Bank Accounts

Pursuit of Personal Commercial Enrichment Makes You Subject to the King

In this chapter, George Mercier shows how the mere act of opening a personal bank account results in a contract with the King through his agency, the bank, and his agent, the Secretary of the Treasury (or by any other title in domains other than the UNITED STATES).

The banking contract is absolutely innocuous, consisting of a mere agreement to be bound by “the rules of the bank”. The bank, however, being an instrumentality of the King, has rules that are devilishly designed to bind. Have you ever asked a bank to provide you with a copy of the rules by which you agreed to be bound? As Mercier explains in a footnote:

“If you don’t know what contract I am referring to that gives the King the right to simply reclaim his own property, then ask a bank for a copy of their bank rules that all depositors and borrowers have agreed to be bound by. Under normal circumstances, banks are reluctant to give depositors copies of Bank Rules those depositors have agreed to be bound by. Sounds irrational, doesn’t it? Withholding the terms of contracts those depositors have just taken upon themselves criminal compliance liability for?  Yet, numerous attempts by people associated with me have attempted to obtain a copy of these Bank Rules, and all attempts resulted in the banking officer clamming up tight, deflecting attention over to the ‘irregular and unusual’ nature of the request, and then telling the requesting person to go See Mr. so and so at the Federal Reserve Board, who in turn also clammed up tight. So much for domestic American bank accounts.”

The moment you agree to be bound by the bank’s rules, you enter into the King’s domain of commerce and of personal commercial enrichment through the King’s instrumentalities.  Any gain experienced thereby is thus attributable (at-tribut(e)-able) to the King. If you fail to pay the King his tribute (any and every thing he demands, upon his demand), having experienced the benefit of personal commercial enrichment he afforded to you through the provision of his instrumentalities, then you are in breach of contract and, in Mercier’s words, “you have defiled yourself”. You made your “deal with the Devil” and failed to live up to your part of the bargain (with its invisible terms), so there becomes a situation of “hell to pay” in the form of additional fines and, quite possibly, incarceration time.

What to do?  Jmmanuel said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”  As this series progresses perhaps we can discern the best methods of doing exactly that.  You can be sure that Nevada corporations—with no statutory requirement to issue stock or even publicly identify stockholders—will figure into the best solution. As Mercier relates in another of the copious footnotes to Invisible Contracts:

“…Lord Denman observed:  ‘It appears to me that the British corporation is, as such, the sole owner of the ship. The individual members to the corporation are no doubt interested in one sense in the property of the corporation, as they may derive individual benefits from its increase, or loss from its decrease; but in no legal sense are the individual members the owners [of the corporation’s property].’—The Bank Tax Cases, 70 U.S. 573, at 584 (1865).”

Readers should begin to see that schemes of personal commercial enrichment leave the individual “subject” to the King. As Mercier hints later in this chapter and more fully reveals in subsequent chapters, there are many other “ties that bind” to the King—but it is the simple, personal bank account that automatically places the individual in the King’s domain of commerce and thus subjects him to the King’s regulation of his sovereign domain.

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” That said, let us turn to Mercier’s commentary relating to bank accounts.

[QUOTING:]

Bank Accounts

Some years preceding his multiple prosecutions in 1984, Mr. Condo went down to a bank, and initiated an Equity relationship with that corporation and the King.  Yes, Commercial contracts in effect with banks are invisible juristic contracts in effect with the King. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that banks are in a special Status with the King, and likewise so are the individual people who experience profit and gain from any Commercial contract they enter into with a bank. This relational effect of doing business in King’s Commerce is pronounced quite clearly in the Instrumentality Doctrine the Supreme Court initiated publicly with Davis vs. Elmira Savings:

“National banks are instrumentalities of the Federal Government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States.”—Davis v. Elmira Savings, 161 U.S. 275, at 283 (1896)

This Instrumentality Doctrine is very significant, and the word Instrumentality means an Equity Relationship that is quite strong in American Jurisprudence. As nationally chartered banks are the Instrumentality of the Congress, consider the subordinate Party (the banks) as being the “right hand” of the Master (the Congress). This is a very powerful Doctrine indeed, and it needs to be understood for what it really means. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that, from a Judicial Perspective, any profit or gain experienced from a bank carries with it the same identical full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain.  Consider, for a moment, the application of the Instrumentality Rule to corporations:

“Under this Rule, corporate existence will be disregarded where a corporate subsidiary is so organized and controlled and its affairs so conducted as to make it only an adjunct and instrumentality of another parent corporation.”—Black’s Law Dictionary

Now think what happens if the King is substituted for the parent corporation, and your local bank is substituted for the subsidiary corporation.  Under the Instrumentality Doctrine, the local bank as a Person and a legal entity fades away in significance as if it was transparent, and the King and the Secretary of the Treasury then appear as the real contracting Persons you are entering into Commercial agreements with. Are you beginning to see the legal significance of this Doctrine? Are you beginning to appreciate the deeper meanings of the bank account in that it is the King that you are really contracting into Commerce with, and the bank is just the King’s local agent? That bank is literally the private personal property of the King.  Entrepreneurs who go out and capitalize a new bank from scratch do not own that bank. The bank is owned by the King who created the corporation, and his Comptroller of the Currency later issued out a banking charter to; and the individual shareholders only hold an equitable interest in the bank’s operations. [But who is the true “holder in due course”? Could it be: God? And what is this GAIA Program all about?]

The shareholders are only entitled to a limited withdrawal of some of the bank’s net earnings, under some limited circumstances.

Many incarcerated Protestors were unaware of the existence of the Commercial contract that they were into, and so having the strong political views that they do, their political feelings, skewing off on a defiant tangent, retained the upper hand over their better judgment—an inquisitive judgment that would be searching for answers to questions.  So although the Protestor was at one time unaware of the existence of a contract being in effect, the King was very much aware, and so the Protestor’s defiant behavior is increasingly improvident when viewed from the perspective that the Commercial contract was written to strongly favor the King, and is interstitially dispersed throughout with penal clauses in esse for no more than mere administrative negligence and default, and any outs that exist for persons in default are the unintended default technical errors that the King’s lex statutes can correct at the discretion of the Congress.

[INTERRUPT QUOTING]

At this point, Mercier reinforces the contention that we are all bound by our invisible contracts with our Father, as reasonably must be the case.  Whether or not each of us is living up to the terms of our individual contract is at question.  When we do, the world shall be a different and much better place. It must be said, however, that each individual’s contract with Father is unique and we may not know the contract of any other, only our own. Thus, to change the world we must first be true to ourselves and live up to our agreements with Father.

Some portion of Mercier’s writing must be redacted for this synopsis and my editorial license draws the line here. For those readers interested in his views on the subject, it is recommended that you obtain a copy of Invisible Contracts to pursue your interest.

[RESUME QUOTING, intervening text redacted:]

This banking Instrumentality Doctrine is a pretty strong relational status for the Judiciary to take cognizance of, so when we probe back down the line to uncover why chartered banks are in such a status, we should not be too surprised to uncover our old friend: a contract.

Originally applicable only to nationally chartered banks, the Instrumentality Doctrine has since been expanded under the enlarging regulatory penumbra of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to include all state and Federally chartered member banks of the Fed. During the Depression, banks who became members of the FDIC and FSLIC insurance programs were deemed Instrumentalities, and this doctrine is now applied in the United States to include all financial institutions where there is any Federal regulatory interest in them. This now includes stock brokerage houses, credit unions, insurance companies, and pension funds. (For example, people acquiring a Merrill Lynch Cash Management Account, which is a negotiable withdrawal instrument, are in the same Juristic Personality Status (in King’s Commerce) with a Merrill Lynch checking account that they are with a checking account from any conventional depository banking institution, such as Manufacturer’s Hanover.) When a person initiates such a bank account relationship with the King, an examination of Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure cases relating to account records that banks send to depositors reveals that the Federal appellate judiciary considers the Fourth Amendment to be non-applicable to Seized bank account records.

[END QUOTING]

No Fourth, Fifth Amendment Protection

It seems reasonable that one’s “private” bank records are precisely what the Fourth Amendment should protect—but of course, that is not the case. Here’s how Mercier explains it from a judicial perspective:

“Since the ‘zone of privacy’ inherent in the Papers Clause of the Fourth Amendment does not facially protect information you have deposited into the hands of third parties, like banking institutions, Federal Courts find it unnecessary to probe any deeper and explicitly tell you the real underlying reason why bank accounts fall outside the protective penumbra of the Fourth Amendment; because a Commercial contract is in effect, and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with or obstruct the contemporary execution of Commercial contracts, for either party (and properly so).  But wait, as those Supreme Court cases dealt with bank accounts Seized from a bank itself, and banks as regulated Commercial establishments have no Fourth Amendment rights whatever. So there are no privacy rights in any information you deposit with those banks, and this remains true whether or not there was a Commercial contract in effect…”

A little further along, the author provides “the one real reason” there is no privacy with regard to bank records:

“And now we are finally getting down to the one real reason why the Bill of Rights in general, and the Fourth Amendment, in particular, means absolutely nothing when a bank account is involved with a contested Search and Seizure; this special reason is never talked about by law schools; and this reason is not to be found anywhere in any law book in any library that I am acquainted with: but the reason is, as stated, because a Commercial contract with the King is in effect, and so as a point of beginning, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant from the scratch, and properly so [for those engaged in schemes of personal commercial enrichment]; but you will never hear that explicit explanation from anyone else, other than George Mercier. Never in any Court Opinion is there any blunt discussion of Commercial contracts being in effect; rather, Judges will continue to focus distracting attention and discussions around the Fourth Amendment, creating the potential image, in some peripheral factual setting cases, that the Fourth Amendment is the center of gravity here, rather than the Commercial contract itself.”

Who owns “your” bank records?

“…[T]hose bank account records are the private personal property of the King, and so it is irrational that the King cannot reclaim his own property whenever he feels like it, all pursuant to the terms of the bank account contract.”

The King’s Money

The King has always had the right to make money whatever he wishes, of and for whatever suits his purposes:

“…[I]f the Law of King’s Commerce is correctly understood, there is no need for the Supreme Court to reaffirm anything, as the circulation of paper money, notes, or the circulation of any juristic currency, even carrying intrinsic value, in King’s Commerce (as distinguished from privately minted coins and notes), has always been the closed private domain of the King of England.  And it has been the exclusive domain of the King ever since paper money was first printed and circulated by King Richard II to finance an offensive war against France that Parliament declined to levy taxes to wage.

“So the circulation of paper money by Gremlins through the instrumentality of kings, was born in tortious fraud intended to damage people, and was designed to accomplish in the practical setting (the damages of taxation by Inflation) what was not accomplished legally on the Floor of Parliament by common consent. So paper money has been designed from the outset to damage people, and the unnecessary circulation of paper money today in the United States carries along with it identical underlying enscrewment objectives.

“Back in an era when the United States was the American Colonies, the Framers to our Constitution never abated or restricted the King’s standing right to issue out his own money or to declare that someone else’s money or notes are legal and tender for those debts existing under the King’s General Commerce Jurisdiction; and neither did the Framers ever restrict the King’s right to delegate any or all of the circulating process to a third party (as arguments in this area of Federal Reserve Unconstitutionality Due to Lack of Coinage Delegation Jurisdiction are in error).  The Supreme Court has ruled often that the Constitution of the United States must be applied today in light of English Common Law then in effect at the time the Declaration of Independence was executed, and properly so.”

The GLOBAL MONEY CONSPIRACY, which we have seen in action all around the world wherever the Gremlins plunder, is outlined in a footnote as follows:

“‘...[I]t might be... possible for 20 or 30 individuals if they controlled the United States Federal Reserve Board, the Bank of England, the Bank of France, and the Bank of Germany, to enter into a conspiracy to regulate the volume of the world’s currency, thereby resultantly controlling the prices of the world’s commodities, so vitally affecting the happiness, contentment, occupation, and prosperity of the world’s population. If successful in effecting such a control, by expanding the world’s currency they could inflate prices of all the world’s commodities and then distribute at fictitious values the securities which they had accumulated. After such accomplishments they could then decrease the volume of money thus resultantly deflating or diminishing the prices of all the world’s commodities with resultant greatly diminished prices in securities and then buy back at bargain prices the securities that they had distributed previously at inflated prices. If such a conspiracy existed and continued unchecked this expansion of the volume of money with increased prices and distribution of securities held by the few followed by a period of decreased volume of money with resultant decreased prices of all the world’s commodities with reaccumulation of securities at bargain prices would ultimately result in all the people outside of the few conspirators becoming practically vassals and peons with the inevitable result that the people themselves would rise up in their wrath and take from the conspirators their wealth and probably their lives.’—Senator Jonathan Bourne, Jr. of Oregon, expressing comments on the Wheeler Bill (S. 2487, which provided for the free coinage of silver and gold at a ratio of 16-to-1), in Senate Document #109 entitled Independent Bimetallism or Bolshevism, 72^nd Congress, First Session, pages 8 and 9 (GPO (June 15, 1932)).”

The Fictitious UNITED STATES (Corporation)

This might be a good opportunity to digress from the focus on bank accounts for a moment in order to gain a broader perspective on the big picture.  In all of what Mercier presents, it seems the only Constitution to which he refers is the Constitution of the United States (“and properly so”???).

But what of the Constitution for the United States?  The one of, by and for the people?  The Constitution of the United States appears to be nothing more than the articles of the UNITED STATES juristic corporation, a fiction-of-law chartered in 1787 by the KING (providing for government of the sheeple, by the liars, for the King/IBC/banksters).  In a “pure” (sic) “equity” environment of hard contracts—the environment of all corporations and other juristic “persons”—there is no morality, no sense of right or wrong beyond the expressed terms of the contracts. Directors of the corporate UNITED STATES are put in place and controlled by the real owners (the King/IBC) and every amendment of the corporate articles has been used by those Gremlins to steer things to their liking. Every exhortation to goodness in the Constitution for… is an opposite “enscrewment objective”, as documented right on the face of things by the corporation’s bylaws; you know, the legal but unlawful STATUTES that have undone the real Constitution?

Have a look at the ANTI-Bill of Rights below and judge for yourself whether the enscrewment objectives of the King’s UNITED STATES corporation have been met:

ANTI-Bill of Rights

Amendment I: Congress shall make law respecting an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press; and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed.

Amendment III: Soldiers shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, and in time of war, but in a manner not to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and Warrants shall issue without probable cause, unsupported by Oath or affirmation, and without particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V: Persons shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, without a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, including in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; and any person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; and shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI:  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall not enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and shall not be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; shall not be confronted with the witnesses against him; shall not have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and shall not have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall not be preserved, and any fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII:  Excessive bail shall be required, and excessive fines imposed, and cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are denied to the States respectively, and to the people.

How was this accomplished? Through the artifice of “fictions of law”, beginning with the fictitious UNITED STATES and extending through each of its corporate members according to the corporation’s bylaws/statutes. To think these statutory laws come into being haphazardly is a great error, as Mercier relates in the following footnote (emphasis added):

“Gremlin Paul Warburg himself has had a few words to say about just where the true origin of statutes is to be found:

“‘I am told that Congress and the State Legislatures make the laws...  Instead of saying that legislators make the laws, it would be far more correct to say that legislatures merely put the finishing touches on the law. To say that they ‘make the laws’ is like saying that the books are made by bookbinders, forgetting that there are authors, printers, and proofreaders too….

“‘...The motive power in lawmaking is all supplied from somewhere outside the legislative halls... Some intellect outside the realm of active politics [an IBC-funded “think tank”, in most cases] first conceives an idea.  It spreads to the minds of other individuals, slowly at first, but gradually gaining momentum. Presently there is an organized movement in its favor; then comes the deluge of propaganda, until the proposal becomes an issue and the politicians begin to take note of it.  A law is half made, and more than half made, when a large body of aggressive support has been mobilized among the voters; yet during this part of the process the legislative bodies have nothing whatever to do with it.’—Gremlin Paul Warburg explaining himself in Volume I The Federal Reserve System: its Origins and Growth, at 3 (MacMillian Company, New York (1930)).”

A strong argument can be made that every juristic “person” of the UNITED STATES is a fiction-of-law IMPOSTOR acting in the place of an individual: the President and the Vice President, every member of the House, every member of the Senate, every member of the judiciary and every other member—including, most probably, YOU.  Each and every such member is IMPERSONATING their real counterpart through SIMULATION OF LAWFUL PROCESS—while the sovereign individuals who should be living members of the real constitutional government are simply NOT ON DUTY! Where have we been? Certainly, not attending our Father’s business.

The corporate UNITED STATES (Constitution of…) now claims about 250 million (juristic) “persons”, corporate members “subject to” the corporation’s bylaws and their enscrewment objectives.  The natural, Common Law-foundationed, real United States (Constitution for…) de jure corporate body obviously has considerably fewer members, since a sovereign individual cannot casually be a statutory, juristic legal “person” or that individual is not sovereign.

William Lloyd Garrison’s Perspective

Where fiction and truth collide, which shall prevail every time? Yes, truth wins, God wins. What really matters is where each of us stands when that happens. At this point, a quote from William Lloyd Garrison taken from his newspaper the Liberator back in 1837 provides the perspective needed to understand what is really going on (emphasis added).

[QUOTING]:

…Now the doctrine we shall endeavor to inculcate is that the kingdoms of this world are to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; consequently, that they are all to be supplanted, whether they are called despotic, monarchical, or republican, and lie—only who is King of kings, and Lord of lords, is to rule in righteousness. The kingdom of God is to be established IN ALL THE EARTH, and it shall never be destroyed, but it shall “BREAK IN PIECES AND CONSUME ALL OTHERS”: its elements are righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whatsoever loveth and maketh a lie.  Its government is one of love, not of military coercion or physical restraint: its laws are not written upon parchment, but upon the hearts of its subjects—they are not conceived in the wisdom of man, but framed by the Spirit of God: its weapons are not carnal, but spiritual. Its soldiers are clad in the whole armor of God, having their loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; their feet are shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; with the shield of faith they are able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked, and they wear the helmet of salvation, and wield the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. Hence, when smitten on the one cheek, they turn the other also; being defamed, they entreat; being deviled, they bless; being persecuted, they suffer it; they take joyfully the spoiling of their goods; they rejoice, inasmuch as they are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; they are sheep in the midst of wolves; in no Extremity whatever, even if their enemies are determined to nail them to the cross with Jesus, and if they, like him, could summon legions of angels to their rescue, will they resort to the law of violence.

As to the governments of this world, whatever their titles or forms, we shall endeavor to prove that, in their essential elements, and as at present administered, they are all Anti-Christ; that they can never, by human wisdom, be brought into conformity to the will of God; that they cannot be maintained except by naval and military power; that all their penal enactments, being a dead letter without an army to carry them into effect, are virtually written in human blood; and that the followers of Jesus should instinctively shun their stations of honor, power, and emolument—at the same time “submitting to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake”, and offering no physical resistance to any of their mandates, however unjust or tyrannical.  The language of Jesus is, “My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight.”  Calling his disciples to him, he said to them, “Ye know that they which are accustomed to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship Over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so it SHALL NOT be among You; but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister; and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, out to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Human governments are to be viewed as judicial punishments.  If a people turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, or make their liberty an occasion for anarchy, or if they refuse to belong to the “one fold and one Shepherd”—they shall be scourged by governments of their own choosing, and burdened with taxation, and subjected to physical control, and torn by factions, and made to eat the fruit of their evil doings, until they are prepared to receive the liberty and the rest which remain, on earth as well as in heaven, for THE PEOPLE OF GOD. This is in strict accordance with the arrangement of Divine Providence.

So long as men condemn the perfect government of the Most High… just so long will they desire to usurp authority over each other—just so long will they pertinaciously cling to human governments, fashioned in the likeness and administered in the spirit of their own disobedience. Now, if the prayer of our Lord be not a mockery; if the Kingdom of God is to come universally, and His will to be done ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN; and if, in that kingdom, no carnal weapon can be wielded, and swords are beaten into ploughshares, and spears into pruning-hooks, and there is none to molest or make afraid, and no statute-book but the Bible [read as: Common Law], and no judge but Christ; then why are not Christians obligated to come out NOW, and be separate from “the kingdoms of this world”, which are all based upon THE PRINCIPLE OF VIOLENCE, and which require their officers and servants to govern and be governed by that principle?

[END QUOTING]

”Legitimate” Fiat Currency; Federal Reserve and IRS

With so much material to present aside from Mercier’s own writing and constrained for space as we are, I will now try to briefly synopsize the significant points made in the rest of this section on Bank Accounts.

Mercier argues that Congress has all the powers of the King and proceeds to provide this Common Law proof of the power of Congress to authorize fiat currency “from a landmark case in 1604”:

“[A]s the king by his prerogative may make money of what matter and form he pleaseth, and establish the standard of it, so may he change his money in substance and impression, and enhance or debase the value of it, or entirely decry and annul it...

“…And so it is manifest, that the kings of England have always had and exercised the prerogative of coining and changing the form, and when they found it expedient of enhancing and debasing the value of money within their dominions; and this prerogative is allowed and approved not only by the common law, but also by the rules of the imperial law.”

The conclusion:  Yes, Congress can authorize fiat currency, as it has done.  This action was not undertaken because “gold has become a barbarous relic”, as some have said, neither because gold is not a good medium for currency:

“…[W]e should have some minimum discernment to see… contemporary representations to the effect that gold is just too unsuitable by its heavy bulk weight to be a modern circulating denomination of currency, as both fraudulent and factually defective. Paper money is characterized by its depreciating nature. Fraudulent because people with sinister intentions use debased currency (and non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes that quietly lose a little decremental value with each passing year are debased currency) for political conquest and to damage their adversaries.”

In demonstrating just how willfully our enscrewment through the Federal Reserve Act was implemented, Mercier presents the following in a footnote:

“‘Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none is so effectual as that which deludes them with paper money. It is the most perfect expedient ever invented for fertilizing the rich man’s fields by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the community compared with fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice and intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced by Government.’—Gremlin Nelson W. Aldrich, United States Senator, at a New York City dinner speech on October 15, 1913 (two months before his pet Federal Reserve System was passed by the Congress to create the very conditions he fraudulently represented to oppose, in IV Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science #1, at 38 (Columbia University, New York (1914)).”

For any researchers interested in proving that the IRS is not a Federal agency, Mercier offers this footnote:

• “The IRS is not a Federal Agency; see:
• “Title 5, Section 903 (Presidential Reorganization Jurisdiction);
• “Government Reorganization Order Number 26 (1952);
• “Government Reorganization Order Number 1 (1950);
• “39 The Federal Register, Number 62 (26 March 1974), Section 1111.4, et seq.”

With regard to the argument that Congress had no power to authorize a private corporation such as the IRS or the Federal Reserve, Mercier writes:

“I have concluded that if I were on the Supreme Court, I would uphold the inherent jurisdiction of the King to organize corporations (or any other instrumentality that had its own separate treasury, with the King calling that instrument whatever he feels like)….

“…The test to be applied to see if some jurisdiction claimed operative by the King, but not exactly specified anywhere in that Constitutional Charter of his which breathed life into the King his breath of juristic [legal but not lawful] life, lies in another strata:  First, is the challenged lex even inferentially in conflict with any restraining mandate the Framers wrote into the Constitution? [Or in more recognizably corporate terms: Does the bylaw exceed any restrictions in the articles?  Is the corporation forbidden by its articles from forming a subsidiary?] In the limited question of creating corporations, the answer is no, it isn’t. Next, we shift into the broader question and ask: Is the creation of corporations even out of harmony with the leit motif of the Constitution to restrain the King from functioning as a Tortfeasor?

“…In other words, does the creation of privately held corporations by the King, such as the Federal Reserve System, provide the King with a mechanism to damage us that he would not otherwise be privileged to do, or able to do in the practical effect with his own direct employees? In the case of creating corporations, or in the creation of separate juristic organizations with their own treasuries, the administrative form of the corporation (the wording on the piece of paper that is its charter) offers no possibility of a Tort on us that could not be otherwise worked by Executive Agencies operating under direct Presidential administrative jurisdiction. This is true even in the case of the Federal Reserve System.”

Expounding on the Federal Reserve System, Mercier writes:

“…The Fed is very much a Tortfeasor in its control over the rate of inflation, and in its proclivities to do so; and from its being such a dominate financial market maker and control of re-discount rates its Open Market Committee can and will fix rates of interest at whatever level it feels like; and the Gremlins running the Fed know very much that they posses considerable power to determine prosperity levels.

“By controlling these financial market forces, the Fed single-handedly controls the relative level of economic prosperity or decline in the land. If the Fed were an administrative agency under, perhaps, the Comptroller of the Currency, then all of the regulatory assertions it now makes over member banks would remain in effect, and it would still control prosperity through its regulatory mechanisms. (Incidentally, the mere absence of prosperity, under such highly managed and tightly controlled monetary circumstances, is a Tort against us by the Fed.)” [The same is true to an even greater extent in other nations, whose central banks have been far more restrictive of their people’s prosperity.]

A footnote explains how the parasitic Fed benefits CON-gress:

“…[T]he Federal Reserve Board gives the Congress all profits from certain selected trading activities. In the latter 1970s, this was amounting to approximately $10 billion a year; not an easy loss of revenue for a greedy fat Congress to go without. So the Congress does not want to disturb the Fed, and your letters to them, encouraging them to do so, will continue to fall on death ears.”

Mercier relates the IRS to the Privateers of the 1700s, who held a legal commission called a Letter of Marque authorizing their plunder, then goes on to show the difference, namely, that those whom are pillaged today have actually agreed to the procedure:

“Today, the Protestor has entered into a series of invisible contracts with the King, numerous contracts which are invisible to the Protestors, as I will explain later on, so now all of those termites in the IRS are merely collecting monies rightfully due the King by contract, whereas in contrast the Privateers of old had no such contract in effect to grab the property belonging to others.”

In elucidating just one of the many other contracts binding statutory “persons subject to”, Mercier mentions that “as a matter of Law, the use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes falls under the governing doctrine applicable to Commercial Contract Law Jurisprudence, so the Constitution is largely irrelevant right from the beginning, as the entire closed private domain of King’s Commerce is a benefit/privilege created by the Congress, and there is nothing in the Constitution to restrain it.”

90% Cure Not Good Enough

Illustrating how difficult it is to undercut every last contract with the King (and the need to do so, if we wish to stop the King’s infernal restraints against us), Mercier has the reader imagine a large boat or jet with twelve separate fuel tanks:

“…If so much as one fuel tank has any fuel in it at all, then the boat or jet will continue forward at maximum cruising velocity, without any letup, until all tanks are completely empty. Only the complete exhaustion of all fuel from all of the separate fuel tanks, without any exceptions, will return the jet or boat into that quiescent state of rest that it once came from. The fact that one or several of the fuel tanks may be vacant of fuel will offer no propulsion impairment or reduction in velocity—none whatsoever.”

He concludes:

“So what is important for Tax Protestors to understand is that when they attack either the Federal Reserve in whole or part, or the designation of its Circulating Evidences of Debt at Legal Tender—and the Protestor goes through all of the Supreme Court rulings on the Money Coin Clause in Article I, Section 8, and all the Constitutional Convention debates on the Money Coin Clause, and the material discussed in secret Convention meetings back in 1787, and all of the Legislation enacted pursuant thereto, and all of the quotations from the Founding Fathers, such as in Max Farrand’s works or The Federalist, and numerous other private correspondence, and all the lower court opinions on Choses in Action and coins and debasement theories, and of their citations on the monetary disabilities of the United States; after the Tax Protestor goes through all that work and effort, he has only told the Supreme Court about 10% of what the Supreme Court needs to hear in order to invalidate the Status of Federal Reserve Notes as Legal Tender instruments: because the right to create banks and let that bank circulate Legal Tender is also related to War Powers and the Suppression of Domestic Insurrections, to Raising Taxes, the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Article I, Section 8 Money Coin Clause, and the Raising and Financing Armies and Navies Clauses, and of course Sovereignty itself—and they are independent stand-alone sources of jurisdiction that have to be attacked individually, just like a jet or boat with several fuel tanks needs to have each separate tank vacated before the vehicle will come to a stationary state.

“Will someone please tell me how to challenge the Fed based on the Interstate Commerce Clause? What grant of intervening and manipulative power is more broad than the Interstate Commerce Clause? With that Clause, anything goes.  How are you going to attack Federal Reserve Notes as being a defective use of the Raising and Financing or Armies and Navies Clauses?

“The answer is that you are not going to.”

Dangers of Constitutional Convention

Concluding this segment, Mercier warns against a Constitutional Convention to try to fix the mess we are in:

“One might think that with the passage of time, an increase in political savoir faire might just develop nationally.  But no. If a Constitutional Convention were held over again today, as is quite close to happening, I am afraid of the consequences. We need a Constitutional Convention today in the 1980s like we need the Ortega Brothers in the United States Senate representing the State of New Hampshire. Conservatives believing a new Constitutional Convention, called for the purpose of a Balanced Budget Amendment, are playing into the hands of Gremlins, who fully intend to use that Constitutional Convention to replace our Father’s Constitution with their own; in fact that is how the Constitution of 1787 was proposed to the States, as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.  And if you don’t think Gremlins are smart enough to use parliamentary devices to work their way around wording in some State Resolutions calling for such a Convention (attempting to limit the subject matter discussed in the Convention to just the content of the Balanced budget amendment), then you have no knowledge whatsoever of Gremlins, and you are not even qualified to exercise such political judgment today when in fact Gremlins now hold the upper hand in the United States. And Gremlins are not about to let a Constitutional Convention come and go in the United States without putting up a good fight.”

Pointedly, especially with regard to the Presidents who have held office SINCE this article was written in 1985, he concludes with this grim appraisal:

“If you want to get a good preview and feel for the class of new Constitution that such a convention would produce, just examine the caliber of Presidents elected in recent history.”

Conclusions and Questions

While the presentation of conclusions might seem premature because we are only at the end of “Chapter Two” of Invisible Contracts, it is far past the time when good and lawful people ought to be considering reasonable solutions to the world’s current plight—other than the Armageddon script playing out before us.

If, as Mercier points out and as we have seen in the failure of all protests, the ANTI-Constitution is unassailable by any (juristic) corporate “person” (impersonator), and if “resist not evil” is a meaningful instruction—then why should we fight such a fictitious edifice? It is not reasonable to p___, er, ah, howl against the wind.

The King gave his attorners license to pillage when he granted the charter of the fiction-of-law corporation known as the UNITED STATES and they have—right on the face of things in the form of the unlawful (at Common Law) statutes—succeeded completely in suborning the REAL Constitution, the one that even today springs from the goodness in the hearts of men. The King’s attorners even succeeded in over-writing the original Amendment Thirteen, which forbade any of them from holding public office! A powerful argument hinges on this fulcrum, for if this protective amendment can be reinstated, then every act of the attorners since 1812 can be undone “in the blink of an eye”.

Another item that should not be overlooked is the fact that any contract induced by fraud is void ab initio. And the King Pretender has certainly been, if nothing else, most fraudulent.

Restating William Lloyd Garrison’s plea: “…[W]hy are not [God knowers, by any name] obligated to come out NOW, and be separate from “the kingdoms of this world”, which are all based upon THE PRINCIPLE OF VIOLENCE, and which require their officers and servants to govern and be governed by that principle?”

Whom do YOU serve, if you impersonate yourself as a servant of the King of Deception of this world?  Isn’t it past time we COME OUT of such an illusory kingdom and claim for God and goodness what is His (and ours by inheritance)?