I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
George Mercier
GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT OF
COMMERCIAL INTERESTS
8.
Under the Law Merchant/Uniform Commercial Code, it is assumed
that
all contracts and Persons existent within this defined
geographical
kingdom fall under the General Commercial Jurisdiction of
the
State. [712]
[712]
"Whenever an individual enters into a contract, I think his
assent
is to be inferred, to abide by those rules in the
administration
of justice which belong to the jurisprudence of the
country
of the contract." - ODGEN VS. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 284
(1827). [712]end
In a
somewhat similar way, Judges have given the King automatic
jurisdiction
over everything within the geographical perimeters of his
Kingdom. [713]
[713]
"...we hold that the Government of the United States is one
having
jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its territory, and
acting
directly upon each Citizen..." - IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, at
599
(1894). [713]end
Therefore,
the Law Merchant (which is the Common Law of contracts
applied
to Merchants in King's Commerce), and its codified organic
progeny,
the UCC, combine to offer you and your Commercial contract
the
important benefit of Government intervention and enforcement of
whatever
contract it was that you negotiated.
Assume for a moment
that
you are a Judge, and so now ask yourself if that is not a very
legitimate
benefit to be offering; so now you can possibly see why
reserving
the right to call upon the police powers of the State to
enforce
your contracts, as everyone automatically does by their
silence,
is a very powerful instrument in its attachment of King's
Equity
Jurisdiction, and properly so. Hiring
the collection services
of the
State (reserving the right to sue someone in a court) and
getting
the Government to seize the assets or otherwise assist you in
remedying
the breach of contract that is on your hands, is the same
type of
advantage and benefits enjoyed, for example, when shopping
centers
hire private security guards, in the sense that your are
using
someone else's muscle to do your dirty work for you. Yes,
calling
on the Contract Enforcement Benefits of the State is a very
quiet
type of benefit acceptance; it is a benefit that attaches
automatically,
and is presumed in effect unless explicitly and bluntly
waived,
in advance; it is a benefit to game players in Commerce that
attaches
in ways reminiscent of the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE. Remember
back
some time ago, when you possibly once signed a lease with a
landlord,
did that lease state that "the parties hereto submit to the
Commerce
Jurisdiction of the State of New York?" No, no such
jurisdictional
submission statements are generally made on any
contracts
we would be likely to enter into in the course of business,
from
buying a television on time payments to mortgaging a house.
Commercial
Jurisdiction is simply assumed, and threatening to sue the
other
party is generally deemed to be not very cordial in business, so
silence
invokes the police powers of the State.
That
UCC is the contemporary organic growth of the old unwritten Law
Merchant
of our Fathers ["old" in the sense of its impressive
chronological
age, not inferentially suggesting its contemporary
inappropriateness],
and so when statutes exist that state "all
contracts",
and "all persons", then since those statutes possess an
important
attribute of PRIOR PUBLIC NOTICE, then by your silence you
have
consented to their enforcement against you, under Principles
related
to the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, if by the nature of the
grievance
you happen to fall on the debtor's side of the line. Those
UCC
contract enforcement statutes are Public Records, and Public
Records
can only be countermanded with Public Records, so when did you
file
your...
"Notice of Waiver of Recourse
Benefits to the UCC, Rejection of
Judicial
Contract Enforcement"
...and
in what public county recorder's office?
Before
closing this discussion of the Uniform Commercial Code and of
King's
Commerce, a few words need to be said as instruments of
elucidation
on a few key points of interest; this is a very important
juristic
benefit and needs to be understood for the high-powered
benefit
that it really is -- and thinking about it for a while might
just
cause a PERSON to view state judges in a more favorable light
when
they incarcerate and seize assets of Protesters snickering at
State
income and sale taxes. [714]
[714]
Appreciating the benefits of viewing a scenario from someone
else's
position is a Principle well known to many people, who have
seen
the benefits derived therefrom.
Negotiators are taught and
trained
the application of this Principle explicitly as they are
instructed
to listen very carefully and figure out what they call the
other
person's PERCEPTUAL MODE, so your ideas then make good sense to
the
other party. [There are many books
published on the ART OF
NEGOTIATION,
see generally THE BUSINESS OF NEGOTIATION by Jerry
Richardson,
Avon Books, New York (1981)].
"Recently two of my sons were
squabbling over some leftover apple
pie,
each insisting that he should have the larger slice. Neither
would
agree to an even split. So I suggested
that one boy cut the pie
any way
he liked, and the other boy could choose the piece he wanted.
This
sounded fair to both of them, and they accepted it. Each felt
that he
had gotten a square deal. This was an
example of PERFECT
negotiation."
- Gerald Nierenberg in THE ART OF NEGOTIATION, at 7
[Simon
and Schuster (1968)].
Being
able to see the grievance from the eyes of the other party was
the key
that unlocked the slice of pie confrontation; and use of this
same
Principle by Tax Protesters will unlock the mysterious nature of
the
King's adhesive Income Tax grab.
Although this Principle [of not
judging
yourself until we have first tried to see things from the eyes
of our
adversaries] has escaped the attention of Tax Protesters, the
Sioux
Indians plainly saw the obvious benefits that inured to its
users,
by incorporating this Principle into a prayer of theirs:
"Oh Great Spirit, let me not judge my
neighbor 'till I have walked
in his
moccasins."
For
many Protesters I have seen, there is a procedural attribute of
Negotiations
in the area of the handling of impending confrontations
with
juristic adversaries in taxing jurisdictions that needs
refinement. All too often, the typical Tax Protester,
when given a
Notice,
some Summons, some Letter, on hearing some termite's voice
beckoning
for some money, the typical Protester's reaction is to turn
around,
toss aside, and then ignore the Notice, the Summons, and the
voice. In distinction to that deflection MODUS
OPERANDI, in all
Federal
taxing districts of the IRS that I have had to approach the
IRS for
some reason, I find those federal termites to be more than
receptive,
cooperative, and reasonable in speaking to me [but in a few
cases I
had to threaten judicial Mandamus relief in the form of
demanding
a Contested Case Administrative Hearing to get their
attention],
since the Taxpayer (my client) typically slams the door in
their
face and hides in the closet. In the
context of a discussion
about
IRS JEOPARDY ASSESSMENTS, a senior federal termite once had a
few
words to say about the easy accessibility of this junior termites
to
converse with [however biased this termite is, there is some merit
in what
he is saying]:
"At any point in the collection
process under a jeopardy
assessment,
we stand ready to meet with the Taxpayer, discuss the
situation
with him, and, with his cooperation, work out arrangements
for
conversion and maintenance of his property, discharge of any
appropriate
part from the efforts of the tax lien, and liquidation of
the
balance due over such a period of time as will enable him to avoid
undue
hardship to himself and still protect the Government's interests
[by
LIQUIDATING THE BALANCE, this termite is also referring to the
standard
IRS practice of entering into installment contracts with
Taxpayers
who spent the tax money before the IRS collected it].
"We are aware that our collection
efforts, in jeopardy cases, or,
more
particularly, our initial collection efforts, may have great
impact
on the Taxpayer. The recording of a
NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN
may
impair his ability to borrow. Seizure
of property in his
possession
may put a stop to one or more of his business ventures.
Levy on
third parties may divest him of all or nearly all of the ready
cash
which would otherwise have been available to him at the time the
levy
was served. However, as a practical
proposition, we doubt that
any
Taxpayer is left penniless and without the means to live as a
result
of our efforts to collect a jeopardy assessment. Typically, in
jeopardy
cases the Taxpayer will have complex financial interests,
numerous
sources of income, and a variety of assets.
We seldom, if
ever,
have full knowledge of all his financial dealings and holdings.
Nor are
we able, as a general rule, to locate all assets, even when we
have
knowledge that they exist. Based on
experience and observation
we
would say that no jeopardy assessment has placed a Taxpayer in such
straitened
circumstances that he was unable to provide the necessities
for
himself and his family. If any such
hardship cases should arise,
we
would certainly attempt to reach an appropriate resolution [but the
IRS
cannot do that when the Taxpayer hides in a closet, or otherwise
declines
to tell the termites of the serious impairment in providing
for his
family that this Jeopardy Assessment will bring to pass]." -
William
Smith, Deputy Commissioner, in CONSTITUTIONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROBLEMS OF ENFORCING INTERNAL REVENUE STATUTES, in
Hearings
before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and
Procedure,
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 90th
Congress,
Second Session (January, 1968), at page 75.
Although
his statement that no IRS JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT ever seriously
damaged
a Taxpayer is factually defective, his open door policy
pronouncements
are an accurate presentation of IRS accessibility in
general
and I would suggest that Tax Protesters, and others simply
stuck,
might benefit themselves greatly when they stop exhibiting
reluctance
to converse with adversaries. By simply
asking the
QUESTION:
What, termite, do you intend to do next?
strips the
termites
of their tactical advantage of surprise, and shifts the
balance
of power over to you, since now you know exactly what is
impending
[remember that in any setting, the quality of judgment
exercised
always escalates dramatically when the basis of factual
information
that the judgment is operating on is enlarged]. There can
be no
negotiating SAVIOR-FAIRE practiced when hiding in a closet; and
ANYTHING
LESS than dropping what you are doing, going down to the
marble
kingdom that those termites are nestled in, and speaking to the
little
termite face-to-face, is in fact the functional equivalent of
HIDING
IN A CLOSET. [714]end
In a
sense, the King and your regional Prince are actually in a weaker
position
in the negotiation and subsequent enforcement of contracts
that we
enter into with them, then you and I are in private contracts
we
enter into amongst ourselves as we go forth in this Life in pursuit
of
Commercial enrichment. The reason is
because the Commercial
contracts
we enter into down here between ourselves always carry penal
(incarceration)
consequences for default, even though that contract
nowhere
says something like...
"...the undersigned hereby agrees to
be incarcerated on default on
any
term or provision of this contract..."
When
the King enters into a contract with someone, the exact penal
consequences,
and the duration of the incarceration, are always
spelled
out in those little statutes of his, and there is no Common
Law
right of the King to perfect contract enforcement by incarceration
like
you and I have. Our Common Law right to
get a defaulting party
incarcerated
originates in getting the poor fellow CITED into a
CONTEMPT
OF COURT corner, which follows the Court's Ordering of the
contract's
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE by the Party in default.
Most
generally
used in real estate transactions, Specific Performance is
available
as a remedy under other contracts where at least some
performance
has already been initiated. [715]
[715]
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE is a very common remedy for breach of
contract. In general, see: - Kronman in SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE, 45
University
of Chicago Law Review 351 (1978); - Alan Schwartz in THE
CASE
FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 89 Yale Law Review 271 (1979); - Thomas
Ulen in
THE EFFICIENCY OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: TOWARDS A UNIFIED
THEORY
OF CONTRACT REMEDIES, 83 Michigan Law Review 341 (1984).
[715]end
For
example, signing a contract to paint a house, with, say, some
continuing
feature of the work to be started within 30 days, will very
much
place the poor defaulting contractor in jail if, after the 30
days
has elapsed, the painting contractor refuses to commence
painting. Your MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE,
followed
by the contractor's continued recalcitrance, is all that is
needed
for a PETITION TO CITE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT to be granted. Now
summary
incarceration follows, without any trial, without any jury,
and all
under chronologically compressed circumstances. That is the
very
same abbreviated procedure that Tax Protesters hate and resent so
much --
and it turns out to be an invisible benefit they can use for
themselves
as well in their daily pursuit of Commercial enrichment.
The
King and the Prince with their juristic kingdoms are not in any
special
privileged status to use hard incarceration to perfect the
enforcement
of Commercial contracts -- you and I can use the guns and
cages
of the State to do our dirty work for us when others jerk their
performance
of a contract on us. Yet, nowhere on
that house painting
contract
that the poor defaulting contractor signed, did the
contractor
agree anywhere to terms that call for his Encagement if he
should
ever default; but the contractor does not have to say that or
anything
else relating to Judicial enforcement, as all PERSONS
entering
into contracts are assumed to have a good working knowledge
of the
laws and types of legal recourse that may be exercised by the
other
party. [716]
[716]
"...since a knowledge of the laws, policy and jurisprudence of a
state
is necessarily imputed to every one entering into contracts
within
its jurisdiction, of what surprise can he complain, or what
violation
of public faith, who still enters into contracts, under that
knowledge? - OGDEN VS. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 285 (1827).
[716]end
Where
did Government get the power to pull off that fast incarceration
trick? Government got the power to enforce a
contract under those
terms
because both parties went into that contract yielding some of
their
Natural Law rights to be otherwise left alone, to each other, as
they
accepted some benefit the contract offered.
[717]
[717]
"Right and obligation are considered by all ethical writers as
correlative
terms. Whatever I, by my contract, give
another a right
to
require of me, I, by that act, lay myself under an obligation to
yield
or bestow. The obligation of every
contract will then consist
of that
right or power over my will or actions, which I, by my
contract,
confer upon another. And that right and
power will be found
to be
measured by neither moral law alone, nor universal law alone,
nor by
the laws of society alone, but by a combination of the three --
an
operation in which the moral law is explained and applied by the
law of
nature, and both modified and adapted to the exigencies of
society
by positive law." - OGDEN VS.
SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 281
(1827). [717]end
And
when they entered into contracts by accepting a benefit, the duty
to
honor the contract necessarily infers the consequence to pay
damages
if a default surfaces. [718]
[718]
"The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction
that
you must pay damages if you do not keep it..." - Oliver W. Holmes
in THE
PATH OF THE LAW, 10 Harvard Law Review 457, at 462 (1897).
Oliver
Holmes felt deeply about this RECIPROCAL OBLIGATION DUTY being
handled
firmly and properly by the Judiciary, and he was later
appointed
to the Supreme Court, his concern surfaced again in one of
his
first Supreme Court Opinions that he wrote [see GLOBE REFINING
COMPANY
VS. LANDA COTTON OIL, 190 U.S. 540 (1903)].
[718]end
This
story about the poor painting contractor is exemplary of the
invisible
Commercial contract enforcement benefits that Government is
offering
to private parties: A gun, a cage and asset seizure. [719]
[719]
And a gun being drawn is exactly what you will be seeing, when
you
defy a CONTEMPT OF COURT Order.
[719]end
Most
folks view the consequences of contract default as being just
asset
seizure, which is not true.
Incarceration is a remedy available
at the
discretion of the other Party. So now
we need to ask ourselves
a
question: Is it moral, ethical, proper and reasonable for Government
to be
financially compensated for doing the dirty work of enforcing
our
Commercial Contracts for us? Certainly.
Do you
believe that the old Debtor's Prisons that our Fathers had in
the old
days are actually gone? [720]
[720]
"...and if the debtor have no movables whereupon the debt may be
levied,
then his body shall be take where it may be found and kept in
prison
until that he have made agreement or his friends for him..." -
THE
STATUTE OF MERCHANTS, 11 Edward the First (1283); [Also known as
the
STATUTE OF ACTON BURNELL]. [720]end
Not
true. There are very much Debtor's
Prisons here in the
contemporary
United States, and the King or your Prince does not need
to be a
facial Party to the contract in order to get someone jailed
because
of an unpaid debt. For example, I once
worked for a real
estate
syndication company that managed a large volume of apartment
projects. When those apartment rental leases the
tenants signed went
into a
delinquency status and then default, Petitions were filed by
the
Landlord seeking to Compel the Specific Performance of the Lease,
and
thereafter, Contempt of Court. When the
Sheriff came around with
either
an Arrest or Bench Warrant to serve on the poor Tenant for
Contempt
of Court, all of a sudden back rental payments mysteriously
made an
appearance. But in some cases, the poor
folks just did not
have
any money at all, and they were incarcerated for failure to pay a
debt,
and they sat there until friends and family coughed up the money
(that's
right, a Debtor's Prison in the United States of America in
1980). So there very much still remains a Debtor's
Prison today, and
contracts
we enter into should not be indifferently tossed aside with
the
erroneous belief that the Debtor's Prisons no longer exist: As
there
are automatic penal consequences for any prospective type of
contract
default, when that contract falls under the General
Commercial
Jurisdiction of the State. And unless
specifically waived
by one
of the Parties, the assertion of an attachment of King's
Commerce
Jurisdiction is simply assumed absent explicit disavowal.
Only
the other Party's specific waiver of Recourse to King's Commerce
(which
means that prospective Judicial Enforcement is waived), can
spare
you from the lonely Encagement that always characterizes
contemporary
incarceration.
Those
are examples of the type of power you are dealing with when
writing
contracts that fall under the General Commercial Jurisdiction
of the
State. Nature means serious business
when contracts are signed
(and if
Nature means business in that Department, then so does
Heavenly
Father, who created Nature.) And since the State is offering
rather
strong contract enforcement services for contracts written in
King's
Commerce, it is very reasonable, moral, and proper that a
profit
or gain equity participation tax be levied on Commercial
incomes
acquired under the enforcement benefits the States offers.
[721]
[721]
"Income is necessarily the product of the joint efforts of the
state
and the recipient of the income, the state furnishing the
protection
necessary to enable the recipient to produce, receive, and
enjoy
it, and a tax thereon in the last analysis is simply a portion
cut
from the income and appropriated by the state as its share
thereof..."
- The Mississippi State Supreme Court, in HATTIESBURG
GROCERY
COMPANY VS. ROBERTSON, 126 Miss. 34, at 52 (March, 1926).
[721]end
Yes,
INCOME, so called, is in fact the joint product of the combined
efforts
of you with your Commercial Contracts, and of Government;
since
Government is offering to enforce your contracts for you, INTER
ALIA. [722]
[722]
INTER ALIA means "among other things." [722]end
If, for
example, you are a medical doctor with Accounts Receivables
outstanding
from your patients who turned out to be deadbeats by
refusing
to pay, then the Collection Agency you turn the debt over to
for
collection very much is participating in creating the "income"
that
they succeeded in collecting from your deadbeats, even though you
first
originated the work. And so when you
enter into Commercial
Contracts
with other folks, you are leaving the other person in such a
STATE
OF MIND that leads him to believe that you are going to sue and
bring down
Government if he defaults -- and so now the State is very
much
participating in creating whatever income that Contract pulls in
for
you, since you have no evidence that his payment to you was not
out of
fear of Government intervention.
Whether or not you actually
had to
start an action in the Courts and sue the fellow who went into
default
or not, is not relevant; what is relevant is that when the
defaulting
Party went into that Contract with the knowledge tha t he
was up
against a lawsuit upon his breach.
Remember the RATIFICATION
DOCTRINE:
There are many legitimate situations where a person's
silence
can be reasonably assumed to give approval to a proposition,
or to
"Ratify," the proposition that was made. And now that we have
come to
grips with this invisible benefit of Contract Enforcement,
which
also creates an invisible contract for us Commercial Contract
beneficiaries
to pay state taxation reciprocity, fighting its
existence
really isn't very appropriate: Because it is actually very
easy to
exclude the State from being an invisible "partner" with you
in that
Commercial Contract. The State is
stripped of its status as
an
Equity Partner when you first descend upon your local Courthouse
and
record a WAIVER OF JUDICIAL CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT Public Notice of
some
type; making note of the Liber and Page Number the Clerk recorded
it at
in the Clerk's Miscellaneous Documents section; then in the
future
by telling the people that you enter into contracts with from
that
time forward, of your filed Waiver and Notice that if they
default
for any reason, then there will be absolutely no lawsuit or
Government
intervention thrown at them at any time.
That's right, if
they
default, then you are simply going to turn around and walk away
from
the contract. That Notice to your
Parties in Contract,
synchronous
with the Execution of the Contract, is what it will take
to
slice Government out of your daily contracts and away from having
Juristic
Institutions be that silent background Equity Partner that
appellate
Judges talk about. A lot of folks
reading these lines will
make a
business judgment and refuse to waive Judicial Contract
Enforcement,
and for good reasons: Because you know that if Government
is not
brought to bear on your behalf, that is if you pre-emptively
waive
the right to file property liens and Court collection actions on
that
Contract, then you will never get paid by the other fellow; and
that is
fine -- if Government is your silent background Partner, then
pay
your reciprocating taxes due for juristic benefits having been
accepted,
and stop defiling yourself. [723]
[723]
You will find that as we change settings away from using
Government
benefits, and into an ecclesiastical setting where Divine
benefits
of prosperity down here were accepted by you, then the
application
of cheap TAX PROTESTING reasoning of withholding expected
reciprocity
because of philosophical disapproval with some Government
Special
Interest Group enscrewment going on, over into ecclesiastical
settings
where similar expectations of reciprocity exist (and exist
also by
contract), will prove to be self-damaging in ways that are
difficult
to correct. [723]end
Still,
other folks will not want to file the Courthouse Waiver and
then
specifically notify their Parties in Contract that there will not
be any
Government enforcement intervention, because they will perceive
of
themselves as being looked upon as some type of oddball, which is
also
correct. But those are business
assessment questions you have to
make
for yourselves individually, and cannot be related to your
liability
to pay the QUID PRO QUO of state sales and income taxes once
these
special juristic benefits have been accepted by you. Overall,
by now
you should be beginning to see why I don't have a lot of
sympathy
for those types of Tax Protesters that snicker at Judges when
the
Judge is trying to explain error to a Protester who is not
listening;
the Protester's enemy is not the Judge, as the Protester
believes,
but rather himself, as he refuses to even consider the
remote
possibility that there may have been some error in his own
reasoning.
The
acceptance of both general protection benefits and contract
enforcement
benefits are that QUID PRO QUO exchange of valuable
reciprocity
that Nature wants to see, when King's Equity excise taxes
are
laid on Commercially acquired sources of profits and gains. The
State
Socialists of the Rothschildean Dynasty on a National level, and
assorted
domestic Gremlins like Nelson Rockefeller as Governor of the
State
of New York with the state teacher's unions on a state level,
and
numerous other Special Interest Groups who initiate the enabling
legislation
to levy taxes on Commercial incomes are not perverting our
Father's
Common Law at all: They are merely using that Law to enrich
themselves
while secondarily perfecting our Enscrewment in the
practical
setting (although not all Special Interest Groups seek our
express
Enscrewment as a primary objective).
That is
representative of the powerful attachment of Commercial
Jurisdiction,
and is an indicative exemplary model of the underlying
strength
of the UCC as an operating appendage to King's Commerce, and
represents
the strength of contracts written under the Commercial
Jurisdiction
of your regional Prince. Under the UCC
and General
Commerce
Jurisdiction of Government, both the King and the Prince are
presumed
to be an APPLIED Party to the contract, even though nowhere
on that
contract is the King or Prince mentioned FACIALLY, and for
good
reason: Because by your silence, you have left the distinct
impression
on the other Party that if they default on you, you will be
seeking
the gun, cages and asset seizure services of the Judiciary to
enforce
your contracts for you. But what if you
are different? What
if you
have filed a WAIVER OF RECOURSE TO THE UCC'S BENEFITS? What if
you
came out into the open and bluntly told the PERSON you are
contracting
with that if, for any reason, they default, then you
simply
intend to turn around and walk away from the contract, and no
Government
enforcement action will be commenced?
[724]
[724] I
personally have told Persons that I had entered into contracts
with
this line (that if they don't pay me, I don't care), and they go
right
ahead and pay me anyway -- even though I gave them explicit
prior
Notice of my waiving any possible judicial enforcement (prior
Notice
meaning synchronous with the execution of the contract). They
have
absolutely no fear of any recourse of any type on my part --
none,
but they go right ahead and pay me anyway.
There have been
other
situations where, acting as a broker with people unacquainted
with
me, and where a large amount of money was involved, I was
reluctant
to waive calling out the guns and cages of the State to help
me
collect my money. So discretion needs
to be exercised based on:
1.
The willingness of the other party to pay you;
2.
Just how difficult a situation you have them into (in some
brokerage transactions, I have such
control over one of the
parties that if a last minute enscrewment
attempt is made, I can
kill the deal); and
3.
Whether or not your services are needed by them on a recurring
basis (even unethical vultures are less
reluctant to take
advantage of others when they know that a
future benefit of some
type is impending from this fellow);
Employers who pay biweekly,
for example, never need to be threatened
with judicial contract
enforcement; when they default, simply
leave.
Where
Government has been invoked to participate in enforcing
COMMERCIAL
contracts and collecting money from that contract, then
your
failure to reciprocate is immoral, and your encagement for broken
income
taxation reciprocity expectations in contracts -- as a reminder
that
NATURE is serious when Covenants are in effect -- is provident
before
the Eyes of Heaven. [724]end
So what
if you, too, are different? What if you
are not interested in
using
the police powers of the State to threaten other Parties that
you
have entered into contracts between, with a gun if they default?
What if
your daily livelihood contracts state that, as it pertains to
you as
a Party, that they are written outside of King's Commerce,
outside
of the Commercial Jurisdiction of your Prince, and that the
other
Party understands that your recourse to Judicial Enforcement is
being
waived as an Election of your Remedies?
What if those contracts
you
sign for a livelihood state that you are waiving Commercial
enforcement
benefits, even though the other Party may not be waiving
such
enforcement benefits? Is that portion
of the contract written
outside
of the General Commercial Jurisdiction of the state really
enforceable
by state Judges? [725]
[725]
The judicial enforceability of a contract depends upon the law
which
the parties intend to be governing at the time the contract was
first
executed. This GOVERNING LAW DOCTRINE
is supported by early
English
Cases and colonial American Cases heard under Britannic
jurisdiction,
and now American Cases; this election decision is also
known
to lawyers, writing their contracts under the COMMERCE
JURISDICTION
of the States; as CHOICE OF LAW [see CHOICE OF LAW TO
DETERMINE
THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF CONTRACTS: A COMPARISON OF
ENGLISH
AND AMERICAN APPROACHES TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS by John
Prebble
in 58 Cornell Law Review 443 (1973)].
Other
commentators have suggested that this free selection of
Government
Law came out into the open with Lord Mansfield's opinion in
ROBINSON
VS. BLAND, 2 Burr 1077 (1760), who quoted from a Roman Civil
Law
that allowed Roman Citizens to freely select governance by Roman
Law or
governance by their local provincial law, and then applied that
doctrine
to a Commercial Contract Law setting.
See Professor Beale in
WHAT
LAW GOVERNS THE VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT in 23 Harvard Law Review,
at page
1 (1909). The Case written by Lord
Mansfield is English
Common
Law, and in every American state that I have searched, I find
that
there is a trial court designated to be a court that possesses
all of
the Common Law jurisdiction that was in effect at the time of
Independence
in 1776. Here in New York State, for
example, the
Supreme
Trial Courts have been designated as courts of General
Jurisdiction:
"The general jurisdiction in law and
equity which the supreme
court
possesses under the provision of the Constitution includes all
of the
jurisdiction which was possessed and exercised... by the court
of
chancery in England on the fourth day of July, 1776..." - NYS
JUDICIARY
LAW, Section 140-b, as extracted from the New York State
Constitution.
So the
selection of governing law that the Robinson Case represents is
inherently
available to you. Expressed in other
words, the States
lack
jurisdiction to force individuals to write their contracts under
the gun
barrel, encagement, and asset seizure enforcement benefits of
King's
Commerce. In the 1970s, when phony tax
shelters were in vogue,
many of
them featured "non-recourse" notes as part of the financial
loss
image they tried to create. I am unable
to recall any Judge that
enforced
such a note in favor of a party who initially waived
potential
recourse through a King's Commercial Jurisdiction
enforcement
services.
Once a
contract falls under the COMMERCE JURISDICTION of the States,
then
there are some Constitutional limitations in effect on CHOICE OF
LAW
election decisions that can be made [see CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS
ON CHOICE OF LAW, 61 Cornell Law Review 185 (1976) by
James
Martin, who uncovered an obscure line of CHOICE OF LAW Cases in
the
Supreme Court]. [725]end
Now
that you have Elected your own Remedies should a default occur,
and
Government enforcement benefits have now been waived, what right
does
the King or Prince have to levy an equity participation tax on
profits
or gains he did not assist in creating?
Now what?
So now,
before snickering at state or federal magistrates tossing out
your
Tax Protesting arguments, you need to ask yourself a question
first:
If my Employer stopped paying me for my wages, do I have the
right
to sue him for damages? If you have
reserved the right to sue,
then
that Employment contract you entered into some time ago fell
under
the enriching penumbra of the Commerce Jurisdiction of the
State,
and so all the money you have pulled out of that contract is
very
much taxable; and there is nothing immoral, unethical, or even
unreasonable
about the Income Tax, so called, as it contributes
reciprocating
money back to Government that once participated in
creating
it (by leaving the other party in contract [your Employer,
for
instance] with the impression that guns, cages, and asset seizure
power
of Government will be brought to bear if that contract goes into
default). Yes, the Income Tax is politically
distasteful, and being
engineered
by demons, Gremlins, and Bolsheviks the way it was to
accomplish
proprietary social wealth transfer objectives, it carries
many
secondary adverse national economic consequences along with it;
but as
a matter of Law the underlying moral and ethical basis for it
are
very much legitimate, since voluntary contracts are in effect. We
may not
sense that the percentage amount Royalty wants is reasonable
from a
benefit/cost perspective, but such a determination is a
business
question and risk assessment that you need to make for
yourself
individually, and this is not a question for magistrates to
come to
grips with after you previously accepted and experienced
contract
enforcement benefits. Unless you
specifically waived
contract
recourse to the Uniform Commercial Code/Law Merchant/Federal
"Consumer
Protection" Statutes, etc., and have told other Persons that
you are
contracting with of your irrevocable wavier, it then becomes
immoral
and unreasonable for you not to compensate Royalty for
Employment
contract enforcement benefits and miscellaneous services
rendered
(minimum wages, maximum working hours per week, etc.), when
such
QUID PRO QUO reciprocity is expected back in return by
Government. Yes, King's Commerce is very much a closed,
private
domain
for all those who enter therein seeking to enrich themselves,
and
invisible contracts between the Gameplayer in Commerce and Royalty
are
automatically in effect, as protection and contract enforcement
benefits
conditionally offered by your regional Prince were accepted
by you,
in your state of silence, and by refusing to disavow
Government
contract intervention rights. [726]
[726]
Not all States expect reciprocity on money acquired under
Commercial
contracts; off-hand Florida, Alaska, New Hampshire and
Texas
come to mind as States that have no expectations of Income Tax
reciprocity
on contract enforcement benefits accepted at the present
time,
so in this Kingdoms there is no reciprocal State Income Tax due
absent
special licensing. However, don't fool
yourself, as King's
Commerce
is very much a closed private domain of financial conquest,
and the
mere failure by a Prince to ask for this type of State Income
Tax
reciprocity does not vitiate the existence of your Commerce
Contract,
as other reciprocity of a different nature is often expected
from
businessmen, such as some variation on a personal property tax
like an
inventory, franchise, or asset tax.
[726]end
Generally
speaking, state judges are much more interested in this
Waiver
of Contract Enforcement and UCC Benefits as a defense line in a
tax
prosecution Case than defenses centered around the Federal Fair
Labor
Standards Act (even though state courts have jurisdiction to
hear
Employer/Employee grievances arising under this Act). State
judges
show little interest in the invisible contracts in effect when
Federal
Reserve Notes are recirculated, or when the benefits of Debt
Liability
Limitations in Admiralty were accepted, and the like. And
inversely,
Federal Judges have little interest in this UCC/Contract
Enforcement
Benefits Waiver as a defense line in a Federal Tax Case,
and
show great interest in your acceptance of the benefits of the
National
Citizenship Contract. [727]
[727]
The United States does possess the requisite jurisdiction to
operate
directly on its Citizens:
"...we hold that the Government of
the United States is one having
jurisdiction
over every foot of soil within its territory, and acting
directly
upon each Citizen..." - IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S., at 599 (1894).
Since
the King can operate directly on the Citizenry, he can also
directly
expect reciprocity back in return from the Citizenry.
[727]end
Let us
contemplate something for a moment: Notice how when you sue
someone
for a typical breach of contract, you do not cite or quote any
state
or federal statutes. If the contract
was reduced to a written
statement,
then the defaulted covenants in the contract are recited
within
the body of the Complaint for relief, but no averment of
statutory
infraction is made.
For example, after having sold a car to
someone on time payments,
the
buyer's default in making the payments would be merely recited
within
your state court Complaint as being merely that on such and
such a
day, a contract was entered into, that payments of $XX.XX per
month
were due and payable on the first of each month, and that now
the
car's purchaser has defaulted, starting on payment number 8.
Therefore,
a judgment is demanded.
At no
place within that everyday type of breach of contract Complaint
did we
ever cite a statute. Quoting a statute
is not necessary to
seek
judicial relief in a state court, and quoting (or invoking)
statutes
is not necessary to perfect a judgment against someone -- and
with
that background information in mind, we turn now and address a
very
important correlative point of Law that Patriots and Protesters
are
totally missing: That the mere use of just the Judicial Branch of
Government
is your acceptance of a juristic benefit, and may give rise
to a
reciprocal taxing liability on your part (if the political
jurisdiction
is operating on such an expectation of reciprocity, such
as a
state income tax). It is important to
understand that by the
mere
omission of quoting a Legislative statute to invoke your
courtroom
relief, you in no way absolve or detach yourself from the
taxation
liability that follows PERSONS around who use and accept such
judicial
juristic benefits. The reason why I am
spending the time to
explain
this concept of attaching tax liability by sole use of the
Judicial
Branch to pursue Commercial enrichment is because the same
identical
Tax Protesters, and the same identical Highway Contract
Protesters
(who snicker at Judges holding them attached to Income Tax
statutes),
try and use the mere omission of reciting Legislative
statutory
pronouncements as grounds for evading the payment of
taxation
reciprocity. Specifically what I am
referring to is perhaps
best
elucidated by commentator Lysander Spooner:
"The author claims the copyright of
this book in England, on
Common
Law principles, without regard to acts of Parliament; and if
the
main principle of this book itself be true, viz., that no
legislation,
in conflict with the Common Law, is of any validity, his
claim
is a legal one. He forbids any one to
print the book without
his
consent." [728]
[728]
This quotation from Lysander Spooner appears in his work
entitled
ESSAY ON TRIAL BY JURY (Jewitt and Company, Cleveland, 1852).
[728]end
That's
right, Lysander Spooner is claiming a "Common Law Copyright;"
like a
large number of Tax and Highway Contract Protesters today in
the
1980s, these folks today are also now claiming "Common Law
Copyright"
on their newsletters, books, magazines, and miscellaneous
periodicals. But here is where the Protesters are in
serious error:
Remember
the breach of contract example -- you do not need to cite any
Legislative
statutes to seek Judicial contract enforcement relief.
And so
accordingly, the mere use of the Judicial branch of Government,
all by
itself, is your acceptance of a juristic benefit. [729]
[729]
For those of you who are interested in calling on the guns and
cages
of Government to assist you in protecting the Commercial
interests
in your intellectual creations, a notice of "Common Law
Copyright"
places the world on Notice, and threatens to all readers
that
use of the guns and cages of Government will be invoked to
protect
your intellectual property for you by Judicial Order and
Judgment
without any reliance on Legislative pronouncements. But for
those
invoking Federal statutory pronouncements, such Federal
intellectual
protectorate statutes have their situs in the COPYRIGHT
STATUTES,
which are resident in Title 17, which in turn is broken into
8
chapters:
1.
Subject Matter and Scope of Jurisdiction.
2.
Copyright Ownership and Transfer.
3.
Duration of Copyright.
4.
Copyright Notice, Deposit, and Registration.
5.
Copyright Infringement and Remedies.
6.
Manufacturing Requirement and Importation.
7.
Copyright Office.
8.
Copyright Royalty Tribunal.
[729]end
And so
now you "Common Law Copyright" Protesters are accepting the use
of the
gun barrel and asset seizure services of Government, when
claiming
a "Common Law Copyright"; Protesters are in fact threatening
to use
the guns, cages and asset seizure services offered by
Government,
and so now Protesters owe back in return the financial
compensation
reciprocity expected in the nature of Enfranchisement,
Income
Taxes, or anything else Government wants: Because special
juristic
benefits were accepted by the "Common Law Copyright"
Protester. By reason of Protesters using the police
powers of
Government
to pursue financial enrichment (and Protesters claiming
"Common
Law Copyright" very much are pursuing financial enrichment by
threatening
to use Government to try and prevent other persons from
redistributing
their intellectual property), "Copyright" Protesters
are
using the police powers of Government to pursue Commercial
enrichment
with the same identical full force and effect as if the
Protester
had formally entered into a Government created shared
monopoly,
such as the Bar Association created for Attorneys. [730]
[730]
To some extent the phrases INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and
INTELLECTUAL
CREATIONS are interchangeable.
Intellectual Creations
means
everything imaginable, such as writings, inventions, processes,
designs,
methods, formulas, systems, ideas, data, information, and any
other
matter; however, state law claims to Intellectual Creations are
quite
distinct from true property rights. For
example, see DOWLING
VS.
UNITED STATES 473 U.S. 207, at 216 (1985).
As for the King, he
gets
his jurisdiction to offer his Bouncers, guns and cages to enforce
certain
Intellectual Creations under the PATENT AND COPYRIGHT CLAUSE
of
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8; but at a Federal Judicial Level,
only a
certain selected profile of Intellectual Creations are actually
available for protection under t