Admiralty Jurisdiction

Admiralty Law traces back to Roman Civil Law, which in turn can be traced back to Babylonian Law.  As we should realize, “it has ever been thus”—the adversary never has to change the script, as we fall for the same old subterfuge time after time.

In Admiralty-type legal systems—as opposed to Mosaic Law/Common Law systems—moral (tort) principles of right and wrong (Natural Law, the Law of God) are replaced by precepts (statutes, rules, regulations); issues of right and wrong are not considered and legal outcomes are determined by laws of man, whatever those laws might be, even when those laws are opposed to Natural Law.  Invariably, such legal systems develop at least two separate classes of persons—the governed and those who govern. For reasons of commercial efficiency and expediency such systems deal with fictions of law and are unconcerned by collateral damage to the living and breathing individuals affected by their operations.

A key to understanding Admiralty Jurisdiction lies in the legal principle that “like may only contract with like”, i.e., a legal fiction may only contract with another legal fiction—or perhaps more appropriately, since fictions have no will and cannot act on their own in any case—a contract between two legal fictions must be upheld by the living, breathing human beings behind the fictions. It is impossible for a corporate entity such as the UNITED STATES to contract with anyone as an individual; it may only contract with other legal “persons”. Conversely, as an individual you may only contract with other living, breathing individuals. Under Admiralty Law, you are considered to have “unanimity of interest” with the legal fiction represented by your name spelled corporately, in all-caps, and the living, breathing “real” self becomes the surety or backing for the fiction.

The signal of Admiralty Jurisdiction is the yellow-fringed flag that now adorns all U.S. courtrooms. Stepping inside the “bar” in the courtroom constitutes acceptance of Admiralty Jurisdiction. All adjudication at Admiralty, civil or criminal, amounts to adjudication of commercial contracts, which are verbal agreements that exist either explicitly (with terms of the agreement in writing) or implicitly (by tacit consent). Under Admiralty Jurisdiction there need be no mens rea or criminal intent in order for a crime to occur and criminal intent itself can be quite “legal” because Admiralty is amoral in nature.

A little-understood aspect of Admiralty Jurisdiction is that every commercial contract between, apparently, two parties is considered to be a three-way contract, with the King as Principal, and it is the King’s interest that the Court and its officers represent. The King’s interest is most often referred to as the Public Interest and it is in the purported Public Interest that statutes are promulgated and enforced.

Another peculiarity of Admiralty Jurisdiction is that there are no fixed rules of law or evidence. Also, note that civil proceedings at Admiralty do not embrace the natural right to a jury, as “everything is handled summarily before a Judge in chronologically compressed proceedings”.

What is the origin of our modern-day Admiralty-based courts? What happened to our lawful courts and how did they disappear to be replaced by their de facto Admiralty counterparts? “You cannot know where you are going until/unless you know where you have been.” Let’s turn to George Mercier’s writing for some clarification.

Development of Admiralty Jurisdiction

[QUOTING:]

…Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate business transactions with the King out on the High Seas.

…Question: How do you assign negligence for damages out on the High Seas? No one saw anything happen; no one has any evidence that anything happened. Who was at fault, and why?

…[D]ue to the extended time factors that were involved in the shipping of Commerce out on the High Seas in old England, rules regarding the timeliness of bringing actions into court, just never fit just right with a ship lost for months or years before the involved parties even knew about it. So something originated out on the High Seas known as Double Insurance; which is a general business custom, continuing to be in effect down to the present time [as in the case of the Twin Towers in New York City, the loss of which paid DOUBLE to the insured party], for carriers to purchase double the value on merchandise transiting in a marine environment (insuring Commercial merchandise in transit for twice their cash value), and this insurance doubling was later enforced by English statutes to be mandatory, due to the “inherent risks involved”.

…And insurance, i.e., the absorption of Commercial risk by an insurance underwriter in exchange for some cash premiums paid, has always been considered by the Judiciary to be an Admiralty transaction. In other words, even though the merchandise is not being shipped over water, and even though the business insurance policy has absolutely nothing to do with a marine environment or a physical High Seas setting, the issuance of the policy of insurance now attaches Admiralty Jurisdiction right then and there. [Thus, we see how everyone with “social insurance” comes automatically under Admiralty Jurisdiction.]

And all persons whose activities in King’s Commerce are such that they fall under this marine-like environment, are into an invisible Admiralty Jurisdiction Contract.

…Admiralty Jurisdiction goes back quite farther than just recent English history involving the Magna Carta in 1215; it has its roots in the ancient codes that the Phoenicians used, and it appears in the Rhodesian Codes as well.

Generally speaking, Maritime Jurisdiction is the it happened out on the sea version of Common Law Jurisdiction and Jury Trials are quite prevalent; Admiralty Jurisdiction is the it happened out on the sea version of summary King’s Equity Jurisdiction, and generally features non-Jury Trials to settle grievances (as Kings have a long history of showing little interest in Juries). Just what grievance should lie under ordinary Civil Law, or should lie under Admiralty Jurisdiction is often disputed even at the present time, and has always been disputed.  Admiralty Jurisdiction is the King’s Commerce of the High Seas, while Maritime Jurisdiction could be said to be the Common Law of the High Seas. If you and I (as private parties) entered into Commercial contracts with each other that [had] something to do with a marine setting, that would be a contract in Maritime. If you or I contract in Commerce with the King (such as shipping his guns across oceans), then such an arrangement would fall under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This distinction does not always hold true any more, as lawyers have greatly blurred the distinction by lumping everything into Admiralty.

This is why Admiralty is the King’s Commerce of the High Seas and navigable rivers and lakes (or at least, should be). At least, that is the way it used to be. Up until the mid-1800s here in the United States, very frequently merchants paid off each other in gold coins and company notes, i.e., there was no monopoly on currency circulation by the King then like there is today. So in the old days, it was infrequent that the King had an involvement with private Maritime Commerce. And there was an easy-to-see distinction in effect back then between Maritime Jurisdiction contracts that involved private parties (or Maritime Torts where neither parties in the grievance are agencies or instrumentalities of Government) and Admiralty Jurisdiction, which applied to Commercial contracts where the King was a party.  (Remember that Tort Law governs grievances between people where there is no contract in effect.  So if a longshoreman fell on a dock and broke his leg, his suing the owner of the dock for negligence in maintaining the dock should be a Maritime Tort Action). However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: The beneficial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.

…Admiralty Jurisdiction is by its historical nature an expansive and adhesive Jurisdiction for Kings to use to accomplish their Royal revenue raising and administrative cost cutting objectives.

Our Founding Fathers also had an inappropriate assertion of this expansive Admiralty Jurisdiction thrown at them from the King of England, which was a strong contributing reason as to why the American Colonists felt that the King had lost his rightful jurisdiction to govern the Colonies.  Yes, King George was very much working American Colonial giblets through an Admiralty Cracker; and so Admiralty has had a long habitual pattern of making appearances where it does not belong, of creating confrontations, and of being used as a juristic whore by Kings functioning as Royal pimps—and all for the same identical purpose: to enrich the Crown and nothing else.

…What is important to understand here is not merely that there has been an expansive atmosphere of perpetual enlargement of the jurisdictional contours that characterize Courts of Admiralty that has been in effect for a long time in old English history, but what is important is why this state of expansion continuously took place:

“The present obscure and irrational state of admiralty jurisdiction in America is the consequence of the long feud between the English common law and admiralty judges, clerks and marshals, who competed for jurisdiction by fees, not salaries, until 1840.  They, therefore, competed for jurisdiction of profitable litigation between merchants, but were happy to escape unprofitable cases. In particular, the common law judges sought exclusive jurisdiction whenever a jury of vicinage could be empanelled.”

So the reason why King Richard II and the other Kings of England had to keep issuing out restraining Decrees, to hem in the Admirals with the ever-expanding jurisdiction that they were assuming, was because those admirals were financially compensated based on the number and types of Cases they accepted to rule on—so they obviously accepted and asserted Admiralty Jurisdiction over the maximum number of Cases practically possible; and why should they care about “mere technical details” as to whether or not that grievance really belonged under Admiralty or not? Why should they concern themselves with the mere question of jurisdiction when the more important event of looting a Defendant was so imminent? Why should they concern themselves with the comites of limited inter-tribunal jurisdiction when an operation of banditry was so close at hand? What the old Admiralty Judges wanted was to savor, experientially, the conquest of financial enrichment, and with such fee-compensated Courts, Admiralty Judges got what they wanted. Can’t you just hear the old Admiralty Judge now:

“Why, the Plaintiff brought this Case into my Court, I’ve got jurisdiction!”

…Those old Admiralty Courts wanted the self-serving financial enrichment that filing fees paid by Plaintiffs gave them. And so in seeking Admiralty Jurisdiction relief, Plaintiffs expected and got quick, fast, and summary relief.  And being financially compensated the way they were, are you really surprised that Admiralty Jurisdiction Courts were simply expected by custom to be the shortest, curtest, most summary, and chronologically most abbreviated form of adjudication imaginable? Who has time for a Jury in Admiralty?  I can just hear a poor fellow try to argue rights in an old Admiralty Court back then.

“You want what?  You want Due Process in this Court? You want your Magna Carta rights? Ha! (snort)  This is Admiralty. Judgment entered in for the Plaintiff. Next Case.”

Today in the United States… there is now an assertion of Admiralty… Law going on in places where it does not belong, and it is now trying to make an appearance where it has no business. Admiralty Jurisdiction has in many respects, “come ashore” and now “meddles” with much of our domestic “realm”, as it currently affects almost every element of our inland Commercial society.

[END QUOTING]

“Avian Flu”, “Legionairre’s Disease” or Plutonium Poisoning?

Around the world at this very moment millions of birds are being “euthanized” ostensibly to prevent the spread of yet another “new” disease, this one carrying the tag of “avian flu”. Remarkably, in his 1985 presentation George Mercier provides an explanation for such flu variations that is quite at odds with the official presentation of government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Of interest, the CDC reports that between 8,000 and 18,000 Americans contract “Legionnaire’s Disease” each year, with mortality up to 30%. Extrapolating from this admitted data, up to 5,000 Americans die each year from “Legionnaire’s Disease”, which as we shall see is quite possibly related to plutonium poisoning. Is “Avian Flu” any different? How about any of the other “new” flu-like diseases, not to mention the “particularly virulent strain of flu” that was described by the news media this past “flu season”? Put 5,000 people in each category and the numbers start to add up rather alarmingly.

Mercier provides insights into the “Legionnaire’s Disease” phenomenon in a footnote:

[QUOTING:]

Exploratory plutonium poisoning trials were conducted at the American Legion Convention in Philadelphia on July 21 to 24, 1976; and as expected by the Gremlins who administered the poisons through an atmospheric discharge, the symptoms that surfaced were of a flu-like nature (see “20 Flu-Like Deaths in Penn Still A Mystery” in the New York Times for August 4, 1976, page 1). The Times article noted the puzzling sickness variation of what appeared to be a flu; but without possessing requisite background factual knowledge on the invisible high-powered toxicity involved, the medical doctors stumbled from one erroneous diagnostic conclusion to another (id., at 1).

(Also note the Government’s selection of patriotic war veterans for their Sub Rosa plutonium poisoning tests, as opposed to some lesser sub-class of Americans, such as perhaps convicted felons serving life sentences without parole in a federal cage somewhere for heinous crimes committed, or perhaps irretrievably insane occupants of numerous mental hospitals scattered around the countryside.  In other words, assume for the moment that you were in charge of selecting the “test group”; would you select American war veterans innocently enjoying a convention gathering in Pennsylvania of their peers, who had previously put their lives on the line for “god and country,” who had served their country honorably and patriotically? Furthermore, please note that somewhere, right now, the person or persons responsible for this atrocity, who are guilty of felonious murder in the First Degree (20 American Legion veterans were murdered), and/or who were accessories to this multiple murder, have yet to be brought to justice. Where is “America’s Most Wanted” now?)

[END QUOTING]

In the very next footnote, Mercier provides more information regarding plutonium poisoning.

[QUOTING]

Very few American doctors are skilled in recognizing the symptoms of atomic particulate plutonium poisoning; plutonium is not measurably radioactive in that it does not radiate ionizing electrons at a rate sufficient to trigger geiger counters. This type of radiation toxicity is easily misdiagnosed, and not just for medical reasons, but for political and Lack of Judgment reasons stemming from the manipulative withholding of public information on uncontrolled atmospheric plutonium distributions by Gremlins. The symptoms of such ionizing toxicity replicate closely the symptoms associated with a flu like illness, but since medical doctors are unaware of any public concern for radiation toxicity, the uncomfortable idea of a Three Mile Island scenario is tossed aside by the diagnosing physician, and the more comfortable but incorrect diagnosis of a hybrid flu-like illness is then substituted in its place. For a discussion on some of the uncontrolled atmospheric discharges of radioactive elements in the United States, see The Medical Basis for Radiation Accident Preparedness by Hubner and Fry, Editors (Elsevier-North Holland (1980)), which discusses publicly suppressed radiodines discharge “accidents” in 1974 and 1978 in New Jersey, and 1978 in Algeria. And it is my hunch that other similar radioactive incidents have also occurred worldwide, with knowledge of the existence of those events also being publicly sequestered. Bureaucratic Gremlins nestled in Juristic Institutions have also withheld public dissemination about radioactive atmospheric contamination originating from the now abandoned Central Core Vault of the United States Gold Bullion Depository located at Fort Knox Kentucky, which is leaking radioactive plutonium 239 that the Government improvidently stored there in 1968.

Folks placing reliance on Government for both radiation accident recovery assistance as well as deflecting the occurrence of the toxic poisoning event altogether are exercising defective judgment—individual responsibility is the correct management technique; and, as a point of beginning, factual knowledge is required.  For beneficial advisory information in this area, see generally Are You Radioactive? Protect Yourself by Linda Clark (Devin-Adair in Old Grenwich, Connecticut (1973); republished by Pyramid Publications in Moonachie, New Jersey (1974); republished by the Cancer Control Society in Los Angeles (1977)). The isochronous dietary incorporation of potassium iodine is known to manifest great relief from radioactive poisoning, due to its “sponge” like effect in going after those determined little plutonium contaminates that home in on your thyroid gland; and this remains true even though some physicians, speaking through institutions sponsored by Gremlins, do not want you to take any such preventative measures (Dr. David Becker, et al., discourages such use in The Use of Iodine as a Thyroidal Blocking Agent in the Event of a Nuclear Accident, appearing in 252 Journal of the American Medical Association, at page 659 (August 2, 1984). For a story of the financial sponsorship of the American Medical Association in the late 1800s by Gremlin extraordinaire John Rockefeller, Sr., see Volume II of World Without Cancer—The Story of Vitamin B17 by G. Edward Griffin (American Media, West Lake Village, California (1980)).)

[END QUOTING]

Walter Russell’s book—Death by Atomic Suicide?—is a must-read for anyone in need of additional background information on this subject.

Returning from the footnotes to the main body of this chapter, we find additional evidence presented by Mercier with regard to the problem of plutonium poisoning.

[QUOTING]

It is probable that Admiralty Jurisdiction will also surface sometime in the future to settle Tort claims arising out of the CIA’s planting of ICBMs on the ocean floor up and down the East Coast in the 1960s under instructions from David Rockefeller, using that ship Howard Hughes built especially for this purpose, called the Glomar Explorer. Every few years since 1977, strange stories have appeared in the news regarding whales beaching themselves on American coasts.

On February 6, 1977, a large number of whales began beaching themselves at Jacksonville, Florida for no apparent reason; commentators conjectured that the whales must have lost their sense of navigation. Soon, 120 whales had mysteriously beached themselves at Jacksonville.  NBC Television News reported that evening that no autopsies were going to be performed on the whales, but NBC was fed inaccurate information. When privately dissected by doctors who knew what to look for, those whales had empty stomachs (meaning that the whales had not eaten in a while and were sick), and also had heavy plutonium poisoning in their lungs, originating from one of the undersea missiles leaking plutonium, located on the seabed 290 miles ESE of Jacksonville, at 30 9.9’ North and 77 8.44’ West, which is one of those aging CIA underwater ICBM’s sites. What the whales were up against was a fungus like infection that had interfered with their breathing, originating from the water-born plutonium; and when dragged out back to sea from the Jacksonville beaches, the whales returned to the beach (negating the “loss of navigation” theories). The whales preferred to die on the beach, rather than carry on life in their underwater agony.

Those beached whales were collected and buried at the Giren Road Landfill in Jacksonville, Florida, but today, they should not be forgotten. Whales are mammals like you and me, and soon, rather than mammalian whales acting strange (like running up a stream, and refusing to go back into the ocean) and others trying to die by beaching themselves, people are next; and municipal medical examiners performing autopsies are not oriented to perform plutonium toxicity density examinations in the cadavers they ponder over, so the real cause of strange behavior and death will likely be puzzling for a while. But when correctly identified, the King’s Admiralty Jurisdiction will be there to settle those impending claims, as the source of the Tort is juristic.  There are a lot more numerous sources of plutonium now available to contaminate American drinking water supplies than just some aging undersea missiles, and whatever plutonium cannot slip into your drinking water by itself, will one day have the liberating assistance of a [CIA trained and funded] terrorist….

[END QUOTING]

Following this “diversion” from the main topic of Admiralty Jurisdiction, we now proceed with Mercier’s evaluation of the true causes and effects of the 14^th Amendment.

The 14^th Amendment was, of course, built upon all that came before it. Accordingly, this is an appropriate juncture to note that the original 13^th Amendment, prior to being overwritten in the confusion following the Civil War, prohibited individuals possessing titles of nobility—such as esquires (attorneys) or knights like “Sirs” George Bush, Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Alan Greenspan, etc.—from holding public office. The “new and improved” 13^th Amendment as it exists today, while purportedly abolishing slavery has instead seen to it that Admiralty Jurisdiction has prevailed, establishing the two-tier society that exists today as the “governors” and the “governed”, or masters and slaves, if you prefer.

Thus it is one of the greatest paradoxes of history that the Civil War, which ostensibly freed the slaves, instead resulted directly in the enslavement of the entire “non-privileged” populace through the implementation of first the “new and improved” 13^th Amendment and then the “citizenship enfranchisement”” 14^th Amendment.

In 1868, at the threshold of implementation of the 14^th Amendment, there existed some awareness of the long-term consequences.  Congressman Michael Kerr of Indiana, in the Congressional Globe, 40^th Congress, 2^nd Session, page 1973 (March, 1868), states: “It is their deliberate purpose, tomorrow or next week, or a month hence, or as soon as they can, to make the Federal Constitution a different instrument from what it is now, and then, under somewhat latitudinarian expressions contained in this proposed fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution... any kind of law the majority party here desire be... enacted into law.” And so it came to pass.

The 14^th Amendment

…The King and the Princes are using Admiralty Jurisprudence reasoning to effectuate an attachment of Enfranchisement on Natural Persons, by virtue of all Citizens, so called, being made a Party to the 14^th Amendment; well, that is the process by which Admiralty attaches, however the confluence of reasons why the King so attaches Admiralty all focuses on just one Royal objective: The King wants your money, and he is going to hypothecate you, and use invisible contracts in Admiralty to get what he wants.

Most folks think that, well, the 14^th Amendment just freed the slaves, or maybe something noble and righteous like that. Not so.  Every single Amendment attached to the Constitution after the original Ten in the Bill of Rights, is in contravention to the original version of 1787 for one reason or another, and each of the after Ten were sponsored by people—Gremlins, imps—operating with sub silentio sinister damages intentions.  Under the 14^th Amendment, there now lies a state of Debt Hypothecation on the United States that all Enfranchised persons bear some burden of, i.e., all citizens who are a Party to the 14^th Amendment can be made personally liable for the payment of the King’s debt. So now when the King comes along with his statutes and claims that, despite his own 14^th Amendment, his Enfranchised subjects are now going to be limited in their liability profile exposure to national debt, important financial benefits are being conferred upon Citizens, and the King believes that Admiralty Jurisdiction, with all of its giblet cracking accoutrements, attaches right then and there.

The King and the Prince are using twisted logic to justify this assertion of Admiralty Jurisdiction where it does not belong: Where it belongs is out on the High Seas where it came from. Royalty now believes that the legal environment of Limited Liability conferred on risk takers sufficiently replicates the original legal risk environment of Limited Liability that organically grew up out on the High Seas to be Admiralty Jurisdiction. Remember that Limited Liability itself is a legal trick of enrichment used by insurance companies as debtors to reduce the amount of money they have to pay out on claims; yes, Limited Liability is a marvelous legal tool for the insurance companies to bask in.  From the Price-Anderson Act that cuts nuclear power plant losses to the Warsaw Convention that cuts airplane crash losses, from Admiralty Limitations on Liability Act on marine shipping to medical doctors’ malpractice suits, Limited Liability is nothing more than a brilliant wealth transfer instrument for Special Interest Groups to bask in, and all very neatly accomplished through the use of statutes.

…Having your Debt Liability Limited by statute is a very real and tangible benefit that inures to all such named Enfranchised debtors (imagine being an insurance company, and having to pay out only 80% of your claims—you then get to pocket the 20% that the statutes restrained your policy holders from collecting); the fact that, in examining your own individual circumstances, you cannot assign any substantive financial significance to it isn’t anything the King is going to concern himself with. And insurance companies are prime examples of the institutionalized use of this marvelous legal tool to enrich themselves, and they are also prime examples of just how really valuable a Limitation on Liability really is.  Remember that when benefits are being accepted in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there lies a good tight contract. If, for example, you are an insurance company, and your average losses for claims under homeowner’s policies is $100,000, and the King comes along and declares that henceforth, the maximum claim anyone can make in his Kingdom against an insurance company for damages experienced by homeowners is $95,000, then those insurance companies very much did experience a very real, legitimate cash benefit; and so it is now morally correct for the King to participate in taxing the profits the insurance companies made for this reason alone, as the King very much assisted in enriching those insurance companies by decreasing their cash expenditures. Neither it is immoral for the King to enact statutes that enrich some Gameplayers in Commerce while simultaneously perfecting the Enscrewment of others, as remember that entrance into the closed private domain of King’s Commerce is purely voluntary. [???]

So do you see what a well-worded statute can do? ...[I]nvisible political benefits accepted get converted into a gusher of cash for the King, to be used as a wealth transfer instrument by Special Interest Groups. The more numerous the number of wealth transfer instruments the King can create, the more he can correctly justify before the eyes of the Judiciary taxing certain Persons who financially benefit from the statutory grab and give scheme.

[END QUOTING]

Mercier’s attention to the 14^th Amendment is quite lengthy and in trimming the body of this material for the synopsis decisions have to be made as to where to truncate more-or-less verbatim copy for the sake of brevity.  Mercier makes MANY additional valid and IMPORTANT points with regard to the 14^th Amendment that resulted in the general enslavement of the American people and best efforts will be made to touch on these points before moving forward. Again, however, all interested individuals are encouraged to obtain full copy of Invisible Contracts for your own study and review.

Mercier notes that “Citizenship [as conferred by the 14^th Amendment] is Equity [Admiralty] Jurisdiction, and the casting of… anyone… into King’s Equity Jurisdictional relational settings without the requisite initiating Charter jurisdictional authority being there, is null and void.”

A little further along, however, he acknowledges that despite apparent problems with ratification of this and other “after-Ten” amendments, “long-time usage and Lateness of the Hour Doctrine have caused the Supreme Court to accept the 14^th Amendment as law.”

Thus we find ourselves bound by VOID “law” (not “lawful” but “legal”), enforced by the ruling class for their own financial enrichment.  Acknowledging this state of affairs for what it IS, in that we might not be able to change things immediately to our liking, Mercier states: “But we are not the Supreme Court, so our knowledge and wisdom has to be filed away in abatement under Hiatus Status, pending our future ascension into the corridors of power.”

In one of his unique turns of phrase, he states: “…[I]n an area of more direct interest to Gremlins, the 14^th Amendment now spins an invisible stealthy web of an adhesive attachment of King’s Equity Jurisdiction so strong and with benefits so invisible, that Black Widow Spiders would be humbled if they could ever appreciate their reduced Status in light of this new competition in the Jungle.”

Mercier points out that a favorite trick of the Gremlins is to “bootstrap” additional clauses and provisions onto popular legislation. Public Law 102-14, for instance, carries a title indicating that all it does is establish an “Education Day”—but in fact introduces the supremacy of Noahide Law.  If you don’t know what this Noahide stuff is, please look it up because it has been covered many times in great detail before.  In the case of the 14^th Amendment, which was put in place ostensibly to provide Blacks with citizenship rights, numerous provisions relating to the Public Debt were put in place, provisions that would assume new meaning with the pre-planned bankruptcy of the nation that occurred much later, in the 1930s.

He makes it clear that the purported benefits of Due Process arising from implementation of the 14^th Amendment are illusory: “…[I]n every single Supreme Court decision I have read involving the 14^th Amendment Due Process Clause application, the Supreme Court could have equally justified the ruling based on the Republican Form of Government Clause in Article IV, Section 4, if they wanted to—but they don’t want to.”

Thus we see that the Due Process provided by the 14^th Amendment was not only superfluous but that the judiciary’s reliance on it to the exclusion of Article IV, Section 4 actually marked the implementation of democracy as opposed to the republican form of government framed by the Constitution.

“One of the receptive concerns one finds in the Supreme Court is their perceived lack of federal jurisdiction to intervene into, and overrule state proceedings—this Republican Clause is a real sleeper as such a Grant of Supervisory Jurisdiction is inherent in its positive action mandates. Shifting to the meaning of the Clause itself: A Republic, properly understood, involves the restrainment of the use of Government by majorities to work Torts on minorities, as distinguished from Democracies where simple majority rule forces their will and their Torts on everyone else.”

And so it is that we have ended up in the current topsy-turvy situation, where the foxes are unrestrained as long as they can claim the voice of “the majority” (and as in the case of the current unjust war with Iraq, even when such a claim cannot be made) and the hens must plead to the foxes. In a REPUBLIC, the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, no matter how much of a MINORITY, are upheld.

“What are Minority Rights? Those Rights are the Rights to be left alone and ignored by Government absent an infracted contract or a Tort damage. And those rights are very appropriate to invoke when you are in the midst of a criminal prosecution, without any contract in effect, without any mens rea, and without any Corpus Delicti damages being found anywhere; and it has to be this way since wisdom is not conferred upon majorities by virtue of their sheer collective aggregate numbers.”

The Right to be Left Alone is a key element in a Republic but Mercier points out that any adhesive attachment of King’s Equity or Admiralty Contract Jurisdiction severely impairs the prospects for a Person attempting to invoke Article IV, Section 4 (the Republican Form of Government Clause) in his own defense. As things have evolved since 1985, when Mercier wrote down his thoughts in this regard, it seems that any effort now to invoke such a Right to be Left Alone would be stymied at every level of the judiciary. After all, how could they possibly stop the exodus from King’s Commerce if even ONE individual could be free to enjoy such a right?

The 25^th Amendment, Rockefeller, JFK and Watergate

Mercier asserts that all of the “after-Ten” amendments were put in place for sub rosa purposes with enscrewment objectives in mind.  As an example he focuses on the 25^th Amendment (and later the Equal Rights Amendment, which will not be covered in this synopsis).

“…The closest draft to what is now the 25^th Amendment was written in New York City in the Spring of 1963 by lawyers hired by Nelson Rockefeller for that purpose…. a plan to circumvent that irritating Constitutional requirement that all Presidents be elected.”

Rockefeller’s 25^th Amendment was introduced into the Senate just three weeks after JFK was murdered in Dallas “on plans previously approved by the Four Rockefeller Brothers”.

Citing a reference from The Ends of Power by H.R. Haldeman, at page 38 et seq., Mercier contends that the Watergate references to the “Bay of Pigs” were actually references to the JFK assassination, and that it was the assassination cover-up that so preoccupied Richard Nixon and not some mere burglary. In any case, Watergate is seen as Nelson Rockefeller’s move to oust Nixon shortly after arranging for Spiro Agnew’s highly pressured resignation from office.

Nixon’s appointment of Gerald Ford to the office of President may well have saved Nixon’s life, Mercier contends, “because having Nelson Rockefeller behind you as Vice-President is a good way to get yourself killed”.

“Following two assassination attempts in California on Gerald Ford by Lynette Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, a poisoning attempt, quiet staff suggestions that ‘...this might be a good time to move on’, offerings of private employment, and then public demands from Henry Kissinger that Gerald Ford resign, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ran out of Aces to pull from his sleeve.

“Nelson’s 25^th Amendment had gotten him this far, into the Vice-Presidency, but it still wasn’t the public spotlight of the Presidency that he had been craving for since he was a teenager. On the eve of Jimmy Carter’s Inauguration as David’s nominee for President, Nelson made one final attempt to use his 25^th Amendment to elevate himself into the Presidency via appointment, by using a slick legislative device related to the Electoral College and his Status as President pro tem of the United States Senate; but under pressure from brother David, Nelson reluctantly backed off and let go.”

Mercier sums it up:

“Today, in reading the 25^th Amendment, no where in it are there any words like Nelson Rockefeller or Dallas or conquest or murder or Watergate or Bob Woodward appearing anywhere, yet an understanding of the real existential meaning of the 25^th Amendment requires a contextual knowledge of the background factual setting that Rockefeller political conquest was then swirling in: a well-oiled vortex of kidnappings, torture, dismemberment, bribes, wholesale executions, murder, and intrigue. Historians writing their views on the history and existential reasons for the 25^th Amendment try to cast the Amendment’s origin in historical light, by discussing the Removal Clause of Article II, Section 1, while leaving out any commentary about any Gremlins extraordinaire at work in the background, like Nelson Rockefeller, who stayed back in the shadows while directing the visible players in this 25^th Amendment act.”

Indeed, these insights cast an interesting light on just how and why the “after-Ten” amendments were put in place.

Effect of Waiver of Benefits

Waiver of Benefits—where no benefits are actually received out in the practical setting of the real world—“theoretically” creates a situation where presumed contracts with the King are VOID, due to failure of consideration.  Why only “theoretically”? Because in the current environment the King cannot afford to allow even ONE individual to be free of purported “benefits” and ties to the Citizenship Contract of the 14^th Amendment. If you drive a car on the King’s highways, or if you want the benefit of a passport to travel freely to other nations, or if you carry a credit card in the name of the fiction created by the King (“your” name but in all-caps, corporately), it appears that the King’s officers will now presume that you are deriving benefits “out in the real world” and hold you to adhesive contracts with the King despite your waiver, forfeiture and severance of presumed benefits.

It’s an immoral position for the King to take, in my opinion, but the King’s response to such an allegation would probably be along the lines of, “Well, it works for me and, after all, I am the King.” The quaint ideas that “all men are equal” and “no man is above the law” simply do not prevail in the environment of Admiralty Jurisdiction. You can always plead with the foxes to stop eating the hens but that is not much recourse, is it?

Evidence of the validity of benefits rescission to void the 14^th Amendment’s citizenship contract was provided by Mercier with the following anecdotes:

“I know of several criminal prosecutions where merely filing a clumsy Objection to the 14^th Amendment in their local county recorder’s office terminated the prosecution. In one Case, there was a pre-Trial dismissal; in others appeal was necessary, with the prosecution being sandbagged on appeal. In another Federal criminal Case, the Defendant was mysteriously released from pre-Trial commitment on his friend’s Noticing the Court of his Status and Rescissions (even though his Rescissions were deficient in Waiving Benefits). That is just how powerful that 14^th Amendment really is—so much so that improperly prepared defense attacks have been summarily granted at the trial level occasionally to terminate prosecutions.”

That was then and this is now. Since the 1980s, it appears, judges have been instructed to broaden the scope of implied benefits to such an extent that literally no one can escape the presumption of benefits derived from the King. Do you use the King’s highways? Do you use a passport provided by the King? Do you carry any “money” provided by the King?  Do you have Social Security?  Are you an officer of any corporation? (Officers are all now statutorily considered to be “employees”, whether or not they are paid any compensation and employees are presumed to derive benefits from the King.) With such a broadened definition of what constitutes a benefit, it appears that no one can escape Admiralty Jurisdiction at this time.

Thus it is that in the United States, where all men were purportedly “free”, through the implementation of Admiralty Jurisdiction over time all men have come to be enslaved to the King of this world, either willingly as part of the privileged, ruling class or unwittingly as part of the slave class.

It must be noted at this point that the author of this synopsis is not in agreement with the following conclusion drawn by George Mercier:

“If that Waiver, Forfeiture, and Rejection of the benefits of Limited Liability that you experience under your Admiralty related Contract, as well as Social Security Benefits—if that Failure of Consideration turns out to be just not good enough for the High Lama in Washington—the Supreme Court—then perhaps the time will have arrived to take seriously the timeless mandates of our Founding Fathers: and deal with an inappropriate assertion of Admiralty Jurisdiction by the King in terms that accelerate in velocity as they transverse down the barrel of a gun.”

NO!  FORCE IS NOT THE SOLUTION!

Let’s say that you are not armed (and people, your gun if you have one is no match for the force that the State can bring to bear in terms of both weapons and metal boxes to put you in, so no matter how well armed you might think you are—you are unarmed) and you become aware of a thief in your house and you have little ones to protect. Would it really be wise to confront the thief head-on? How about a different approach instead? Why not jot down the thief’s identifying characteristics, the license number on the thief’s vehicle and/or any other information necessary to fully identify the criminal later—and pick a different time and place for the confrontation? We can have these matters adjudicated later, at a time and place more of our choosing.  The King’s immoral position in holding one and all to adhesive, supposedly “voluntary” contracts through summary, Admiralty-based procedure has been well documented. Such contracts are void; it only remains to have this truth adjudicated lawfully.

A Tank in the Parking Lot

Throughout Invisible Contracts George Mercier shares some extraordinary insights into the world in which we are living. One such insight is shared in a footnote to this chapter and relates to a potential of which readers have been aware for some time. Readers of Dr. Beter’s audio-tape transcripts from the 1980s will find confirmation of one of his major theses in the excerpts that follow.

[QUOTING:]

“Many obscure imports have made their way through Baltimore’s port, but this one was a true rarity: a Soviet T-54 tank.  It was discovered last week near Pier 10, perched on top of a flatbed trailer in the parking lot of a farm-supply company.  Not quite sure just why the tank was there, a specially equipped unit of the Baltimore police force dismantled the T-54’s two .250 caliber machine guns and carted them off for safekeeping while they searched for the owner. A call to nearby Fort Meade did nothing to clear up the mystery. Eventually, the truck driver responsible for the tank called the police to report two stolen machine guns.

“The tank, of 1950s vintage, belonged to the Egyptian army and had been transported to Baltimore on the U.S. barge Lash Atlantico on its way to Teledyne Continental Motors in Muskegon, Michigan for repairs and rebuilding.  The driver parked the T-54 for more than a week while he went off in search of a special permit to transport the overweight load on Maryland’s roads. In the end, the police returned the guns, and the tank continued its decades-long voyage from Moscow to Muskegon.”—This news article on the tank was extracted verbatim in its full text from Time Magazine (“A Tank in the Parking Lot”), page 23 (May 6, 1985). That article is Copyright c 1985 Time-Life, Inc. Next to this news article, there appears a photograph of the huge tank, sitting on top of a tractor-trailer’s flatbed.)

...To most folks reading that article, that was the typical reaction; here is an old tank in Baltimore going through its foibles and headaches just trying to get to Michigan… no probing or deeper questions were asked, and no hypothetical WHAT IF scenarios were entertained…. And so as a result, the general American state of political ensleepment continues on, accepting comforting reassurances from news articles that the police are alert, on their toes, and that all is well, and indifferent to the possibility that termites are running the house in Washington….

...So let us now reread the story of the tank once again, but this time, things will be different—because this time we are going to start asking ourselves a few probing and razor sharp questions:

The first and only question that I would like to ask is: Why is a tank, manufactured in Russia, and now owned by Egypt, being freighted and transported halfway around the world—shipped literally to the other side of the globe—to have some mechanical work done on it; sent to a factory located in one of the most expensive hourly labor cost nations on Earth, sent to a factory that did not manufacture this tank; why is Egypt willing to spend the $20,000 or so to get the tank to Michigan, spend the big bucks to have the work done here, and then spend another $20,000 or so in freight to get the tank sent back to Egypt?

...That is the Question I want some answers to.  Simple common sense is telling me that whatever mechanical and machining work that needs to be done, can be done in Egypt. Have you ever been to Alexandria or Cairo, Mr. May?

Even if you have not, you should still be ordinarily aware of the fact that Egypt has, at a minimum, several hundred thousand cars, trucks and other motor vehicles on its streets, and that a very large pool of mechanical talent exists locally to repair and re-machine parts for all types of vehicles. Do people in Egypt send their Datsuns back to Japan to remachine the transmission?  Does Frank May, living in New Jersey, send his Mercedes-Benz to Australia or South America for repairs? Even discontinued automobiles, such as Studebakers, Pierce-Arrows, and Packards are not sent to Australia for even total restoration jobs or mechanical work—New Jersey has quite a pool of such shops right then and there.  A Mercedes-Benz would never be sent to Australia from New Jersey, except for very special reasons, and ordinary mechanical work is not a special reason.  The reason why such long voyages are not undertaken for work on heavy vehicles is because of the ridiculous freight charges incurred, and simple lack of necessity to do so by reason of very competent local situs talent. So the Question is begging: Why did Egypt send that tank to the other side of the planet—to Michigan—for repairs?  Let us say, just for a moment, that the tank talked about was a very highly complex machine that required the maintenance attention of specially factory trained experts (which was not the case with a tank out of the 1950s—those tanks had no more back then than an engine, a unique transmission, and firing power); great, let’s say that technical expertise was required—but that still does not answer the question: Why was that tank sent to Michigan for repairs instead of anywhere else in the Middle East or the Mediterranean Coast—or even Russia itself where the tank was manufactured?

...We will now consider the possibility that factual elements governing Egypt’s motive in sending that tank to the other side of the globe for repairs were not presented to us in that news article; and we will now consider the possibility that the factual picture presented to us is distorted slightly (although not necessarily intentionally by the news media’s reporters who wrote the article).

...The reason why the tank was transported from one side of the planet to the other side, from Egypt to Michigan (if in fact the tank even originated in Egypt), the reason why someone was willing to spend those big bucks just to get the tank here, is because that Russian tank is on a special trip: on a one-way trip into the United States, and not for the cover story of its needing mechanical repairs. That tank will never leave the United States. When that tank is finally at its home somewhere in the United States, it will be hidden away in some barn, some warehouse, some garage, or some old industrial building converted into an ad hoc Russian military storage depot. This author has photographs of other Russian military hardware sitting inside American army bases; generally that hardware is stored behind fenced areas. The word sent around the base is that those Russian tanks “...were captured somewhere”, when in fact they are literally brand new and are stored here very much with not only Russian consent, but with Russian supervision as well.

This tank in Time Magazine is waiting for a great and grand Russian Day to appear, that long awaited Russian Day of conquest, when along with the other extensive hardware that has been slowly and quietly smuggled into the United States over a 20 to 30-year time period, it will be brought forth out into the open in some variation of a Red Dawn attack on the United States (a provoked attack based partially on military hardware already sitting at its final destination inside the United States), to bring about the great Bolshevik objective of merging the United States with Russia.  Yes, Russian intellectual element of conquest are involved here, as the quick lock down of American military installations will be justified to the world at that time as being necessary to prevent a nuclear war—when in fact the political sponsorship of a Patriot to the Presidency would accomplish the same thing under less intensive circumstances.

The Russian strategy for North American conquest, through the slow accumulation of a handful of tanks, personnel carriers, and jeeps each week, is a brilliant strategic move that the Bolshevik Gremlins now controlling the American House in Washington want to see occur, even though those Gremlins in Washington are the very targets Russia is really going after.  That’s right, the tank described in that news article will never leave the United States—until, at least, it has first been used offensively in military operations against the United States.

...Yes, that tank is on a one-way trip into the United States (if in fact it ever gets to Teledyne Continental). See what happens when we accept information presented to us, and take it in under advisement, holding its acceptance out in abeyance as a point of reference, until we first ask ourselves some peripheral questions about it from several different viewpoints? What happens when asking ourselves deeper questions than was presented to us, is that great Truths come forward to us, are appreciated by us, and our Eyes are Opened. This is a procedure that should be followed in all settings—business, commerce, work, school, family life, everything—and particularly in ecclesiastical settings, as we ask ourselves a sequence of the single most important Questions that could ever be asked down here:

Who am I? What am I doing here? Where am I going?

...The Answer is that you are literally, Mr. May, the offspring of Celestial Beings, and that a germ of Deity dwells within you—that is who you are. You were brought forth into this world bristling full of Gremlins and their intrigues from the presence of your Father in Heaven—that is what you are doing here. The correct procedure to return to Father’s presence once again is to take seriously His advice He once gave you in the First Estate when we were all then speaking His angelic language:  Enter into Covenants with me, be proven in all things, and a successively ever enlarging number of planets and offspring will be yours (remember that Contracts draw lines which enable behavior to be measured and tested against; Tort indicia places facts on continuum measuring the absence, presence, and extent of damages. I personally would not want to get involved with a God who was fixated on the mere absence of damages)—that is where you are going.

[END QUOTING]

Conclusion

An apt conclusion for this section of Invisible Contracts comes from yet another of Mercier’s excellent footnotes.

[QUOTING:]

… “He that lives alone might encounter such as should assault him upon equal terms, and stand or fall according to the measure of his courage and strength; but no valor can defend him, if the malice of his enemy be upheld by public power. There must therefore be a right of proceeding judicially or extra-judicially against all persons who transgress the laws; or else those laws, and the societies that should subsist them, cannot stand; and the ends for which governments are constituted, together with the governments themselves, must be overthrown. Extra-judicial proceedings, by sedition, tumult, or war, must take place, when the persons concerned are of such power, that they cannot be brought under the judicial. They who deny this deny all help against an usurping tyrant, or the perfidiousness of a lawfully created magistrate, who adds the crimes of ingratitude and treachery to usurpation....

“If this be not enough to declare the justice inherent in, and the glory that ought to accompany these works, the examples of Moses, Aaron, Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Samuel, Jephthah, Jehu, Jehoiada, the Maccabees, and other holy men raised up by God for the deliverance of his people from their oppressors, decide the question. They are perpetually renowned for having led the people by extraordinary ways to recover their liberties, and avenge the injuries received from foreign or domestic tyrants.  The work of the Apostles was not to set up or pull down the civil state; but they so behaved themselves in relation to all the powers of the Earth, that they gained the name of pestilent, seditious fellows, disturbers of the people; and left it as an inheritance to those, who, in succeeding ages, by following their steps, should deserve to be called their successors; whereby they were exposed to the hatred of corrupt magistrates, and brought under the necessity of perishing by them, or defending themselves against them. And he who denies them the right does at once condemn the most glorious actions of the wisest, best, and holiest men that been in the world, together with the laws of God and man, upon which they were founded.”—Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, as quoted by Phillip Kurland and Ralph Lerner in The Founder’s Constitution (“The Right of Revolution”), at 77 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1978); Discourses Concerning Government is a lengthy treatise first circulated in 1689).

[END QUOTING]

This ends Part 6 of the synopsis.  In the next installment we will consider in greater depth the Citizenship Contract.