Government Enforcement

As we study George Mercier’s presentation we must keep in mind that it was written in 1985, a couple of decades ago. The world has changed as much in the last twenty years as it did in the fifty years prior to 1985 (going back to the “bankruptcy” of the United States in 1933). The outline was pretty much all in place but not yet fully fleshed. Mercier’s posture was at least theoretically tenable then—but no more. Today we see that rule of law gives way quickly to force of law whenever it suits the string-pullers behind the scenes.

All it took to justify wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq was a “legal opinion” and never mind the basic principle that pre-emptive war is unlawful.  (No doubt some kind of invisible contracts could be presumed to be in effect, for certainly each of these nations and their leaders had numerous benefits arising from agreements, even if only derived by tacit consent.)

Similarly, the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines BACKED the most grievous breach of law that was Edsa II, at least condoning forceful usurpation of the presidency and the Constitution (to the benefit of Gloria Arroyo and her puppet-masters). Now the Supreme Court backs the government’s right to use military force to prevent the people from “peaceably assembling” (to the benefit of Gloria Arroyo and her puppet-masters). Did the law somehow change somewhere along the way? No, it’s the same set of laws, just with different application. Thus, today the real President, Erap Estrada (whose popular mandate would probably to this day far exceed that of his replacement) is incarcerated—while the de facto “President” Arroyo uses the people’s own resources to literally steal the election and runs the Philippines for the benefit of her string-pullers, “all nice and legal-like”.

It is hard to get a fix on where we are unless we know from whence we have come. By the end of this series it is hoped that the reader will be able to answer the question: How did we get into this awful predicament? And perhaps more importantly as we move into a hoped-for Age of Reason: How can we benefit from the experience and avoid these results in the future?

As we shall see in this section, “the right to sue and to be sued” is a judicial benefit.  Yes, the very use of judicial process—suing or defending against a suit—is a benefit provided by the King and the use of this benefit, if only to defend oneself, makes one subject to the King’s Admiralty Law.

[QUOTING:]

Government Enforcement of Contracts
The ‘Benefit’ of Suing and Being Sued

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.  [“General Jurisdiction” implies that the King is the Third Party, as the grantor of benefits.] In a somewhat similar way, Judges have given the King automatic jurisdiction over everything within the geographical perimeters of his Kingdom. 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. [However, many contracts today, in 2004, use exactly such a provision.] 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.

Contempt of Court

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, [than] 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.

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….

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. 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.

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.

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?

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 [indefinitely—until the money is paid] (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 [State] offers.

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.

If, for example, you are a medical doctor with Accounts Receivable 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… is not relevant; what is relevant is that… the defaulting Party went into that Contract with the knowledge that 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.

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?

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? 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

So I might suggest to those “Common Law” Protesters out there that they explore the possibility of re-evaluating their protesting relational status with their regional Prince, as they erroneously and immorally try to weasel, twist and squirm their way around the reciprocal taxation liability due in return back to Government, as Protesters try and deflect the attention of their police power enforcement benefits grab off to the side by not quoting from legislative statutes; for if I were a Judge presiding over your State Income Tax incarceration ceremonies, I too would order your commitment to a cage: The Protester accepted the special Government protectorate benefit offered to exclude unauthorized intellectual property distribution—the fact that the Protester used only the Judicial Branch to protect his intellectual property by Noticing out a “Common Law” Copyright, and not the Legislative and Judicial Branches combined by citing statutes, does not vitiate anyone’s adhesive reciprocal liability for either financial compensation taxation or perhaps Enfranchisement expectations retained by Juristic Institutions.