Introduction

Overview

Most people reading this have long been aware that there is little freedom in the “land of the free” (with its highest per-capita prison population in the entire world) but it is doubtful that many are yet aware of precisely HOW Americans and other subjects of the Crown (or other governments following the statutory system of law) have been enslaved. The uncomfortable truth is that this has been accomplished BY THEIR OWN AGREEMENTS.

(For those who cannot see that Americans are, in fact, subjects of the Crown:  Who granted rights to whom following the War of Independence? If the King granted the colonists their rights, who really won the war? Does the winner or the loser of a conflict establish the terms of the peace that follows? If you are still in doubt, please do the research and you will come to a correct conclusion, in line with the presentation that is to follow.)

The subject of this series is principally a 745-page letter written by George Mercier to a Mr. Frank May sometime after August 1984, which was privately published as a book entitled Invisible Contracts—The Frank May Letter in December 1985. It is worth noting here that neither this book nor a subsequent one by the same author entitled The Agony and the Ecstasy is available through bookstores at this time. From what I have seen of it (just two out of seventy-two portions found adrift on the Internet) the latter work appears to provide confirmation of many wild-sounding statements of Dr. Peter Beter, with whom readers may be somewhat familiar.

This series will attempt to provide the reader with the working knowledge derived from it by my own interpretation and synopsis, which is by definition incomplete. Readers are strongly encouraged to obtain the original work for their own direct evaluation and reference.

The HTML files upon which this synopsis is based are divided into thirteen sections covering the first 565 pages of the book. The two final “chapters”—comprising pages 566 through 745 of the book and entitled “An Endless List” and “Epilogue”—have not been found anywhere in the public domain.  The first two chapters (“The Armen Condo Letter” and “Introduction”) are covered in this, Part One of the overall synopsis.

The Armen Condo Letter

The lengthy letter to Frank May that is the subject of this synopsis was preceded by a much more succinct letter from George Mercier to a “tax protester”.  An unknown author provided the following background information in his introduction to Mercier’s work.

[QUOTING:]

In August, 1984, Armen Condo, Founder of Your Heritage Protection Agency (“YHPA”) was being prosecuted by the Federal Government under numerous tax related statutes, as well as other collateral charges such as mail fraud.

The YHPA is still (the record holds to this day), the largest organized tax protester group to ever have existed in the United States (with respectful deference to our Founding Fathers and innumerable fellow unsung “tax protester” patriots living and laying their lives on the line in the 1700s for our benefit today). In its heyday in the 1970s/1980s, the YHPA’s dues-paying membership reached well into the 20,000 to 30,000 range, before it was ultimately brought into a state of non-existence through the intervention of strongly persuasive federal influences.

The YHPA published a fairly thick newspaper, and continued on in their efforts for several years, with their primary focus based upon the illegitimacy of Federal Reserve Notes, contending thereon that receipt of said Federal Reserve Notes did not constitute “income,” therefore, no one receiving said notes was liable under federal income tax statutes. Although additional proprietary “tax protester” positions were routinely addressed, the YHPA’s primary focus remained centered around Federal Reserve Notes….

[Interrupt QUOTING]

At this point the unknown author digresses to explain his own deduction that the YHPA was probably a clever “sting” operation, designed to entrap its members. This portion of the background has been excised to save space.

[Resume QUOTING:]

…Against this backdrop, George Mercier wrote a thoughtful advisory letter to Armen Condo in August of 1984, seeking to correctively alter the course Condo was then pursuing vis-a-vis his federal case, with the objective of the letter being oriented towards keeping Armen Condo out of a federal cage.  And with respect to Armen Condo, the letter was a wash, as Armen Condo was highly unreceptive to its contents (being in an unteachable state of mind, and so he rejected it “in toto”); however, the letter did not stop there with Armen Condo. In fact, it somehow “exploded” into the general patriot pipeline/network, and was widely copied and circulated all across the country. (Although Armen Condo reacted adversely to the letter, it found a very receptive and appreciative audience amongst patriots across the nation).

One such copy of the letter found its way into the hands of Frank May, who subsequently wrote an intelligent and thoughtful letter to George Mercier, seeking an expansion of the enticing data contained in the Armen Condo Letter. Expansion he wanted—expansion he got, because George Mercier in turn wrote a reply letter to Frank May—a 745-page letter, which then became a privately published book entitled Invisible Contracts—The Frank May Letter (dated December 31, 1985)….

[END QUOTING]

What follows is the complete text of the letter to Armen Condo.

[QUOTING, emphasis added:]

August, 1984

Dear Mr. Condo:

I just received your periodical “YHPA” for March, 1984, which I had requested from your organization for the purpose of contemplating subscribing to it.

In analyzing the contents of your magazine, I found that the United States is apparently trying to:

1. Get a restraining order to shut down your operation;

2. Trying to get some incarceration out of you as well.

In trying to get a feel for your sentiments towards the United States for doing these things to you, I detected underlying feelings of anxiety and some resentment on your part.  Therefore, what I have to say will only be of value to you to the extent that you are in a teachable attitude. I know that I am taking a shot in the dark by telling you things which follow, but I think it is important that someone inform you why you are on the “left side” of the issues and why and how the United States is on the “right side” of the issues—and that the Federal Judge is merely enforcing private agreements that you continue to maintain in effect with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

By the time you receive this letter in August, the Judge may already have taken some action on the government’s petition for a restraining order against you—I do not know the present status of that action, but the information you need to know will be important to you either way the Judge rules. If the restraining order has been granted, I can show you how to get it reversed next January.

Before I identify the private agreement you continue to maintain with the Secretary of the Treasury (which agreement places you into a written, equity relationship with the United States), there is a fundamental principle underlying American jurisprudence you must be aware of as background material to understand what follows.  This principle is a hybrid corollary and consistent extension of the evidentiary doctrine that specificity in evidence will always overrule generalities in evidence, even when they are in direct conflict with each other. For example, the statement by one witness to a crime that...

“I saw a woman run around the corner, it wasn’t a man...” (and therefore the defendant, who is a man, isn’t the criminal).

That statement would be overruled by this statement from another witness...

“The person I saw run around the corner had long hair, a beard, and something like a tatoo on his neck...”

Hence, conflicts in testimony are always resolved by giving the greater weight to the most specific statements.  This is also the way equity grievances in contract disputes are settled—the most specific, detailed clause governing the disputed circumstance is construed to be the statement meant to govern the disputed circumstances—even though broader, more general statements can be found in the contract and may favor the other party.

The principle that applies to your relationship with the King (the King being the United States—the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English Common Law as it was at that time, with only additional restrainments being placed on the King) is the principle that private agreements will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Thus, specific agreements governing individual circumstances will always overrule broad general clauses found in the Constitution.  Or expressed in other words, it is irrational to allow someone to enter into a private agreement with someone, and then allow him to take a clause out of the Constitution—off point and out of context—and allow him to take that clause and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his way out of the agreement, all while retaining the financial gain the agreement gave him in the first place. This is irrational, and judges won’t allow it.

For example, let’s say that I hired you to come work for me as a computer design engineer for my computer company. When you started work for me you signed an agreement agreeing that all company information that you were exposed to while employed here, and all knowledge you acquired regarding impending new products and technologies being worked on here—you had agreed not to disclose, release or disseminate any such confidential information to any other person for a five year period after you left my employ for any reason. So let’s say that you have now left my company, and you start publishing and disseminating information you learned while here to my competitors. Your excuse for violating the agreement you signed earlier with me is that...

“Well, the First Amendment says I got freedom of speech and press...”

So now I take you in front of a judge and ask for a restraining order. Question: Does the First Amendment apply? The answer is no, it doesn’t.  Restraining order granted.  Reason: Private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights. In other words, one does not get to use the Bill of Rights to weasel out of private agreements, while retaining the gain that the agreement gave him in the first place. In the back of the judge’s mind is the following logic:

“Well, Mr. Condo... you entered into an agreement with Mr. Mercier to be an engineer for him, and under which you experienced financial gain or profit.  Now that you don’t feel like honoring the agreement any longer, you want to take a clause out of the Bill of Rights to work your way out of your agreement with Mr. Mercier, all while keeping the money he gave you under the agreement by working for him. This is irrational.  Restraining order will have to be granted.”

Another example is this: Say that you are a convict sitting in a prison. The warden calls you upstairs and offers to let you go free if you sign an agreement. That agreement calls for parole checking, warrantless entry of your residence at any time, and you agree not to carry any guns. You sign the agreement and clear out of prison. A month later your car is stopped for speeding and a gun is seen half covered in the back seat. The officer charges you with possession of a concealed weapon. You argue Second Amendment rights during pretrial motions. The trial judge ignores your motions and sets a trial date.  Question: Is the judge a fifth column commie pinko?  No, he isn’t; he is merely enforcing private agreements.  Here you signed an agreement and you experienced a gain (premature freedom).  Now you want to take the Second Amendment, and use that to weasel and twist your way out of an agreement, all while retaining the gain (freedom) that the agreement gave you. This is irrational, and judges will not allow it, properly so.

You probably have heard it said that Federal Judges will tell defendants and counsel in Section 7203—Willful Failure To File criminal trials that...

“...the Constitution does not apply here.”

That statement shocks most people up a wall—but it is an accurate and correct statement. The Judge will never tell you why, though. Of all of the different Judges that I know who have blurted out that statement, none of the criminal defendants have ever pressed the Judge for an explanation as to why the Constitution does not apply. The reason why the Constitution does not apply is because the Judge is merely enforcing private agreements the defendant signed with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Judge is not a fifth column commie pinko. The agreement the Judge has in front of him is not the defendant’s 1040 or the defendant’s W-2/4; those are merely declarations of facts and no profit or gain is experienced by them.  The real reason is as follows:

When new Federal Judges are hired (nominated by the President and later confirmed by the Senate) after hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee—after they go through that hiring procedure in Washington—they are taken back to Washington and are taken into private seminars that are sponsored by the United States Department of Justice. It is in these seminars that new Federal Judges are taught and trained “how to” manage their criminal proceedings so as to avoid reversible error, i.e., absence of counsel and trial procedure, etc. They are taught and trained what the Supreme Court of the United States wants for perfecting due process.  They are given Supreme Court cases to study—and sitting next to that new Judge in these seminars is their Appeals Court Justice (who will be auditing appeals coming out of their trial court), confirming that the information being taught and presented by Justice Department lawyers is true and correct and that “Things will be done this way.”

They are given a “Bench Book” to take with them, giving the new Judge guidance on handling problems as they arise on the bench. Finally, the interesting part comes: They are taught how to manage “Tax Protester” trials—violations of Title 26. Federal Judges have been instructed that the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 in a case called Davis v. Elmira Savings, 161 U.S. 275 that banks are instrumentalities of the Congress.

In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King.  This means that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit union—any regulated financial institution carries with it—as an operation of law—the identical same full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain.  So as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD’s, charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the King—so says the Supreme Court.

At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts (because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions), and you are very much in an Equity Relationship with the King.

In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: “Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements.”

Or in other words, Judges don’t like the idea of being thought upon as being mean gestapo agents—doing the dirty work for the King. They consider themselves as being struck between a rock and a hard spot—being asked to enforce agreements and without being given any valid reason as to why you should be let out of it—other than you just don’t feel like being incarcerated.

So what happens during these Willful Failure to File trials is that:

1. The Intelligence Division of the IRS surveys the local banks in the vicinity of the tax protester, and obtains copies of the protester’s signature card and financial transactions statements from the bank.

2. At the time the U.S. Attorney requests the Judge to sign the Summons, the Judge has been presented with your bank account information. So now during the prosecution the Federal Judge is sitting up there on the bench with your agreement with the King in front of him while the tax protester argues:

“Well, Judge, the Fourth Amendment says...”

“Judge, the Fifth Amendment says I don’t gotta...”

Are you beginning to see why the Judge is prone to experience frustration and blurt out “the Constitution does not apply here!”?

Meanwhile, the Judge is ignoring all constitutionally related arguments and denying all motions.

If you would go back to your bank and ask the manager to show you your signature card again, in small print you will see the words:

“The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the Rules of this Bank.”

Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules? If you have, you will read and find out that you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury, among many other things.

What is really happening in these Willful Failure to File prosecutions is that the Judge is operating on the penal clause to a civil contract.  And since you have agreed to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it make whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress? A contract does not have to be enacted by Congress—in whole or in part—in order to make it enforceable.

As for the actual taxation itself, what happens is that the King creates a “juristic personality” at the time you open your bank account. And it is that juristic personality (its income and assets) that the King’s Agents are “excising” back to the King.  But in any event, the taxing power of the Congress attaches by contract or use of the King’s property. The Congress does not have the jurisdiction to use the police powers to raise revenue.

That is the proper way (the ideal Alice in Wonderland way actually) to collect taxes, and that is the procedure by which Federal Judges are enforcing the law—not by ruling over gestapo Star Chambers.

(I have some reservations on the modus operandi of Federal Judges to the extent that the Supreme Court mentions over and over again that:

“Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice” (Offutt vs. U.S., 348 U.S. 11) and that when a man is thoroughly convinced that he is on the right side of an issue—a man like Irwin Schiff—that justice has not satisfied the appearance of justice unless the criminal defendant is aware that he did wrong. And on these tax protester trials, that requires a sentencing hearing lecture by the judge to the defendant on why and where the defendant did err. So I disagree with the modus operandi of Federal Judges to this extent.)

I am not going to spend any more time on this subject just right now—other than you should be cognizant by this point in the letter that you are on the left side of the issue—and that the King’s Agents are not working a great evil by going around the countryside asking people to stop defiling themselves by dishonoring their own agreements with the King.

So, in conclusion on this issue, if the 16^th Amendment were somehow repealed tomorrow morning at 9:00am—it would not change a single thing (other than the IRS would have to start giving people a correct presentation of the law to justify the taxes). The IRS and the excise tax on juristic persons would continue on as usual.

As it pertains to the proposed restraining order the King’s Agents are trying to get against you and your alter ego, please get a copy of the Complaint filed by U.S. Attorney Charles Magnuson dated January 31, 1984—and turn to page 9. Examine the last five words in paragraph “b”:

“...under the Court’s equity powers.”

This petition by the United States for a restraining order against you is legitimate to the extent that you are in written contractual equity with the King.

When you trace back the genealogy of your signature on your bank card, you will find that you agreed to be bound by Title 26, and under Section 7202 you agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice.  And the concept that Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable instruments of commerce—for any reason—when the person has a written agreement with the King saying that FRNs are taxable—this concept is in fact fraudulent.

I would encourage you, Mr. Condo, to prove me wrong. You can prove me wrong by asking the Judge:

“Please identify the instrument I signed, Judge, which creates an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me.”

The Federal Judge probably is not going to want to disclose what document it is that you executed which created the attachment of equity jurisdiction. They have been asked not to let the cat out of the bag. The IRS handles this “bank account = equity relationship” on a military style “need-to-know” only type basis. You can file a Mandamus in the Circuit Court of Appeals or petition for a Subpoena Duces Tecum returnable against the U.S. Attorney to compel discovery of what it is that you signed that created the attachment of equity jurisdiction the King’s Agents are now acting under in trying to get a restraining order against you. This type of equity jurisdiction always attaches by written consent.

If this restraining order has already been granted by now—then get rid of your bank accounts and file a petition for reversal next January—your arguments being then that you are not in an equity relationship with the King anymore. Then the First Amendment would apply then, but it does not apply to you now since you are in an equity relationship with the King—and private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights.

[END QUOTING]

Please note that the Secretary of the Treasury is presumed to be the “holder in due course” of all financial instruments. Can you see the magnificent importance of the publicly noticed 1996 agreement between the Secretary of the Treasury and GLOBAL ALLIANCE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION?  In essence, it now (subsequent to the 1996 agreement between the parties) appears that “GAIA”—not the Secretary of the Treasury—is the holder in due course.

Introduction

A certain Mr. Frank May, having read the letter from Mercier to Armen Condo—which was widely circulated in the (entirely unsuccessful) tax-protester circles of the time—made further inquiry and Mercier’s response was, to put it mildly, effusive. A 745-page letter exposed details of the true functioning of the legal system but was especially revealing of just how it is that the “King” retains control (jurisdiction) over his subjects.

Mercier expresses surprise that his presentation is not common knowledge: “I was under the assumption that most folks already knew of the underlying evidentiary Commercial contract factual settings that Title 26, Section 7203 Willful Failure to File prosecutions are built on top of.”

He specifies that while bank accounts are not the exclusive means of identifying equity relationships with the King, they often provide all the evidence required: “…those Commercial contracts are more than strong enough to warrant incarceration on mere default therein. Since the nature of bank accounts involves the evidentiary presence of written admissions, together with the acceptance of Federal Commercial benefits therefrom, the presence of reciprocity expectations contained therein, and other factors, bank account instruments are conclusive evidence of Taxpayer Status by virtue of participation in the closed private domain of Interstate Commerce….  Bank accounts are the highest and best evidence ‘Cards’ the King has to deal with, even better than old 1040s, and so that bank account evidence should be the very first slice of evidence to go when an Individual has concluded within himself that a change in Status is now desired….  So if a person, seeking a shift in relational Status to individual, is unwilling to first get rid of his bank accounts, then talking to him about anything else is an improvident waste of time.”

That last statement probably deserves some explanation.  Contrary to common usage, a “person” is of juristic personality: a fiction, a corporation, WHOSE RIGHTS DERIVE FROM THE KING’S LAW. In courts, an appearance “in proper person” means an appearance as and for—and as surety for—the fictional, juristic person. If the court metes out a penalty against the fictional, corporate, juristic person—YOU, the individual held responsible for the fiction, will be caused to suffer that penalty.

The living, breathing YOU are NOT the “person” defined by statutory law. The real question is: How did you get so inextricably bound to this “straw man” “person” that you believe yourself to be “it”? Needless to say, the courts are very good at presuming and any presumption not rebutted—STANDS. After all, you do have pretty much complete control over your fictional “straw man”, so why should you not be held responsible for ITS contracts?

Quoting from Peter French’s work, The Corporation as a Moral Person (published in 1979:

“Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition.  The Latin “persona” originally referred to Dramatis Personae, and in Roman Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on either side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal tradition, persons are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to have, or only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is systematically ignorant of the biological status of its subjects.”

Mercier poses the question:  “What rights does the King have to incarcerate a Person for a mere circumstantial omission that is in want of both a mens rea [criminal intent] and a corpus delicti [substantial evidence of a crime]... the criminalization of a non-event that never happened?”

Let’s juxtapose this against what “the system” did in shutting down the distribution of health products by a small Nevada company, a case with which most readers have some familiarity. When that happened, I was absolutely shocked by the attorney’s statement that it hasn’t been necessary to show mens rea in federal criminal prosecutions for well over sixty years! WHAT? Although I never studied law beyond first-year courses, I was always taught that there can be no crime without a criminal mindset, something that rang and still rings as true. But sure enough, a little research reveals that people have been prosecuted for crimes without mens rea since 1938. HOW CAN THIS BE?

How does Mr. Mercier answer the question he posed?

[QUOTING:]

…[T]he United States had written Commercial contracts entered into wherein Mr. Condo agreed… [to be bound by all of the laws of the UNITED STATES]…. Those contracts the United States was operating on were Mr. Condo’s bank accounts.

Furthermore, to aggravate the just plain “wrongness” of Mr. Condo’s position, those contracts were entered into by Mr. Condo in the circumstantial context of Mr. Condo’s attempting to experience monetary profit or gain through the operation of those contracts. In other words, there had been an exchange of financial Consideration (benefits) involved, and in Contract Law, the exchange of valuable Consideration (benefits) is of particular significance.

This Consideration requirement is a correct Principle of Nature, because it is immoral and unethical to hold a contract against a Person under circumstances in which that Person never received any benefits from out of it.

It has to be this way, otherwise the Judicature of the United States would be working a Tort (damage) on someone else. So simply giving the other party some up front Consideration, which is generally $10 in cash, separately and in addition to any other benefit the contract may call for, will vitiate and deflect any attack against the future enforcement of that contract on the grounds the other party never experienced any benefit from it (the attack is called Failure of Consideration).

This Consideration (meaning some practical benefit being exchanged or some operation of Nature taking place) can also originate from third persons not a party to the contract.

The word Consideration has so many different meanings that anyone trying to use the word instructionally finds themselves starting over from scratch in the presentation of a definition.

Under some circumstances, successive Promises cascading down from existing contracts can be deemed to be good and valuable Consideration.  Harnessing the element of fraud to inure to your benefit is powerful stuff in that it vitiates contracts whenever it makes an appearance in a factual setting predicated upon contract; and likewise, when contracts are up for review and judgment, the element of Consideration is also so important that the mere absence of it nullifies the judicial enforceability of any factual setting alleging the existence of contractual liabilities. As the presence of fraud vitiates contracts, so in a similar manner does the absence of Consideration nullify contracts.

[END QUOTING]

In a footnote, the importance of Consideration is summarized as follows: “understanding Consideration (the acceptance of benefits) is the Grand Key to unlocking the mystery as to why some of the King’s Equity hooks are so difficult to pull out of you”.

Armen Condo had a bank account and his signature opening that account established a contract with the bank.  The bank’s charter was federally derived and all customers agreeing to abide by the bank’s rules were, at the same time, agreeing to be bound by all of the laws of the UNITED STATES (corporation).

The manager of the small health-products company mentioned earlier did not commit a crime when she established her personal bank account—but she exposed herself to statutory law, whereby she could commit a crime even without the elements of mens rea or corpus delicti.

The UNITED STATES (corporation) simply changed its “bylaws” to require that colloidal silver labeling include the phrase “dietary supplement” and to cause the making of any claim of therapeutic benefit to result in classification of the “dietary supplement” as a DRUG. DRUG dealing is generally accepted as a crime and thus, as a result of a change in “bylaws”, corporate members (“persons”) dealing in such “misbranded drugs” became subject to prosecution.

GUILTY AS CHARGED? Well, the “person” was—by “virtue” of the manager’s straw-man contract(s) with the UNITED STATES corporation—and the INDIVIDUAL acting as surety for the juristic person paid the price. OUCH!

The $64,000 question:  COULD THIS UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE HAVE BEEN AVOIDED?  By the end of this series, I believe the reader will see that a recurrence of this unfortunate scenario can be pre-empted through proper management and arrangement of one’s affairs. Too late smart? Let us hope that we learn our lessons.

The natural reaction of a living, breathing human to the personal damage caused by the artifice of statutory law, as in the preceding example, is: “Oh, what happened is so wrong, so very, very wrong.”  We KNOW the result was MORALLY wrong because we FEEL it. Statutory law, on the other hand, is absolutely AMORAL. When it comes to contracts, “only the content of the contract is of any relevance in resolving the issue”.

Damages done to another without a contract in effect constitute a TORT.  As Mercier puts it: “Questions of damages, and lack of damages, of the mens rea criminal intent, of fairness, of risk assumption, of equity, and equality are all reasoning and arguments reserved for a Tort Law judgment setting.”

On the other hand, where a contract exists grievances are settled in a Contract Law (Equity/Admiralty) setting. In George Mercier’s words: “In these Equity contract enforcement proceedings, questions of morality, of Torts, of basic reasonableness, of pure natural justice, of fairness, of mental intent, of the presence of a corpus delicti, of privacy rights, of equality between this instant Defendant and other previous Defendants and the like, are all irrelevant.”

Using Tort Law reasoning in a Contract Law setting (all UNITED STATES courts, for example, as indicated by the yellow-fringed flag indicating Admiralty jurisdiction) results in “profound consequences”, according to Mercier. No matter how WRONG you might think a statutory-law ruling is, it is absolutely RIGHT (in most cases) according to the terms of the real contracts in play. The problem—as Mercier reveals throughout his letter—is that many of the most important contracts we enter into are INVISIBLE.

It appears from the context of his writings that George Mercier was well connected with the Church of Mormon.  While readers probably have little use for any “-ism”, some of what Mercier has to say, relating to contracts with our Heavenly Father, might still be of interest:

 “For example, if you simply cannot handle a difficult Contract or do not want the responsibility that such a difficult Contract carries along with it—then that is fine, as Father has a Kingdom for you; and if this idea of spending Time and all Eternity in the midst of clowns who also cannot handle Contracts intrigues you, then I would suggest that you explore the possibility of terminating further interest in this Letter.”

On the issue of personal responsibility, Mercier expounds:

“One of the dominate themes of this Letter is individual responsibility, and correlative to that, it is my proposition that Gremlins can actually never succeed in forcing deception on others. The reason why is because deception has to be first created, then conveyed, and then accepted by others—then only can deception succeed. Deception can only find fertility in a human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it; similarly, in a sense, it actually takes two people to manufacture a successful lie: The first to utter the lie, and the second to accept it as such.”

One of the biggest lies of modern times—the supposed justification for the UNITED STATES to invade a sovereign foreign nation, Iraq—has not been very well accepted by the vast majority of the world’s people. In the fascist, legislative democracy that America has become, it only takes a majority (and not even that considering the effect of “public” media) to accept the lie causing the most unfortunate of consequences to unfold.

While the following subject addressed by Mercier is somewhat off-point with regard to the general discussion of law that is our primary focus, it deserves coverage because of the current “War on Terrorism”. The seminal event that drew the UNITED STATES into what became World War Two was the “surprise” attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. Readers may already be aware that the attack itself was no surprise, so the following excerpt may just be added to prior knowledge to confirm that assessment.

[QUOTING:]

One example of someone, not a Gremlin, who associated circumstantially with Gremlins and learned in advance of the intended outcome of some of their sneaky maneuverings for conquest and damages, was an Episcopal Minister by the name of Edward Welles.  Bishop Edward Welles was Rector of the CHRIST CHURCH in Alexandria, Virginia (the Church of George Washington). In his autobiography published in 1975, Bishop Welles had a few words to say about his brief interfacing with Gremlin Franklin D. Roosevelt, immediately prior to Pearl Harbor:

“Another of my friends was Norman H. Davis, president of the American Red Cross, who was elected to our Parish vestry. He was very close to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and saw him frequently. On November 6, 1941, I had lunch with Mr. Davis in Washington, and learned of the approaching war with Japan, which would begin within five weeks. I was shaken, and asked Mr. Davis to urge the President to appoint a National Day of Prayer, and handed Mr. Davis a letter I had written to President Roosevelt on the subject. Mr. Davis did hand my letter to the President, who did appoint the following New Year’s Day as a National Day of Prayer. I was so moved by the luncheon revelations that later that very day, I sent out mimeographed postal cards to the congregation, stating:

‘The Rector is preaching a Sermon at 11am service Sunday, November 9^th, which he feels is sufficiently important to call to your attention. The Sermon will assess the desperate situation that confronts America this Armistice Day, and suggests basic Christian attitudes and actions.’

“On Sunday in the course of that Sermon, I said:

‘Few people realize how great is the possibility that we shall actually be at war with Japan within 30 days.’

“The congregation was deeply shocked.  And in response to many requests my booklet of Sermons was reprinted with this Sermon added. 28 days after that Sermon came December 7^th, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and the war was on.”—Edward Welles in his autobiography The Happy Disciple, at 62 (Learning Incorporated, Massette, Maine (1975)).

Bishop Welles, at that time, had no way of knowing that President Roosevelt’s advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor was due to FDR’s diligent and extended efforts to bring about that attack. Like others brought in from the outside, Bishop Welles was snared in a Gremlin’s web of intrigue by innocent circumstantial association.

[END QUOTING]

The “Gremlins’ web of intrigue”, of course, continues to this day, only now it is becoming increasingly obvious to larger numbers of people.

In the next installment we will take up Chapter Two of Invisible Contracts: Third Party Interference With a Contract.