Third Party Interference with a Contract

Toward Personal Sovereignty

At this point it seems necessary to address a common refrain arising from those who seem resigned to endure their enslavement under the artifice of statutory law, which could be summed up like this: “Any and all efforts at personal sovereignty are doomed to failure because you may be right in terms of lawfulness but end up ‘dead right’ in terms of legality.” While many have apparently ended up “dead right” (but were they right?), the preceding conclusion that there is no way out does not sit right.

I do not believe that God leaves us no way out of our enslavement. Yes, many have tried and to my knowledge no one (other than possibly Mercier himself and any other very low-profile individuals who actually understood what he wrote and put it into practice in toto) has yet succeeded in restoring personal sovereignty—but it MUST BE POSSIBLE. How are we to “get there” unless we use our critical reasoning to explore the possibilities?

Thus, this presentation is an exploration of the potential for recovering sovereignty at the level of the individual, which is surely a worthy and desirable objective. Without personal sovereignty, “resistance is futile” and in due course we would probably have to endure the increasingly comprehensive implementation and enforcement of Talmudic Law. Remember, Noahide Law as revered in Public Law 102-14 (1991) prescribes the penalty of decapitation for any gentile in breach of the law. Different laws and rules of judgment apply to non-gentiles, who are to be the ruling class.  Don’t know what the Noahide Laws are? “Ignorance is no excuse,” so you’d better go look them up if you want to know what’s on the agenda.

Operating under the assumption that the status quo shall not be maintained in God’s Millennium, we should think in terms of re-establishing correct law. To be correct, man’s law must recognize and devolve from the sovereignty of each individual—NOT from the supposed “higher” status of the head of government or King by any other name because ALL ARE ONE AND EACH IS EQUAL.

Common law gave rise to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights owing to the colonists’ abhorrence of the King’s rule. Starting from Amendment 11, however, each new constitutional amendment has helped to put in place plank after plank of the Communist Manifesto. Now it is obvious that we have come full circle—through abrogation of the personal sovereignty we ought to possess—and once again find ourselves under the heels of the King (by any other name).

A good start to restructuring the legal system would be repudiation of all amendments subsequent to the Bill of Rights, with the possible exception being the original Amendment 13 (which forbade individuals with titles of nobility, such as esquire, from holding public office). Can you imagine the hundreds of thousands of laws that could be set aside? Can you imagine the FREEDOM that would bring?

If a single individual could regain personal sovereignty, that sovereignty is no less than the sovereignty of a KING.  The King has bigger guns? Then let’s not be so foolish as to fight him with guns—the Sword of Truth is far more powerful.

Could a truly sovereign individual assert his agreement to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why not? Would any legitimate court try to stop such an individual? Really? Do you really think that the Supreme Court wants to be compelled to rule on such fundamental issues when a truly sovereign individual stands before them? As Mercier explains in this chapter:

“…[S]ophisticated attorneys who work for the King know that it is often best to drop a prosecution, sans gene, in a low level Administrative or Trial setting, rather than raise the presentation threshold level of the grievance to senior judicial appellate forums and risk an adverse appellate opinion on appeal that might benefit others, even if unreported.”

He restates this position in a footnote, as well:

“Always remember that Gremlins merely take advantage of what is handed to them, and will back off when the knife encounters a bone instead of more flesh; this is a Principle pronounced over and over again in ecclesiastical settings, as Lucifer is identified as a clever adversary specializing in taking prime advantages of weaknesses.”

The problem seems to be that no man has dared to assert his personal sovereignty—but the tricksters have had any such efforts INVISIBLY blocked, as George Mercier explains so clearly.  If these invisible adhesion contracts can be seen for what they are and properly VOIDED (due to FRAUD), there could be no further (legal) obstruction of the sovereign on his way to the Supreme Court short of settlement of the issues at lower levels of the judiciary.

Did George Mercier present us with “the” (only necessary) key to personal sovereignty? Is this knowledge “a” key (one of multiple necessary keys)?  That is for each to decide based on personal discernment, in the light of full personal responsibility, as the warning in the header of each installment in this series clearly states.

Moving along with the synopsis of the “letter” to Mr. May, this chapter addresses the issue of how the interference of an outside party does not alter the terms of a contract.

[QUOTING:]

Third Party Interference with a Contract

In a Contract Law Judgment setting, questions sounding in the Tort of unfairness regarding the interference of a person not a party to a contract in causing a person who is a party to a contract not to honor his contract [are] irrelevant, as I will explain later on; and so when cries of unfairness wallow up at the Judgment Day, as claims of unfairness will be heard in having had Lucifer’s low key assistants hacking away at us down here, those cries will then be in vain, as the unfairness in Contract Law of outside interference in contract administration is irrelevant in measuring contract performance itself.  For example, the fact that an Employer terminated your livelihood, and you subsequently experienced a cessation of money coming in, and so that now you are unable to pay your apartment lease payments, is irrelevant in a Tenant Eviction Proceeding.  Either you have paid your rent as the Lease Contract calls for, or you haven’t. Even though the secondary effect of your livelihood being terminated directly restrained you from honoring your Lease Contract due to a lack of money, your Employer is not a party to that apartment Lease Contract, so what your Employer did or did not do is not relevant in a leasehold Eviction Proceeding. That is Contract Law Jurisprudence; it’s cold, mean, and it isn’t really very “fair”—so now addressing that face on, we should start to negotiate our personal business contracts on terms we can live with, rather than snicker at Judges when we are in default later on. Remember the reason why “fairness” is not relevant in a contract grievance: because if judges allowed “fairness,” so called, to enter into one side of the grievance and benefit one party, the effect of the entrance of such “fairness” into the evidentiary setting presented to the Judge for a ruling, will always work a Tort on the other party. What is the correct solution?  Ignore all claims for “fairness” and just enforce the contract. Cold, brutal, mean, harsh? Yes—but proper. Rather than snicker at Judges at that late date well after you are in default, you might want to address the origin of your problem:  You entered into a contract you could not handle under a worst case scenario (worst case meaning loss of livelihood).

And those are the kinds of very narrow and precise lines that we need to think in, in understanding Contract Law.  You may very well have legitimate mitigating circumstances to justify why you could not honor a contract—but it is an Election of Remedies for the Party that you are in default to, to decide what he intends to do with you, and it is not anything for an enforcement judge to take notice of.

[END QUOTING]

Throughout this chapter Mercier makes numerous references to our contracts with our Heavenly Father. His general argument is that Tort Law reasoning is inapplicable in relations with God and that only each individual’s specific contract is relevant.  Natural Law is unbending and constant.

This makes some sense, since transgression of Natural Law leads to painful lessons, as we all can attest.  These are natural consequences often viewed as penalties, Nature’s “retort” to our “tort” of erroneous behavior, “the wrath of God” or “God’s Guidance”.  On the other hand, when we adhere to our contracts with Creator it is amazing how quickly and easily our troubles are remedied. Watching the mind bogglingly sudden evolvement of the world-changing GAIA Program provides striking proof of this truth.

The Common Law sought to mold itself around the principles of Nature.  Under Common Law, a tort occurs in a setting where harm is done and no valid contract governs the egregious conduct.  Where a valid contract governs the conduct of the parties, such contracts are adjudicated according to the terms of the agreement, which must be entered into knowingly, willingly and voluntarily.

Whether under the Common Law or under the Law Merchant (UCC, Admiralty Law and the like), a well crafted contract is designed to give advantage to the one offering the contract (“just sign here”).

[QUOTING:]

This then is the Grand Key towards understanding why people want contracts out of you: because that contract you gave them gives them the right to deal with you effectively at a later time…  In the case of the King, he too wants contracts out of us to accomplish his revenue raising objectives, and then later enforceable against us under threat of incarceration otherwise not permissible absent a Commercial contract…  In a contemporary Commercial setting, merchants, lending institutions, landlords, etc. all want recourse contracts out of you so they can deal effectively with you at a later time in Summary Judgment proceedings should there be a default.

Those who want to go forth and fill the measure of their creation, just like Prophets and Patriarchs, need to go out and get some replacement Contracts with Father; the status of a person being a Prophet or Apostle down here does not exalt them or confer upon them any special entitlement, as everyone is exalted by reason of their Covenants with Father, and their status as Prophets are actually an administrative work assignment for them.

You don’t need to be a Prophet, or raise people from the dead, or be endowed with Celestial magic to snap your fingers and heal people of cancer, in order to go forth and fill the measure of your creation, but you do need to fulfill difficult Contracts.

Which leads us to the conclusory observation regarding the overall wisdom of ignoring the terms and conditions of contracts we sometimes improvidently get ourselves into: that people who are well seasoned experientially realize that although ignorance may very well be bliss in the dreamy Alice in Wonderland emotional aura it psychologically creates, this line on Contract Law Jurisprudence is exemplary as to why ignorance is also highly self-damaging in the practical setting.

Yes, the benefits inuring to persons entering into and honoring Father’s New and Everlasting Covenant are so great that the judgment of folks trying to search for ways to work around it (by either adapting Tort Law reasoning… or by adapting a posture of avoiding responsibility through claims of factual ignorance), really looks pathetic by comparison.

And speaking of ignorance (and of staying in ignorance by choice): An interesting secondary element surfaces in the Restraining Order and the chronologically correlative criminal prosecution of Armen Condo. Not only did Armen Condo not honor his contracts with the King, he did not even know of their existence.

This state of affairs of throwing criminal prosecutions against people who do not even know of the evidentiary existence of a contract the King is operating on, has been under consideration and review by the King’s Agents in Washington. Staff members in the Treasury Department have been analyzing the possible benefits and consequences to the King if, in the justification of the Income Tax, the IRS were to shift over to a correct presentation of the Law, in the context of proper and natural morality and ethics, based on a voluntary attachment of Equity Jurisdiction, and applicable only to a special class of people.  At the present time, the IRS presentation of the Law, in explaining why an Income Tax is to be paid, continuously shifts attention over to the 16^th Amendment, and kind of winds up by saying that:

“...well, we collect the tax from every one because the 16^th Amendment tells us we need to.”

You may be surprised to hear this somewhat pleasant note, but there is internal disagreement within the Treasury Department on the long-term wisdom of such an erroneous presentation of the Law. And both Armen Condo and Irwin Schiff are prime exemplary models to explain this interesting change in viewpoint now in intellectual gestation within the senior administrative rank and file of the King’s own tax collectors. In Treasury staff meetings ever since the early 1970s, there has been concern expressed regarding the growing Tax Resistance Movement, so called.

Senior staff members have known about this Movement well in advance, back to the early 1950s, and it was very clear to them at that time in the 1950s what we now are seeing all around us: open and growing resistance and defiance to the assertion of tax collection authority by the King.

Back in the 1950s, statisticians in the Treasury Department, in their long-range (10, 20 and 30 year) revenue/budget projection plots, saw that the combination of both inflation and the percentage progressive Income Tax would, in just a few decades, be pushing just the average worker into highly aggressive tax levels of up to 50%.

In the 1950s, those workers had then been paying just a small percentage.  It was known at that time that there would be public concern of the growth from those low taxation rates in practical effect then, to the substantially higher tax rates expected in the future, and that this public concern would grow increasingly with each passing year. And it was expected that the thrust of the public concern that was out in the open, would be of the basic legitimacy of the Income Tax itself, and that such concern would have a strong current under it due to its percentage progressive nature that would accelerate into such noticeable levels when inflation was strong for several years in a row; so much so that even ordinarily blind, disinterested, naive and politically benign people would then perk up and take interest; and even businessmen would start to slough off, rather than give away their hard earned income stream to termites. With the annual increment in Inflation, the public’s questioning of the general illegitimacy of the Income Tax would be incremented with each passing year, as it was expected that the public would notice that although greater taxes are being paid, no additional benefits or commensurate services were being experienced or being returned by the King in one year to the next. This illegitimacy angle was expected to be a “center of gravity” in the public’s view, since the general public is unaware of the ethical and moral basis of the Excise Income Tax, and of an attachment of Equity Jurisdiction involved (in other words, the King can demand and get anything from 0% to 100% in Equity and be morally correct, because your participation with him in accepting his benefits in Commercial Equity is purely voluntary, and so any amount of gain you acquired in King’s Commerce is gain that you would not otherwise have). That attachment of King’s Equity Jurisdiction always precedes the liability for the tax. And so it has been expected for some time that the United States would one day experience the most extreme and intolerable levels of income confiscation ever known to Americans: without any reciprocity by the King, without any apparent quid pro quo of incremental increase in benefits to be experienced from one year to the next, and without any justification at all for the annual percentage incrementation in tax extraction. These projection plots were not deemed to be of very high priority at that time back in the 1950s, but the results and findings were circulated among some administrative personnel and they eventually made it over to two Congressional committees.  Under the Treasury Department’s projection models and plots, it was predicted that open defiance would come some day as such expected aggressive tax levels are simply not bearable by average folks, previously quiescent, who would then start to question the legitimacy of the tax itself.

The catalytic effect of such aggressive tax levels would be the deprivation of the ability of such average folks to provide minimum necessities for themselves, such as housing and food. One of the questions that was hypothetically addressed in the accompanying report is the concern the Treasury had of the general institutionalized acceptance of “Tax Protesting” by the public.  Like the widespread flaunting of the assertion of the King’s law during Prohibition, a little resistance and a few flare-ups can be managed well in the early stages with some well publicized spankings, but a lot of resistance later on produces Jury Nullification, widespread administrative non-cooperation, secondary disrespect for the Law in general, a growing underground economy, as well as numerous other technical problems. In the present discussions that are now going on in Washington, there is a minority viewpoint being developed that suggests the possibility that it might be worthwhile for the United States to consider exploring the feasibility of heading off the impending blossoming Resistance by preventative means, and one possible way to do that would be by having the IRS justify the tax along ethically specific and morally correct reasons, and on grounds harmonious with Natural Law, involving citing just the Commerce Clause, equity benefits and contracts (bank accounts, direct beneficial interest, adhesion, equity, employment, political, and state Juristic Personalities), and to emphasize that only special individuals in these classes who want these special juristic benefits have any liability at all for the King’s Equity participation tax on incomes.  Such an officially sanctioned justification would strip away the veil of illegitimacy that now permeates the Income Tax among many people, and would show to all the immoral position of Armen Condo and Irwin Schiff, as those two were caught defiling themselves by dishonoring contracts they had with the King. The consequences of this reversal of IRS public justification would be manifold:

1. First, it would discredit people like Irwin Schiff and Armen Condo, who have propagated legally defective tax related information around the countryside.  Appearing on television and selling large numbers of books, these people develop a cult following (if cult is the word) and contribute to the institutionalization of public acceptance of defying the King, and their cult continues to grow even though the information they propagate is misleading and technically defective, and will collapse in front of a Federal Judge;

2. Tax revenues would decrease a bit in the near term as some people shift their Status around to avoid being a Taxpayer;

3. Tax revenues would increase a bit as the immoral and unethical position of Tax Protestors is frowned on, rather than cheered on by courtroom supporters; and the resentment against paying a high percentage tax would cease;

4. The underground economy, so called, would partially disappear, as black markets in any commodity can only exist to escape the forced intervention of Government that creates unnatural pricing. (Bolshevik planners who have reasoned that the underground economy will disappear altogether with their planned cashless society, with all financial transactions reported to the IRS, are in error);

5. Tax revenues would increase in the long run, as most of those folks who suddenly got rid of their bank accounts and other attachments of King’s Equity to save money found out that the loss of income, benefits, cutoff from Commerce, deprivation of mortgage and loan availability, and other adverse secondary effects just wasn’t worth it. This is now happening on a small scale with some commercially oriented enterprising type Patriots who are re-entering the highways of Commerce and signing up with the King again (but this time under careful circumstances).

6. Near-term revenues would increase as Taxpayers who now view the tax as either wrong, immoral, or illegitimate and then claim excessive deductions would be hesitant to do so when the moral position is shifted around and now it’s their failure to pay their full share that is a serious act of self-defilement on their part.

It is the opinion of staff members that although this is an interesting model to consider, its revenue generating strength for the King lies in the correction of wholesale public perception of the King being wrong and working immoral acts on the countryside. Since a majority of Americans still do not perceive of things being this way at the present time, this revenue enhancement and Tax Resistance termination model is best kept on the back shelf, for a while.

The value in this story is the knowledge that the King’s Tax Collectors in Washington are not the intellectually lethargic and dim-witted bureaucrats some people make them out to be. They are constantly polling public opinion and testing for factual knowledge, to see what they can get away with. They are brilliant and they know exactly what they are doing at all times. So too, the IRS knows exactly what it is doing, just like the King. And its present policy of justifying the tax based on a phony hybrid composite blend of top-down universal Civil Law and 16^th Amendment grounds is in place for just one reason: because at the present time it is to the King’s financial advantage to do so, due to baneful public ignorantia juris.  (But remember the King propagates this erroneous justification because of the institutionalized political banality of most Americans. Reverse the banality and the King will very likely reverse himself). I have a hunch that the King’s reversal will be virtually automatic when the time is right. He closely monitors public opinion, and he is careful in his public pronouncements.

So all factors considered, it is unlikely that the King would not switch public tax justification positions where it is to his own self-enrichment financial advantage to do so.

Just as there is deception and [there are] lies in the conveyance justification being offered to Americans for an unreasonably sized chunk of their wealth, month in and month out, year in and year out without any let up in sight, so too was the Income Tax justified on fraudulent terms by Congressmen who, just like the King’s Senior Tax Collectors today, had a pure and perfect picture of their magnum Torts of deception and lies. Yes, if you were to believe Congressmen trying to push the 1913 Income Tax Act through Congress, the world was simply crying out, insisting, and even strongly demanding that they be taxed, fleeced, and thoroughly looted. But if that statement from George Hull is not enough to turn your stomach, then perhaps some other previous statements, emanating from the floor of the Congress in support of the Wilson Tariff Act of 1894 (which contained an Income Tax rider—the Income Tax bill would not pass the Congress by itself), which present a flowery wonderland promised to us all, if only we were just taxed more heavily, just damaged more intensely, and deprived of just more wealth through one more turn of the screws, is just strong enough to make someone choke.

The King’s policy of keeping the ratio between the Income Tax bracket and the percentage tax demanded where it is, is because it lies just below the threshold toleration level, although not precisely so.  The King’s Agents are constantly surveying us folks out here in the countryside to see how many of us are in what tax bracket, so the King can reassess how much more tax confiscation can be extracted from us without an unmanageable revolt.

It is the possible likelihood that this threshold toleration level would be overpassed and broken that concerns certain senior bureaucrats in Washington, who are wise to the practical secondary consequences such a passing of the threshold limit would create. The meaning of this concern is perhaps best understood by the 1979 analogy of the oil pricing decisions made by Saudi Arabia’s Oil Minister, Sheik Admed Yamani.  The Sheik’s adamant refusal to raise Saudi crude oil prices above the $40 per barrel limit in the face of such rare and unusually strong world wide petroleum demand puzzled many observers.

From the viewpoint of some folks, the Sheik was passing up on a golden opportunity to cream in some extra bucks while the oil boom lasted across those several months. To other observers of the passing scene, the Sheik was a friend of the United States, and was just a good, kind, caring, public welfare oriented person who simply had the world’s best interests in his heart as he refused to raise prices any higher.  But the real reason why Sheik Yamani was trying to keep the oil prices artificially low is the same reason why the Congress has fixed the Income Bracket/Percentage Tax ratios for the Income Tax at their present levels: because raising oil prices to levels above a threshold toleration level then equal to higher priced alcohol would cause the universal shift to alcohol and other non-crude oil based substitutes, and so oil would then not be purchased at all in the future; just like more aggressive Income Tax levels would cause folks to simply abandon taxes altogether, thus leaving the King with nothing from these folks (as I mentioned that some Tax Collectors have been concerned about since the 1950s). And that is the great art of pricing in business: keeping prices competitively high, but just below the threshold level of rejection.

No relationship to cost, no relationship to benefits received, no relationship to hard intrinsic value.  Just pricing based on Enscrewment (a similar conclusion reached by others just cited in the footnote, but they use their own proprietary language that removes identification of the moral orientation (for good or evil) in the actors. As for pricing within the interior of shared monopoly cartels—this is why sophisticated pricing strategists know that charging the highest momentary price the market will support is not necessarily the best thing to do for yourself: You may win that battle under unusual circumstances, but loose the long term war for several different secondary reasons. And our King, with his monopoly, is no different in either motivation or strategy.  And that concern about likely rejection by ex-Taxpayers is also the same reason why sophisticated attorneys who work for the King know that it is often best to drop a prosecution, sans gene, in a low level Administrative or Trial setting, rather than raise the presentation threshold level of the grievance to senior judicial appellate forums and risk an adverse appellate opinion on appeal that might benefit others, even if unreported.

Like the Sub-Threshold Pricing Enscrewment Model in Commerce, there is also a Sub-Threshold Prosecution Enscrewment Model in effect in the corridors of Government as well, as the Judiciary is used latently by prosecutors in ways to help enrich the King. Incidentally, the Rothschilds and their ideological mentor, Karl Marx, have planned this impending state of affairs since the Paris Communes of the 1800s, but their sub rosa political involvement and quiet intellectual sponsorship required our national consent through acts of own American legislatures, which they got. (So we really did this to ourselves). And so I am only interested in now addressing things as presently fabricated under American Law; and since the King is now collecting Income Taxes exclusively by contract (numerous layers of invisible contracts difficult to see), only the content of the contract is relevant to discuss, when a grievance under the contract later comes up for judicial review and enforcement. And so questions, sounding in the Tort of unfairness, as to just who ultimately sponsored this grand scenario become largely irrelevant, when contracts are in effect. [Why can’t the Law of Void Contracts be applied to ensure that such invisible contracts are NOT IN EFFECT? When invisible contracts are not in effect, issues of unfairness are highly relevant.] The facts are that the Income Tax has been around in the United States for a long time. The American colonists had such a tax imposed on them, and there was also one imposed during the Civil War under Abraham Lincoln. But the distinction between those prior belief and transient ad hoc taxing occurrences and the present permanent Income Tax is that our contemporary Income Tax has an underlying political objective as its primary goal:  It was originally designed and is now intended to forcibly screw, harm and damage people, first, and then to raise revenue as a wealth transfer instrument, second.

Creating damages through such devices as a national Tax on Incomes, as a tool for conquest, is very important to international Bolsheviks, particularly since they thrive in an atmosphere where the true seminal point of beginning of national destruction is obscure and difficult to see; and very few folks see the Income Tax as the great tool of destruction that it is.

For example, the World Bank in Washington will not make a loan to any political jurisdiction in the world, unless that country has enacted a national income tax at rates high enough to satisfy the Bolsheviks.  Nations rise and fall on Income Taxes. And here in the United States, the State of New York, under the evil genius of Nelson Rockefeller, enacted the highest corporate and personal income taxes in effect, of any state, during the 1960s and 1970s, driving a large number of businesses and literally millions of people, to emigrate from New York.

Income Taxes have a history of being used to accomplish special objectives which, by their nature, require the creation of some incidental damages, and so Gremlins trying hard to run a country into the ground, need generally look no farther than simply initiating a Taxing grab on Incomes.

Although making life difficult for Individuals is important for Gremlins as a source of damages, creating military engagements and wars can be another such source of damages, and quiet national economic enscrewment still another.

Today, in the United States, law school students are taught the Bolshevik line that Income Taxes are good for the country because of the social engineering that can then be performed with the confiscated money. Having been contaminated with clever lies originating from a devilish source far beyond their minimal factual level of comprehension to understand, and also requiring a level of judgment operating on a repository of knowledge in excess of their limited capacity, some sympathetic little Gremlin lawyers are now trying to twist basic property rights around to have the mere omission of an Income Tax be construed as a Tort on impoverished people, arguing that poor folks now have some type of a social right to your money.

The bottom line is that the Income Tax continues to roll on; opposition is minimal; Tax Protestors are being frowned upon by the general public at large, viewed as cheaters making Government only more expensive for themselves; and so the Income Tax is now accomplishing its Bolshevik political mission in the philosophically divided House of the United States, with flying colors.

[END QUOTING]

Throughout George Mercier’s “letter” there are numerous footnotes. Owing to the need to present this information in concise form, such footnote references have been removed from the general text. Yet, some of the footnotes make some very interesting points of their own. A sampling of the contents of some of these intriguing footnotes follows:

More on Contracts with Heavenly Father

“There are many people who take the view, seemingly very reasonably that, since they have accepted Jesus Christ into their lives, and since they are just as good and moral as anyone else they know (and a lot more moral than many other people), then it is quite reasonable that they will be going to Heaven. This view is very widespread today, and it is also quite defective. First, the fact that you are just as good and moral as anyone else is irrelevant to Father in our impending Judgment Day to be held under a Contract Law jurisprudential setting. Father has no interest in any relative or collectively weighed anything.  You, individually and personally, have either progressed under your Contract, or you haven’t; and what some guy down the street does or avoids is not relevant to you and your Contract. The unfairness of possibly being treated worse than someone else in a grievance is a Tort Law argument. Second, the fact that you have accepted Jesus Christ into your life is very significant—but only as a point of beginning, and not as a terminating wrap up to anything. The error made by many Christian folks—that their acceptance of Jesus Christ completes their forward motions on Heavenly matters—is the same error that many other folks make by assigning either a terminating or concluding attribute to the execution of contracts (like walking out of an automobile dealership with a sigh of relief that since you’ve [signed] the contract and the car is yours, well, that ends the matter; sorry, but that Purchase and Sale Contract only started the matter). Entering into a contract—whether with Heavenly Father or anyone else—is always just a point of beginning, a fact that sharp Gremlins have taken very astute notice of….”

“As a concluding by-line to this digressionary discussion here on Father and Contracts, if you’ll but give it a few moments thought and imagination, it is interesting to note that this impending Judgment Day arrangement that Father designed, gives a generous built-in structural edge to those persons who are trying to become the Sons of Eloha, and the procedure itself also creates obstacles for those who have no interest in such a Celestial Objective (as if the operation of the Judgment Day mechanical procedure itself assists in separating embryonic Eloha from their ministrants). So now we need to ask ourselves a question:  Does that structural arrangement sound like it comes from someone who knows what he is doing? Yes, it sounds like Father knows exactly what He is doing; and if that is true, then we should listen very carefully to anything Father has to say and would like us to do.  And consistent with Father’s intentions to give his Sons the edge whenever possible, while exposing them to the same environment and standards as everyone else, comes the following arrangement: that after we enter into Father’s Advanced Contracts down here there are some other circumstances we can go through down here to accelerate the Judgment Day to the present time (but that is another Letter). I am only making the comparative point here that the lack of national collective interest on the extreme significance of that Judgment Day accelerant statement replicates the lack of national collective interest on the extreme significance of bank accounts and other high-powered contracts as those Equity instruments define our sub-parity relationship with the King. In both cases, this information is freely floating around the countryside, but one first has to define objectives, ask questions, and then exert efforts in order to get to and then understand answers to questions. (And it is the discipline and serious attitude such a procedure requires which largely explains why there are so few people around who possess such important knowledge; not that there are few knowledgeable persons; that is an inverse indicia to gauge the importance of the knowledge).”

Early Tax Rates Reference

“As recently as the early 1930s, a mere 5% was the maximum graduated federal income tax due, but in time Bolshevik Gremlins changed that, by escalating taxing percentage grabs to enscrewment levels more satisfactory to them. The schedule was, at that time: 1-1/2% on the first $4,000; 3% on the next $4,000; 5% on the balance—Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1929 (Income Tax in a Nutshell), page 4.”

In Terrorem Tax Collection Technique

 “‘...there is one way by which the Government could avoid almost all resource costs in enforcing the tax code: penalize only a few taxpayers, but with inordinately high fines or other punishments.  Given that taxpayers are risk adverse, such a strategy has a minimal resource cost while serving as an effective deterrent to tax evasion.’—Jonathan Skinner and Joel Slemrod in Economic Perspectives on Tax Evasion, 38 National Tax Journal 345, at 346 (September 1985).

“Notice why this in terrorem method of collecting taxes would succeed: Because the Taxpayers are deemed to be milktoast risk adverse persons (meaning that unlike Patriots, Taxpayers would rather pay than put up a good fight)….”

Government Elimination of Currency Competition

“…Later I will talk about the use of guns, literally, by Treasury agents in the 1800s, to seal up a national monopoly on circulating Currency; in the old days, private mints and businesses freely issued out their own circulating coins and script, and so back then there was a real question as to whether or not common folks were involved with what is called Interstate Commerce; but today everyone is automatically ‘in’ this invisible Interstate Commerce by the use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes, because the King once used his guns and bouncers to accomplish by hard physical duress what natural competitive economic attraction and good common sense could not bring about: a tight national Government monopoly on circulating Currency instruments, enforced by penal statutes.  Should we be surprised that today, the King’s Agents are now trying to twist things around enough so that those same common folks who simply do not want to use the King’s money are now colored as being illicit participants in that vile, illegitimate ‘Underground Economy’—but in fact the King should be the very last one to talk about what is illicit, vile, tainted, and unsavory.”

Aura of Mystique Maintains King’s Power

“Gremlins know that folks will go right ahead and improvidently place an aura of mystique about the nominees they sponsor into visible executive positions in Juristic Institutions, such as Presidents and Members of his Cabinet—while the real action (the level where the bureaucracy is interfacing with the public, the level where damages are being created), is taking place at a lower level—an invisible bureaucratic level.  And Gremlins are also cognizant of the fact that formal legal restraints, such as those residing in the Constitution, are in fact circumvented, as Mr. Alexander admitted; and third parties the public seems to trust, like the Press, are noted for their acquiescence of mischief through their silence….”

Effect of Prosecutorial Discretion

“Even something as seemingly removed from the fine art of sequestering common public knowledge of taxation by contract away from people, a field of law enforcement seemingly aloof from the high stakes game of tax collection—Federal Anti-Trust Enforcement—is actually swirling in the same vortex of manipulative selective prosecution by use of strategy sessions held by United States Deputy Attorneys General in Washington, as they go about their work trying to make sure that only those cases conforming to a certain profile of criteria within their classification are eventually sent to the Judiciary for cracking, and one of those criteria is trying to identify, before prosecution is initiated, which cases the Government is likely to prevail on during appeal… [reference omitted] …So never assume what the Law is by the mere silence of Judges, as a clever King has selectively withheld cases potentially adverse to his position.”

Gremlins’ Real Taxation Objectives

“I once had a conversation with a Bolshevik Gremlin who works for the Brookings Institution in Washington. There was an aura permeating the atmosphere around him that was different, as if there was a demon chill in the air.  Sensing this introduction to Hell, I almost felt as if I was in Tubingen University in Germany, swirling in the midst of the ghostly political tempest of devilish intrigue that has been going on there since the days of Fredrich Schiller and George Hegel institutionalized the kinky intellectual which that University generates, and which ideological flotsam and doctrinal mischief continues on without abatement down to the present day with Hans Kung and the Green Party.  But when this conversation drifted over towards the Income Tax, all of a sudden he sparkled up a bit, and with a devilishly sneaky cackle and a crooked grin that stretched fully from one ear over to the other, this little Bolshevik Gremlin then immediately blurted out his high approval of the Income Tax by saying that ‘...Oh, we don’t want to enrich them too quickly.’ He seemed excessively concerned, even fixated, on their objective that the countryside be allowed only minimum subsistence income levels. I really got the message from him, loud and clear, that they deem our deprivation of wealth to be of maximum importance to them and their damages enscrewment objectives.”

Why Gremlins Abhor Individuals

“Although the income tax on profits is the true source of economic stagnation, as Gremlins strive to run one civilization into the ground after another—here their modus operandi of deception surfaces again, because when Gremlins and their intelligentsia imps try to explain away the true source of a long term declension in national economic prosperity, they will invariably turn around and point attention over to their irritant: individuals:” [QUOTING from “Imp” Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope, at page 497 (MacMillian Company, New York (1966)):]

“The nineteenth century had accepted as one of its basic faiths the theory of ‘the harmony of interests.’  This held that what was good for the individual was good for the society as a whole and that the general advancement of society could be achieved best if individuals were left free to seek their own individual advantages. This harmony was assumed to exist between one individual and another, between the individual and the group, and between the short run and the long run.  In the nineteenth century, such a theory was perfectly tenable, but in the twentieth century it could only be accepted with considerable modification (that’s right—remember, folks, this is the modern era, and you just don’t need to concern yourself with the past). As a result of persons seeking their individual advantages, the economic organization of society was so modified that the actions of one such person were very likely to injure his fellows, the society as a whole, and his own long-range advantage (just somehow). This situation led to such a conflict between theory and practice, between aims and accomplishments, between individuals and groups, that a return to fundamentals in economics became necessary (meaning total top-down Gremlin control of the economy).” [END QUOTING]

“Notice what really irritates Gremlins and the imps they hire: individuals, and everything else Noble and Great their impending Celestial Status represents. Here we have a sponsored Professor Carroll Quigley, trying to pass himself off as a history professor, and while using an opportunity to come down on free competitive enterprise, he starts throwing invectives interstitially at those annoying individuals.  And Individuals, exercising their own judgment, managing their own affairs, and trying to be responsible for themselves as the embryo Elohim that they are, have long been a recurring source of irritation to Gremlins….”  [QUOTING from William R. Bradford in Conference Reports, at 53 (October, 1979):]

 “The most basic, fundamental Principle of truth, that upon which the entire plan of God is founded, is free agency. As an Individual, you have the right to govern yourself. It is divinely given to you to think and act as you wish. It is your decision.

“It must be pointed out, however, that although you have the free agency to choose for yourself, you do not have the right to choose what will be the result of your decision. The results of what you think and do are governed by law. Good returns good. Evil returns evil (throughout this Letter, I will cite examples on how the violation of Principles will always generate latent secondary adverse circumstances out in the future, with the seminal point of origin of those secondary adverse circumstances being latent (invisible) and difficult to see). You govern yourself by subjecting yourself to the discipline of the law. If you are obedient to God’s law, you remain free. You progress and are perfected. If you are disobedient to God’s law, you bind yourself to that which restricts your progress. You become defiled and unworthy to be an associate with those who are more clean and pure.” [END QUOTING]

In the next installment we will take up with Chapter 2: Bank Accounts.