The Residency Contract

Please note that although this is the “final chapter” in terms of this synopsis, it is not the final chapter in Mercier’s letter to Mr. May, which concludes with a section relating to the myriad invisible contracts that bind us to the King, many of which are not covered in the first twelve chapters, entitled “An Endless List” and is followed by the “Epilogue”. These final two installments are simply not available at present in the public domain of the Internet and are likely to be superfluous to the knowledge already imparted.

Since the fraudulent bankruptcy of the United States in 1933, the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been entirely suborned by the Law Merchant (the law of contracts or Uniform Commercial Code) and almost all adjudication of law occurs under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This is because the King is presumed to be the First Party in all commercial contractual settings—and everything is now considered to be “in commerce”.

In the marriage contract, for instance, the parties being wed might tend to think that this is a contract between themselves as individuals with God Creator as third party—or first party—BUT the actual “legal” contract is between the King as First Party and the husband and wife as secondary parties.

Because Admiralty can only deal with fictions of law, the contract is between the fictitious STATE on the one hand and the fictitious JOHN DOE and JANE ROE on the other hand. Thus, when baby JOHNNY DOE comes along as the fruit of the marriage, the wondrous child itself is property of the state.  The use of all-caps names signifies corporate fictions. Meanwhile, the human beings known as John and Jane Doe become the surety for the contract because “legally” there exists a “unity of interest” between JOHN DOE and John Doe and between JANE ROE and Jane Roe.

What is important to understand is that the Law of the Land is now the Uniform Commercial Code or law of contracts. The tort-based concepts of right and wrong no longer apply; all that matters is whether or not a “person” acts within the acceptable parameters of contract law. This contract law is expressed in Publicly Noticed statutes, so there is no reason for you not to be aware of what the law IS.

Mercier’s patient explanation of INVISIBLE contracts is a “revelation”.  We can now see how it is that FAILURE TO OPPOSE ERROR CONSTITUTES APPROVAL AND FAILURE TO DEFEND THE TRUTH CONSTITUTES ITS SUPPRESSION. Yes, and “Tolerance of evil is no virtue.”

The bottom line: An invisible contract exists anytime a benefit, conditionally offered, is accepted—even when such acceptance amounts to no more than tacit consent (ratification of the contract by failure to object).

Clever rule-making has ensured that everyone is subject to the King. If you have a bank account or a credit card, drive a car, get married, put a child into a public school, work as an employee, are an entrepreneur, travel outside the country, travel on the King’s highways, sue or defend a suit, apply for food stamps or any other benefit provided by the King, call the police to protect you from another one of the King’s subjects, use Federal Reserve Notes for your personal (individual) benefit, are involved in any insurance contract, lease or own any property, derive any personal commercial benefit or avail yourself of any product or service made available by the King’s favor, if you vote—have we left anyone out?—then you are deriving a benefit provided by the King.

Every tacit acceptance of a benefit offered by the King conditionally binds us in an invisible contract and makes us subject to the King’s Publicly Noticed statutes, the “laws of man”.

All of the laws that mankind NEEDS are contained in the 118 pages of Phoenix Journal #27: the Phoenix Operator-/-Owner Manual. [Many journals are still available through Phoenix Source Distributors: 1-800-800-5565. The Journals can be viewed online at www.PhoenixSourceDistributors.com.]

The laws of man (the King’s laws), however, are contrary to Natural Law in that their very purpose is to enslave mankind. There are so many laws now that no man can so much as read them all—and yet, “Ignorance is no excuse.” And so it is no wonder that “the land of the free” has become “the home of the enslaved” and has more people in prison on a per-capita basis than any other nation in the world.  And it should be no wonder any longer exactly HOW the REPUBLIC of the united states has become, instead, the fascist (corporate-controlled) UNITED STATES, a corporation of which most readers are mere members, while the ruling-class are corporate officers and directors.

If we shall be so fortunate as to have the chance to repair the situation, perhaps the Global Constitution should begin with the over-arching “restrainment” that any law of man that is contrary to Natural Law is automatically void. Only in this way can we ensure that all law springs from the sovereignty of each individual.

In this chapter, George Mercier covers the residency contract: Wherever you reside, you derive some conditional benefit from the state and some reciprocity is expected. That reciprocity is defined in the Publicly Noticed statutes of the state in which you reside.

[QUOTING:]

The Residency Contract

Another invisible contract that is difficult to see is the Residency Contract. By being “resident” within a particular Kingdom for a certain length of time, it is presumed that you have accepted those juristic benefits which that regional Prince of yours is offering you.  If the benefits are legitimate, then the reciprocity your regional Prince expects back from you in the form of a state income tax, is very reasonable…

The basic power of taxation is an attribute of Sovereignty, and is inherent in every Government unless explicitly denied or limited by its Constitution…. Properly rephrased, what that means is that the jurisdiction of Government (remember during this Residency Contract discussion, I am only talking about the several States) to first throw benefits at folks, and then in turn demand and get reciprocal taxation compensation back in return for having done so, is simply unlimited—unless the Juristic Institution in its constitutional structure has been explicitly restrained (limited) from asking for reciprocity back in return….

So the place to disable a State’s expectations of reciprocity has its seminal point of origin in the Juristic Institution’s own Charter—and an examination of your regional Prince’s Charter will reveal that not very much reciprocity restrainment exists there, if any.

As this background legal setting applies to us, Residents are objects accepting juristic benefits, and so now Residents are persons over which the State has reciprocal expectations of taxation jurisdiction…

Now we ask ourselves the usual question: Just what benefits are being thrown at us this time, in order to justify one more juristic layer of taxation?

As a point of beginning, Residents accept the benefits offered by State Constitutions. The fact that a state conducts certain programs for its Residents does not mean that these benefits are available to all who live within its borders…

Generally speaking, State Residents are State Citizens; and Citizens, as members of the State body politic, possess election rights of suffrage.

Another benefit inuring to State Residents is the protectorate operation of the State Police Powers.

By the use [of] this power, a wide ranging array of benefits can be thrown at folks in justification for the enforcement of the reciprocal demands of taxation. But in addressing the Residency Question itself, which is a sister to Citizenship, two Cases come to my mind:

In Cook vs. Tait, which is primarily a Citizenship Contract Case, the Supreme Court ruled that income received by a Citizen of the United States while resident in Mexico is taxable due to benefits received while outside of the United States. (The old acceptance of benefits story: When benefits offered conditionally have been accepted, there lies a contract and it becomes immoral not to require a mandatory exchange of reciprocity). The Court then listed those benefits that American Citizens carried with them no matter what their geographical situs was.

In Shaffer vs. Carter, a Resident of Illinois was experiencing income from property he owned in Oklahoma.  It was held that Oklahoma can tax non-Residents on their property located within the Oklahoma boundary situs, and the reason is that protective benefits were accepted by that Oklahoma property [and so we see that even “property” can somehow accept benefits] and so the state is entitled to a part of the financial gain that property realized (which is also a correct statement of Nature, although the Supreme Court did not use those words.)

The taxation key in both of those Cases was the acceptance of benefits.

Viewed from a Judge’s perspective, what this means is that it is permissible for a political jurisdiction to throw some benefits at you, and then demand, and get, some quid pro quo financial compensation in return for having done so. In this respect, due to Sovereignty, Governments differ from Individuals in the respect that Individuals have to document with evidence the voluntary acceptance of a benefit (of which silence, by the Ratification Doctrine, can be reasonably inferred in some circumstances) from someone else before bringing that other person to his knees in a Courtroom; Government, however, simply throws benefits at everyone at large, and the acceptance of the benefit by silence is automatically assumed absent explicit, blunt and timely benefit rejection and disavowal by you. The several States as independent Sovereignties also possess this inherent power, except as limited by the United States Constitution. [The Constitution, however, was all about how sovereignty supposedly devolved upon the “people”, NOT upon corporate fictions such as the various state and federal governments.]

And so as it applies to occupancy, Residency Status is very much a privilege in the sense that contracts are in effect; by your silence, after taking occupancy in some Prince’s kingdom, you attached a reasonable expectation of using the Prince’s police protectorate powers, among taking advantage of other juristic benefits; and so now state statutes that define a reciprocal taxation liability being expected back in return after you have lived in that kingdom for some 60 to 90 days, or whatever, and then continues liability attachment unless you have been out of his kingdom for more than six months in any one year, etc. are all morally correct and provident.

By your silence, benefits offered conditionally by your regional Prince were accepted by you through your refusal to disavow them, so invisible contracts were then and there created by your acts (your act of refusing to reject and disavow the juristic benefit).

Therefore, State Income Tax Protestors, who merely make the declaration, while in the midst of some type of state income tax enforcement proceeding, that they “are not residents” or are not “state citizens” are wasting their time.

…Your Residency Contract is not unilaterally terminated by your mere declaration that you are not a Resident; contractual termination has to occur for a good substantive reason.  One such reason would be Failure of Consideration (meaning that you explicitly and timely rejected all state and municipal benefits). Now that there has been a failure of benefit transference, now you have a substantive attack to make on the assertion of a Residency Contract on you. Your objective is to terminate the contract.

…You must address the Contract question head on, that by the act of your silence a Residency Contract was entered into, and you must come to grips with that fact.

The local state tax collector did not receive any Notice of your Rejection of Benefits, so his assertion of a reciprocal tax against you is provident, up to a limited point. And so winning, on point, will be predicated upon your correctly addressing the existence of the contract in arguments for what it really is, and then attacking the content substantively on the hard mandatory requirement of benefit enjoyment (which does not exist in your Case due to Failure of Consideration), a defense line that causes contracts so deficient in Consideration to fall apart and collapse under attack in adversary judicial proceedings.

When trying to get out of a contract where one of the parties is a Juristic Institution, a few low-level Trial Judges will find your position to be novel and philosophically uncomfortable, and so you should brace yourself for some snortations descending down to the floor of the Courtroom from the Bench.  I did not realize this at first, but some Judges are actually jealous of people turning around so smoothly walking away from a juristic taxation contract; the Judge went to Law School, and then possibly went to work for a law firm, and then they were called to be a Judge; in their minds they look back and see all that money they threw out the window to Government year after year only to wind up in the pockets of some Special Interest Group, and here you are, actually getting away with what they did not know how to do themselves, and what is nowhere documented in statutes.

[END QUOTING]

Now that we have reached the end of this synopsis we should be finding some understanding as to how it is that we have ended up in the mess in which we find ourselves, with corrupt, criminally minded parasites infecting the organs of our societies globally:  It was accomplished by OUR AGREEMENT(S).  WE HAVE TACITLY ALLOWED UTTER FRAUD TO PREVAIL AND ARE NOW CONTRACTUALLY BOUND TO UPHOLD IT. Isn’t it nice to know, however, that there is no statute of limitations on FRAUD?

WE HAVE AN “INVISIBLE CONTRACT” WITH OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, TOO, AND PART OF THAT CONTRACT IS THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO WISELY DISCERN ALL BEHAVIORS AND ACTIONS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF GOD AND THE CREATION.

A Global Solution

So, what is the solution?  Now that we are in “it” up to our eyeballs, is there any way out? GOD ALWAYS PROVIDES A WAY and whenever the humans of this planet are ready to accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions, a Global Solution is “ready, willing and able” for use—even as documented in the pages of this newspaper (and the Phoenix Journals) for the last 17 years.

In its current form, this Program is referenced as “GAIA-FDN”. In its final form, we have been told, the average individual might not even realize HOW the world changed, only that it changed most markedly for the better around this time.

We must benefit from that which we have experienced (“learn our lessons”) in order to make a better world. Certainly by now we should have learned most everything necessary to build something MUCH better from the ashes of what came before. That, of course, is what the Phoenix is all about.

Will the world to come reflect the bleak future horrors so thoroughly portrayed in Hollywoood’s presentations? Somehow, we think God has something better in store for an awakening mankind. It is, as always,for us to CHOOSE and CREATE.

No matter what form of “ism” the world’s political system comes to emulate (“republicanism” and capitalism” would work just fine), it must be based on complete respect for the sovereignty of each individual.  With such respect for the individual there can be no slavery as is rampant in the world today.  We must never again get to a point where concepts of good and evil are discarded in favor of arbitrary boundaries established by “laws of man”.

“It will be exactly as we create it to be.” [END]