State-Created Juristic Benefits

The caption for this section is much broader than its actual content, which focuses primarily on the issue of acceptance of the benefit of using the King’s highways. There are very many other “state-created juristic benefits”, of course, not least of which is “the right to sue and to be sued”.  Only a fiction-of-law “person” may avail itself of legal redress in Admiralty Jurisdiction; men and women need not apply because it is “a correct principle of Nature” that like may only deal with like. Corporations, such as the government, are fictitious imaginings. A corporation cannot think and cannot act. It is an absurdity when we hear, “Today the government announced (this or that).” A corporation cannot speak!

All the same, we are caught up in this world of illusion and the fact is that the illusion is enforced by guns and jail cells. Leroy Schweitzer (of Montana Freemen infamy) may well have been 100% correct, technically, but the last this writer heard of him he was sentenced to 22.5 years in jail in March 1999. Accordingly, it is wise to work within what IS while making efforts to change things into BETTER.

[QUOTING:]

In 1910, the Supreme Court ruled that if a Prince creates some type of a profit or gain situation in Commerce (and remember that King’s Commerce is a closed private domain belonging to Government), then the King can participate in taxing that profit or gain that the Prince created. When state created benefits are accepted by you, then the Commercial enrichment you experience within that state franchise is very much within the taxing power of the United States Government; and that is correct Law.

Additionally, the King can tax other state created Commercial benefits that are experienced by others like attorneys and accountants who, as Special Interest Groups, use the police powers of the state for their own private enrichment, by setting up shared monopolies and then experiencing higher revenues than otherwise obtainable under a laissez-faire free market entry without restrictions on new lower priced competitors entering into their trade.

This game of using penal statutes to create shared enrichment monopolies is quite old, and yet look around you today and see how many bleeding heart folks there are, who really want to believe that line that Government is their friend, just somehow; and also fall for the fraudulent line that such a monopoly is for their own protective good—by keeping all those evil quacks, vile frauds, and assorted degenerate incompetents out of the legal and medical professions.

Although we might not be too philosophically sympathetic with the manipulative use of Legislatures to create monopolies and the Tortfeasance that is thrown at us in the adverse secondary circumstances flowing from their operations, as a matter of law, creating game rules for voluntary players in King’s Commerce is largely immune from Constitutional restrainments.

…[H]ere in the contemporary United States, once a state has got you tied into a licensing program of some type, then and there you are experiencing some type of state-created juristic benefit, and as such, you then become a federal taxable object for this benefit accepting reason alone. When presented with such a state license, no other questions about the existence of the National Citizenship Contract, or any other juristic contract, ever need be asked by those termites in the IRS searching the Countryside for some meat to lay into.

[END QUOTING]

The King’s Highways

For purposes of this synopsis we’ll go with Mr. Mercier’s introduction to the driver’s license issue in the several paragraphs that follow, then break down the remainder of this section into a series of separate quotations.

[QUOTING:]

Other state monopolies like Driver’s Licenses and motor vehicle registrations are very much used by the IRS in many ways to assist them in tax collections; and state tax collectors also use these records for their own statute enforcement and state treasury enrichment conquests as well. When those Driver’s License records are collected by the state, they are also forwarded to Washington, and then redistributed to foreign persons and foreign political jurisdictions under numerous executive agreements, diplomatic and military treaties and bureaucratic cordialities.

Yet, even though you entered into those state licenses merely to avoid your incarceration as an unlicensed driver, the uncontested preparation of a state created juristic personality, such [as] through a Driver’s License, to the Supreme Court would be prospectively sufficient for that Court to attach in personam liability to Title 26 as a Person accepting special state created benefits. It is also reasonable to infer that a Driver’s License is evidence of Residency, and of the acceptance of a wide-ranging array of state benefits tailored to Residents.  Remember that your use of those highways is your acceptance of a benefit that Government created, and since reciprocity is expected back in return, contracts are in effect: Invisible and automatic.

If you do so file objections to the assertion of a Beneficent Taxable Juristic Commercial Status over you by way of a Driver’s License, you will need to again prove your present state of mind; and the exact state code criminalizing such innocuous behavior has to be quoted within the body of your Objection. Some folks prefer to play it safe and avoid the Driver’s License altogether; while others selectively use deception in assuming a nom de plume for purposes of deflecting recourse identification.

However, other folks are not able to so quickly terminate the Driver’s License due to the fundamental importance of the thing and either their present inability to successfully handle a criminal prosecution or their reluctance to assign something deleterious to it; and so at a minimum, an Objection and a Declaratory Judgment to Quiet Status originated in Federal District Court is in order. The Declaratory Judgment, ruling that the Driver’s License was a Compelled License, existing as a coerced instrument signed by you to avoid incarceration as an unlicensed driver, and is not to be used by the IRS or anyone else for the expansive purposes of evidence of either Residency or of Domiciliary, nor as evidence of entrance into Commerce, or of the taxable acceptance of federal or state created benefits, or of consent to be bound by any statute, other than those state motor vehicle statutes.  The objective of our pursuit of a Declaratory Judgment is: …since the license was compelled out of us when some de minimis tension is in effect with a Substantive Right (the Right to Travel), and since the avowed purpose of the license itself is to adduce Evidence of Competency, then the extraneous collateral expectations of reciprocity in any area outside of those Motor Vehicle Statutes it would otherwise create when left unchallenged, is now terminated.

If you are going to Object to, and have new narrow contours now defined on your Driver’s License in order to restrain its use by other Government agencies as the high-powered King’s Equity attachment instrument that it is, then the Objection should generally follow the model pattern set forth above in the discussion of Federal Reserve Notes. This Objection should refer to the exact state penal statute [and] that you are applying for the license under Objection and protest, merely to avoid incarceration as an unlicensed driver.

[END QUOTING]

Up front we should update Mercier’s position regarding the King’s Highway to include our “highways in the sky”.  Air travel is, in case someone failed to notice, quite strongly federally regulated.  Thus, the very act of boarding an airplane is a “benefit”—which, of course, implies the existence of an invisible contract. “Resistance is futile,” comes to mind. Mr. Mercier’s well-studied approach to such adhesion contracts almost certainly ensures confrontation with the “powers that be” at some point, particularly if the individual is at all concerned with having any property or money whatsoever.  Accordingly, we will run through rather than visit with the more technical points he presents.

Mercier notes that the Objection should present the exact state statute verbatim and continues, “Also included should be a brief recap of the Right to Travel Cases in the United States Supreme Court.”

He points out, however, that “a Right to Travel also lies outside of, and beyond the reach of, the King’s Charter (the Constitution).”

The Objection should contain a “Declaration therein that you are not a Resident or a Citizen of that State together with correlative supporting averments of Benefit Rejections, regardless of any statute that facially appears to force Residency Status on persons physically inhabited in that state for an extended period of time.”

“The documentation and proof that the Supreme Court would want to see is a copy of the application for the Driver’s License where it says you signed it under protest; proof of service of your Objection on state officials, the Objection itself, and a 30-day invitation to those state officials to let them cancel or rescind the Driver’s License if the application of Commercial Status and/or Residency Status is deemed mandatory on all License holders (thus requiring those state officials to come out of the closet and expose some Status oriented law to you they might not want you to know). Under your Declaratory Judgment, the Driver’s License will be construed to act exclusively as Evidence of Competency under Motor Vehicle statutes only.”

Otherwise, “Uncontested Driver’s Licenses can very much be used by state taxing commissions as evidence of Residency, and hence evidence of an in personam attachment of liability for the expected reciprocal payment of benefits accepted on the state Income Tax, among many other juristic things. As viewed by sophisticated appellate judges, for state vehicle code enforcement purposes, Driver’s Licenses are evidences of an operator’s competency, and are not, in this context, the Evidences of Consent to be Regulated in Commerce that Highway Contract Protesters occasionally talk about.”

Simply not having a driver’s license is no cure because “You don’t need any written contract on someone in order to sue someone and bring him into a Court and perfect a judgment against the poor fellow—but you do need to show the acceptance of benefits and of the expectation of reciprocity, which elements are very much present when a motor vehicle is operated on state provided highways, with ‘Public Notice’ statutes creating the expectation of reciprocity.”

Rather, he suggests that the individual pursue a Judicial Declaration of Status, which “becomes appropriate by necessity in this unusual factual setting of redefining the contours of an Adhesion Contract Driver’s License to a limited and narrowed construction (meaning: Evidence of Highway Competency, only).”

Mercier explains that the Common Law Right to Travel arose in a day when “highways” were mere dirt paths. In that environment the King was not providing any particular benefit. “But today, Government is spending incredible amounts of money, year in and year out, to build and maintain highways, so Right to Travel argument parallels that folks draw that try to disable the contemporary ability of the King to even ask for reciprocity back in return for benefits offered are incorrect.”

“And today, high-powered technology routinely causes wholesale death and destruction when an operator does no more than momentarily lose absolute mental concentration on driving—and in such a factual setting, an honest assessment by Highway Contract Protesters of the underlying legitimacy of the requirement that there be Evidence of Competency, would necessarily result in the conclusion that a Driver’s License, so called, really isn’t all that unreasonable, and is in fact, very reasonable.”

Thus he arrives at the conclusion: “Whenever anyone, regardless of your relational Status off the highways, uses those Government highways, an invisible contract is in effect right then and there; it is not necessary for your regional Prince, the State, to adduce written evidence of your consent—just like it is not necessary to get a contract in writing to get the contract enforced judicially.”

The changes-in-technologies issue certainly impacts far more than our freedom to travel. A recent news article relates that the Bush Administration wants EVERY American to be subjected to psychological “screening”, which would, of course, be “in the public interest”.  Mercier foresaw some of these issues, which were touched on in the following footnote:

“Although I cannot predict the technological developments of the next century, I foresee intractable issues looming in behavior and thought control. The emerging wizardries of chemotherapy, psychosurgery, behavior modification and genetic engineering, with their ‘clockwork orange’ overtones, might seem an unlikely source of moral dilemmas.... But like all technological advances, these developments carry promise as well as peril.”—Judge David Bazalon in Civil Liberties—Protecting Old Values in the New Century, 51 New York University Law Review 505, at 511 (1976).

Returning to the discussion of invisible contracts derived from acceptance of benefits in our travels, Mercier notes:

“…Even walking into a shopping center could be a contract—if the management so much as posts a notice giving some conditional or qualified use to persons entering therein and accepting the benefits the management is offering (such as requiring shoes and shirts, and so are the arguments of unfairness—that those reciprocal terms of wearing shirts and shoes just don’t apply to you because you traveled from just so far away—as some shopping center security guard throws you out of the place—is just whimpering).”

Mercier faults the Founding Fathers for failing to restrain the King from shrewdly providing benefits actually aimed at binding us by invisible contracts. But he also faults the courts:

“Yet despite this predominate skew towards contract priority in judicial Right to Travel doctrinal reasoning, annulment by the Supreme Court of criminal liability for the innocent use of public highways under circumstances where no collaborating damages were caused, would be appropriate; an honest assessment of the total factual picture by a sophisticated judge would result in the conclusion that merely driving a car down a street without a license does not ascend to the minimum threshold requirements that characterize legitimate criminal incarceration standards—compelled contract or no compelled contract; those penal highway statutes exist by virtue of Special Interest Group sponsorship and pressure, and judges are diminishing their own stature and violate the restraining mandates inherent in the Republican Form of Government Clause, by letting clever and politically ambitious Special Interest Groups get away with whatever they can buy in Legislatures to damage innocent behavior under circumstances where unnecessary covenants within adhesive contracts are being asserted in tension with Substantive Natural Rights in the Locomotion area….”

A more reasonable solution is proffered: “In a factual setting where an unlicensed driver creates damages out on the highway, then punitive incarceration is appropriate, and this requirement reconciles everyone’s objections by accomplishing the same identical criminal recourse the incarcerationists yearn for so much in their vindictive cries for encagement glory.”

Secondarily, Mercier argues that the courts should consider the adhesive nature of the contract: “Where the terms of contracts are not freely negotiated due to the dominate overbearing positional strength of one of the parties, the judicial allowance of a de minimis amount of corrective ‘fairness’ is appropriate since there never was any mutual assent—and that already exists in American Jurisprudence and is now called the Adhesion Contract Doctrine.”

Further, there is the fact that the King descends in status whenever he enters into commerce with us because “Everyone is (supposedly) equal under the law.”

“…The Supreme Court has ruled that shopping center owners, who open up their premises for public ingress and egress, lose some of their property rights, i.e., there is a declension in status from having absolute authority to eject with discretion anyone they want, down to being restrained from doing so.

“If this legal reasoning, which diminishes the rights of property owners, were to be applied to a highway setting by way of comparative analogy, then the fact that Government Highways are open to the public should, theoretically, partially restrain the State from exercising absolute jurisdiction to eject a person from merely using the highways without a license, down to a reduced property rights status where the mere non-existence of a compelled Driver’s License is insufficient grounds for incarceration, absent, perhaps, collaborating causal damages.”

Bills of Attainder Arguments

A commonly used argument by highway Right to Travel Protesters is based on the lack of validity of Bills of Attainder. “Bills of Attainder are legislative acts that inflict punishment without a judicial trial, and violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine.”

“…The Supreme Court has defined a Bill of Attainder as a Legislative Act which inflicts punishment on named individuals or members of an easily ascertainable group without the benefit of a judicial trial. In determining whether a particular statute is a Bill of Attainder, the judicial analysis necessarily requires an inquiry into three definitional elements, each of the three standards must be violated:

“1. Specificity in Identification; and

“2. Punishment; and

“3. Lack of Judicial Trial.”

As Mercier explains, traffic tickets SEEM to be Bills of Attainder (which are proscribed by the Constitution):

“As it applies to Highway Contract Protesters, when the arresting officer issues you out a citation, and perhaps fixes a fine right then and there without any judicial trial, or if the Administrative Law Judge affixes the fine, then, seemingly all of the indicia that characterize Bills of Attainder have been met: An identifiable group has been targeted; summary punishment was determined by some Executive Department agent; and there was no judicial trial. For Highway Contract Protesters in search of some arguments, just anything, to throw at Judges, that is all they need to hear.

“I know that you Protesters do not want to hear this kind of talk, but your reasoning is defective and Traffic Tickets do not operate as Bills of Attainder for reasons that require an expanded basis of factual knowledge to exercise judgment on. Traffic Tickets do possess the Bill of Attainder indicia attributes of targeting a specific and identifiable group of people to nail; and there is pre-defined Legislative punishment provided for; but it is the last remaining element of a Judicial Trial that you Protesters err in. Even though your fines were assessed or collected under summary Administrative findings of guilt (at either the roadside or in front of an Administrative Law Judge), with the fines being pre-determined by Legislative mandates, in all States where I have examined Motor Vehicle Statutes, there is a provision for a Judicial Trial de novo, meaning that whatever fine was paid or assessed by the Executive Department agent can be challenged on appeal in Court with the benefit of a Judicial Trial, who will then consider your Case starting from a clean slate, or de novo (meaning anew of fresh). Since a Judicial Trial is offered, Traffic Tickets do not meet Bills of Attainder standards under Supreme Court guidelines—at least, that is the way the Legislatures believe that they have protected themselves from challenge.”

He concludes:  “…[Y]ou will never, ever get, from any appellate court anywhere in the United States, the on-point published adjudication of your unlicensed motor vehicle operation question in your favor (and I am aware that many Highway Contract Protesters have convinced themselves that they are on the imminent threshold of the ultimate judicial conquest: a published Opinion in their favor). You Highway Contract Protesters are just not in such a strong position that you have convinced yourselves that you are in; your copious Common Law Right to Travel briefs are applicable to a highway factual setting of a tranquil quiescent nature that is nowhere to be found in the United States today.

“Remember that in Nature, contracts, when they are in effect, come first.  Sorry, Protesters, but you are into an invisible contract whenever you accept a benefit someone else conditionally offered and we damage largely ourselves by refusing to Open our Eyes once corrective presentations of error are made to us. And when contracts are in effect, then only the content of the contract is of any relevancy to a Judge—to allow a Judge to go beyond the stipulations of the parties, or to otherwise supersede or vary the contract by Tort Law reasoning, is to have the Judge throw a Tort at the losing party.”

So once again we see that arguments of “right and wrong” based in Tort Law are meaningless in the factual context of adjudicating CONTRACTS. Mercier’s concluding parapgraph for this chapter says BUNCHES:

“Yes, you Highway Contract Protesters out there have some deep soul searching to do. For purposes of experiencing an appellate court victory, you Protesters are actually wasting your time; for purposes of acquiring knowledge of the priority in Nature of invisible contracts governing the settlement of grievances, you… will one day look back and be ever so grateful that you drove yourself to the deep technical depths that you did in search of answers and legal arguments, any arguments, to win your Cases, as unknown to you at that time, that factual knowledge later turned out to be prerequisite to see the invisible Contracts Heavenly Father has on us all from the First Estate, and to understand the Contract Law Jurisprudential setting that will be the Last Day, a Judgment Setting where attractive Tort Law reasoning and correlative defense arguments sounding in the sugar coated deceptively sweet melodies of Tort will not be beneficial.”

As usual throughout his letter, Mr. Mercier placed some very interesting footnotes in this “chapter” of his letter to Mr. May. While a lot of this material is beyond the scope of this synopsis, let’s focus on three particularly interesting footnotes.

Risk Assessment

Mercier states that we are constantly engaged in determinations of risk assessment.

[QUOTING:]

“Gremlins, being the administratively well organized body of vermin workhorses that they are, also thoroughly immerse themselves in precise, well thought out risk assessment model scenarios. This process is normally used in such areas like probing for the probable subject reaction to one more turn of the screws, or in estimating the likelihood of actually achieving, and then getting away with, some desired damages somewhere—some murder, some revolution, or some war, conquest, asset grab, or famine being manufactured someplace.  From the Gremlin perspective, then, risk assessment has to be viewed as another tool in the decision making process to deflect the occurrence of adverse circumstances as what was once a great Gremlin enscrewment plan starts to fall apart for some unexpected reason. Gremlins have had a few words to say about structural risk analysis and assessment (I selected this discourse due to its Highway setting and the political overtones it brings to light):

“...[P]uzzling is the apparently irrational attitude which people have towards environmental hazards...  Some 7,000 people are killed and some 350,000 injured each year on the roads of Britain. Yet this perpetual carnage—nearly 1,000 killed or injured every day—generates no public outrage. ...[Y]ou will find that politicians will be rather chary of imposing a maximum speed limit of 50 miles per hour on all roads where the limit is not already 30 or 40, though if they did, both energy and lives would be saved. Why then don’t they do it? It would not really be difficult to enforce.

“...I shall put the answer politely: Their [GM: risk assessment] judgment... tells them that people would not like it. And then all the other goodies they have in mind for you, less unemployment, less inflation, less taxation, and increasing standard of living, fair shares for all... you name it—might be unrealizable; because, you might say, ‘Maybe we need a change of Government. I want to go faster than 50 miles per hour on all those marvelous motorways I paid for.’

“...The results of risk accounting are surprising...”—Baron Nathaniel Rothschild in the Wall Street Journal (“Coming to Grips with Risk”), page 22 (March 13, 1979).

[Similarly, it is generally known that incorrect medical prescriptions cost more lives each year than all of the automobile accidents AND deaths by firearms COMBINED.]

…For the value placed on the inconvenience involved, is the risk of standing before Father at the Last Day, without having been tried under his New and Everlasting Covenants, worth the probable forfeiture of Celestial benefits? The answer to that Question lies within yourself.

[END QUOTING]

One Morning in Dealey Plaza

This footnote is very lengthy, so let’s just cut right to the point.

[QUOTING:]

A Question surfaced in his mind, followed by another:  Who am I? What am I doing here?, with the first Question fading away quickly with the second soon following suit; he had done enough soul searching for one day, and this whole thing was eating at him too much.  After suppressing expressions of sympathy that he and Nelson would be extending to Jackie on the morrow in a private White House reception—those recurring condolences that he had been rehearsing—Richard Nixon finally cleared his mind of these extraneous thoughts as he slowly turned around and left Dealey Plaza, heading indirectly for Love Airfield.  After placing a phone call to Nelson Rockefeller in New York City, telling him that everything “...is set” and that he is flying back to New York, Richard Nixon would clear out of Dallas two hours before President Kennedy arrived in Dallas after having breakfast in Forth Worth. For factual information on Nixon in Dallas, see generally the Dallas Morning News:

• (“Guard Not for Nixon”), Section 4, page 1 (Friday, November 22, 1963);
• (“Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson”—Press Interview), Section 4, page 1 (has accompanying photograph);
• (“Thunderstorms”—weather), Section 4, page 3 (Friday, November 22, 1963);
• (“Rain Seen for Visit of Kennedy”), page 1 (Thursday, November 21, 1963);
• (“The President”—Editorial), Section 4, page 2 (Friday, November 22, 1963).

Yes, that Question:  Who am I? really did once enter into Richard Nixon’s mind in the idea stream of soul searching that he did on that Friday morning.  If the great Highway Contract Protesters were smart, then unlike Richard Nixon’s accelerated dissipation of difficult Questions his lack of factual knowledge created impediments to comprehending, this is one Question that Protesters should home in on without letup, until an Answer surfaces somewhere. There is no other Question in this Life that could be asked that is more important. Richard Nixon’s error was in chasing the idea away quickly—indicative of the error in judgment he also exercised as an unprincipled opportunist, when he was once invited to jump into bed with Nelson Rockefeller, a judgment that as of 1985 Richard Nixon has quietly both appreciated and regretted making several times over. Yes, Richard Nixon got that right: Us little peasants do in fact hold the upper hand in ways invisible to Gremlins, imps and their water boys: Being the clumsy, ignorant, dumb, stupid, uncluttered and unmotivated simple little goy cattle that we are, at least we haven’t forfeited the Celestial Kingdom by murdering other people.

[END QUOTING]

Thoughts Seed, Precede Acts

[QUOTING:]

…Yes, correct reasoning is very important to acquire down here, and there is a very good reason why this is so: because how we think today governs our acts tomorrow. This Principle operates as a function of the memory judgment-making machinery in our minds, an important Principle that Lucifer once deeply regretted violating in the First Estate, as he once continuously tossed aside and ignored Father’s seemingly insignificant little advisories:

“Thoughts are the seeds of acts, and precede them. Mere compliance with the word of the Lord, without a corresponding inward desire, will avail little.  Indeed, such outward actions and pretending phrases may disclose hypocrisy, a sin that Jesus [Immanuel] vehemently condemned.

“...The Savior’s constant desire and effort were to implant in the mind right thoughts, pure motives, noble ideas, knowing full well that right words and actions would eventually follow. He taught what modern physiology and psychology confirm—that hate, jealousy, and other evil passions destroy a man’s physical vigor and efficiency. ‘They pervert his mental perceptions and render him incapable of resisting the temptation to commit acts of violence. They undermine his moral health. By insidious stages they transform the man who cherishes them into a criminal.’

“…I am trying to emphasize that each one is the architect of his own fate, and he is unfortunate, indeed, who will try to build himself without the inspiration of God, without realizing that he grows from within, not from without.  (Yes, just like that Silver Bullet that Protesters are also looking for—it too lies within yourselves.)”—David O. McKay in Conference Reports (“The Need for Right Thinking”), at page 6 (October, 1951).

[END QUOTING]

As we near the end of this amazing “letter” from George Mercier to Mr. May, I am sure the reader will agree that the presentation of this material has been worthwhile—NOT because it provides any kind of a “Silver Bullet” to allow us to be left alone and in peace but because it shows us very clearly how the abrogation of individual responsibility, en masse, has led to the current condition of near-absolute inability to remove ourselves from enslavement.

Our only real freedom lies in our connection to our Creator.