrect in their views that liability singly attaches by reason of the existence of a Birth Certificate document that their parents caused to be created.  By the time you are finished with this Letter, you will understand why written Documents, of and by themselves, mean absolutely nothing -- as it is the existence of Consideration [benefits] experienced or rejected out in the practical setting that attaches and severs liability, and the written Document or statement of the contract itself is unimportant for liability determination purposes -- and for good reasons:  Because the Law operates out in the practical setting and not on paper, of and by itself; to say that the Law cannot operate except if on paper is to say in reverse that if there is no paper, there is no Law.  Not understanding the significance of that Principle will render yourself prone to error in your thinking.]  [412]

 

[412]=============================================================

For example, when benefits have been accepted in the context of reciprocity being expected in return, then there lies a contract; and where no Consideration [benefits exchanged] is evident on the record, then the contract collapses in front of a judge (FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION).  To show you just how improper it is to rely on documents for anything of significance in the area of attaching liability, remember earlier, when I talked about the Taxable Franchise of Social Security, and of Justiciability, I spoke of an Affidavit [document] I filed admitting to an utterly heinous agricultural crime I had committed.  But as I mentioned, the police could do nothing without any collaborating evidence obtained from out in the practical setting that a crime had in fact been committed.  Yes, Nature does operate out in the practical setting, and to understand Nature is to understand the Law in all settings.

...Incidentally, when we shift from a worldly setting over to a Heavenly setting, nothing changes either.  When entering into Contracts with Heavenly Father down here, it will be emphasized to you over and over again that the promissory Blessings [benefits] from On High contained within the Contract are conditional, and that the facial Contract itself that you just entered into means nothing; and that it is what you do with that Contract out in the practical setting that means everything.

=============================================================[412]

 

Having your Debt Liability Limited by statute is a very real and tangible benefit that inures to all such named Enfranchised debtors (imagine being an insurance company, and having to pay out only 80% of your claims -- you then get to pocket the 20% that the statutes restrained your policy holders from collecting); the fact that, in examining your own individual circumstances, you cannot assign any substantive financial significance to it isn't anything the King is going to concern himself with.  And insurance companies are prime examples of the institutionalized use of this marvelous legal tool to enrich themselves, and they are also prime examples of just how really valuable a Limitation on Liability really is.  Remember that when benefits are being accepted in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there lies a good tight contract.  If, for example, you are an insurance company, and your average losses for claims under homeowner's policies is $100,000, and the King comes along and declares that henceforth, the maximum claim anyone can make in his Kingdom against an insurance company for damages experienced by homeowners is $95,000, then those insurance companies very much did experience a very real, legitimate cash benefit; and so it is now morally correct for the King to participate in taxing the profits the insurance companies made for this reason alone, as the King very much assisted in enriching those insurance companies by decreasing their cash expenditures.  Neither it is immoral for the King to enact statutes that enrich some Gameplayers in Commerce while simultaneously perfecting the Enscrewment of others, as remember that entrance into the closed private domain of King's Commerce is purely voluntary.  [413]

 

[413]=============================================================

At least entrance should be and is theoretically so.  This is why that if, for any reason, the Supreme Court upholds the Income Tax grab on a properly document involuntary DE MINIMIS participant in King's Commerce (who timely waived, rejected and refused all Commercial and political benefits), then we will turn away from dealing with the King out of the barrel of a fountain pen, and start to deal with the King out of the barrel of a gun.

=============================================================[413]

 

So do you see what a well worded statute can do?  ...invisible political benefits accepted get converted into a gusher of cash for the King, to be used as a wealth transfer instrument by Special Interest Groups.  The more numerous the number of wealth transfer instruments the King can create, the more he can correctly justify before the eyes of the Judiciary taxing certain Persons who financially benefit from the statutory GRAB AND GIVE scheme.  [414]

 

[414]=============================================================

"Does history repeat itself?  Yes.  Today, the term SECURITY is best defined in the promises of economic kings and politicians in the form of doles, grants, and subsidies made for the purpose of perpetuating themselves in public office, and at the same time depleting the resources of the people and the treasury of the nation.  The word SECURITY is being used as an implement of political expediency, and the end results will be the loss of freedom, and temporal and spiritual bankruptcy.  [Throughout this Letter, other examples will be presented showing how the violation of Principles will always produce adverse secondary consequences, with the true seminal point of causality remaining latent, elusive, and obscured].  We have those among us who are calling for an economic king, and the voice of the king replies in promises wherein the individual is guaranteed relief from the mandate given to Adam:

      'In the sweat of thy face thou eat bread.'

"Disobedience to this mandate involves the penalty of loss of free agency and individuality, and the dissolution of the resources of the individual.  These economic rulers have advocated, and do practice, a vicious procedure called the LEVELING DOWN PROCESS which takes from one man who has achieved and distributes to those who are not willing to put forth like effort.  Taxation is the means through which this LEVELING DOWN PROCESS is implemented.  Taxes in the United States during the last decade have increased five hundred percent.  If such increases continue, it will mean final confiscation of the property of the people.

"A clear cut example of the promises of economic kings to the people, with all of the penalties involved, stands out in the case of Great Britain.  Great Britain, with fifty years of rule over the Seas of the Earth, the Sun never setting on her Empire, finds herself now in a convulsion of spiritual, political, and temporal bankruptcy.  She has a king, but he is merely a symbol of her past greatness; but the people, like those of Israel, cried for a new king, an economic king, and the king has responded with the rule of dictatorship, bringing deterioration to the character of the individual, loss of ambition, freedom, individual progress through the right to work when and where he would, and regimentation.  The people are forced to heed the call and feel the iron hand of the dictator.  Above all, they have lost their free agency.  The British people are but mere cogs in the great machine of socialism.  The state is paramount; the citizen has been subdued.  Their resources have been absorbed, the treasury of the government has been depleted, and had it not been for the generosity of this great republic, where a few of the fundamentals of freedom, personal initiative, and free enterprise remain, Great Britain would have been but a memory.  Just as was in Israel, so would it be with Great Britain -- dissension, division, and communistic captivity.

"What does this mean to you and me?  We have those among us, too, who over the years have cried for a controlled economy.  We have those among us who give succor and support to such a plan, which plan of controlled economy involves the same theories and false philosophies that ruined Israel and are now destroying Great Britain.  Economic kings have responded to the call of some people, promising them security against want for their votes.  In the attempt to meet the desires of these people, the treasury of this great nation is being depleted