[BOF:INCON 001]



----------------------------------------------------------------



Words appearing below in ALL CAPS appeared in italics in the

original text.  See the file IC-HELP.TXT for additional 

information and background.



----------------------------------------------------------------





              I N V I S I B L E   C O N T R A C T S



                         George Mercier



                          INTRODUCTION



                          [Pages 1-88]





[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE

CONTRACTS to an electronic medium.  For an explanation of the

conventions used, please download the file INCONHLP.ZIP for

further illumination.  Other background information as well is

contained in INCONHLP.ZIP.  It is advisable to EXIT this file

right now and read the contents of INCONHLP.ZIP before proceeding

with your study of this file.]



[COMMENTARY FOR THIS FILE:  There is some real heavy-duty data in

this one.  Lots of food for thought.  Some of it is buried in the

religious oriented passages, so don't avoid or ignore those, lest

you miss out on some real gems.  There is also some extremely

interesting passages regarding the impending (and planned) Great

Depression II of the 1990's, even more interesting when one

considers these passages were written over 7 years ago, and yet

they are so accurate and hit the nail on the head as to current

unfolding events regarding the economy.]



                                                   GEORGE MERCIER

                                                December 31, 1985



DEAR MR. MAY:



I was intrigued to see that you have retained an interest in my

Letter to Armen Condo, even if that Letter was intended to be the

isolated private correspondence between two people.  After

receiving numerous inquiries about that Letter, I have been quite

surprised at the extent to which that Letter has been so widely

disseminated.  At the time I wrote it, I was under the assumption

that most folks already knew of the underlying evidentiary

Commercial contract factual settings that Title 26, Section 7203

WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE prosecutions are built on top of.



In your Letter you state that you have some questions about the

bank account contract as being the exclusive Equity instrument

that initiates the attachment of liability for the positive

administrative mandates of Title 26.



Please be advised that your reservations are well founded and

quite accurate, that is, if you did read such an element of

exclusivity out of the Letter.  The reason why your reservations

are accurate is because I did not mean to state or infer any such

thing; however, that is not the problem here.  Armen Condo's bank

accounts were sitting in front of the Judge during his arraignment

and all pre-Trial hearings, and those Commercial contracts are

more than strong enough to warrant incarceration on mere default

therein.  Since the nature of bank accounts involves the

evidentiary presence of written admissions, together with the

acceptance of Federal Commercial benefits therefrom, the presence

of reciprocity expectations contained therein, [001]



[001]=============================================================



RECIPROCITY is defined as a relational state where two or more

parties, enjoying each other's benefits and each possessing

various expectations from each other, are being reciprocal to each

other, a kind of "give and take" going on back and forth; and so

in this relational setting, there are some kinds of

interdependence, mutuality, and cooperation expectations in effect

between the parties.  But the key elements that will be repeated

over and over again in this Letter, is that where the initial

benefits were not first exchanged, then the secondary obligation

to reciprocate does not exist, either.  For example, the word

RECIPROCITY surfaces frequently when Governments discuss

exchanging favorable trade benefits with each other; each

Government controls a source of benefits the other wants, and so

now the reciprocating mutuality and exchange of benefits between

the jurisdictions is called RECIPROCITY, but its meaning has been

elusive for some:



  "The term RECIPROCITY as now currently used in most cases with

  only a vague or very general notion of its meaning...  [An]

  attempt is made to define reciprocity when it is specified

  that the PRIVILEGES granted must be equivalent.  Thus one

  writer, basing his definition upon a study of the public

  papers of the Presidents of the United States, remarks:



    "Reciprocity is the granting by one nation of certain

    commercial privileges to another, whereby the citizens of

    both are placed upon an equal basis in certain branches of

    commerce."



  -  MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS, Page 562."



Whenever there is an exchange of benefits and there remains some

lingering expectations of some duty between two parties, then an

actual INVISIBLE CONTRACT is in effect [as I will discuss later],

as it is said that the duty owed back to the party initially

transferring the benefits is RECIPROCAL in nature.  Hence, the

steam engine is said to be a RECIPROCAL ENGINE:  Steam is forced

into a chamber pushing a piston out, and the piston pushes in turn

a lever attached to a wheel; now the wheel revolves because the

steam initially pushed out a piston.  So when the revolving wheel

comes back fully around, it is now the force of the wheel that

pushes back the lever, which pushes in turn the piston back into

the chamber, that clears the chamber for a second and successive

injection of steam.  [See the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

["Reciprocating Engines"] (London, 1929)].



Question:  What happens when the wheel (having gotten what it

wanted by being turned by the lever and having initially accepted

the benefits of the steam pushing the piston), freezes up for some

reason and does not reciprocate as expected and now refuses to

push the piston back into the chamber?  What happens is that the

engine stops; everything grinds to a halt; and damages are

created.



...Well, as we turn from a tangible setting where machinery is in

motion, over to legal reasoning handed down from the Judiciary of

the United States, no Principles ever change -- because when we

turn to the Supreme Court rulings in hot political areas of

so-called DRAFT PROTESTING and TAX PROTESTING, by the end of this

Letter you will see the true meaning of RECIPROCITY, and of the

damages created by refusing to reciprocate when expected.  Yes,

often there are contracts invisible to the Defendant that actually

control grievances in a Courtroom, and there is to be learned a

true natural origin of contracts and of reciprocity; the origin

lies not with American judges trying to create seemingly fictional

legal justifications, but in NATURE, and actually in the mind of

Heavenly Father who, as we will see, created what is now called

NATURE.



=============================================================[001]



and other factors, bank account instruments are CONCLUSIVE

EVIDENCE of Taxpayer Status by virtue of participation in the

closed private domain of INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  And by these

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE fellows entering into the Armen Condo factual

setting the way they did, those bank accounts were the only

evidentiary items that I talked about.  [002]



[002]=============================================================



CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is deemed incontrovertible:  Because either

the Law does not allow contradiction for some reason, or in the

alternative, because the inherent nature of the Evidence is so

strong and so convincing that it automatically overrules any other

mitigating or vitiating Evidence that could possibly be presented.

Therefore it is deemed provident that CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, all by

itself, establishes the proposition that is sought at hand, beyond

any reasonable or possibly legitimate doubt; this CONCLUSIVE

EVIDENCE RULE is very reasonable in many situations.



=============================================================[002]



The other "evidence" the local situ United States Attorney

presented to the Jury was distraction evidence for public and Jury

consumption purposes only, and means absolutely nothing to

appellate forums (for purposes of ascertaining Taxpayer Status).

Bank accounts are the highest and best evidence "Cards" the King

has to deal with, even better than old 1040's, and so that bank

account evidence should be the very first slice of evidence to go

when an Individual has concluded within himself that a change in

Status is now desired.  [003]



[003]=============================================================



I am aware that the linguistic use of the word "King", as a

moniker to characterize the combined Executive and Legislative

branches of the United States is a bit novel, and I know that most

folks would feel uncomfortable with it at first.  Yet, despite the

differential in comfort levels in the use of such semantics, I go

right ahead and use this characterization anyway because its use,

all by itself, enhances the important distinction between Common

Law Jurisdiction and King's Equity Jurisdiction (which distinction

is still very much in effect today), and makes this distinction

much easier to understand; and additionally underscores the fact

that the United States is stratified at Law into multiple

jurisdictions to more tightly replicate the contours of Nature,

and that the United States is not a single monolithic SLIPPERY

SLOPE slab of equity Civil Law (hybridized old Roman Civil Law).

As the American colonies severed relations at Law with the Mother

Crown, the jurisdiction conferred upon the United States by our

Fathers was largely similar, in a structural sense, to that

jurisdiction the King of England already had.  But the idea of

characterizing the combined Executive and Legislative Branches of

the United States as a "King" may not even be mine.  Imagine

fictionally in your mind having lunch with your Dad and a Federal

Appellate Judge in New York City.  During this imaginary and

purely fictional conversation, while the non-existent Judge is

speaking on a criminal doctrine, he mentions the existence of a

contemporary "King" here today in the United States, as if it were

a very natural idea to him.  A year later, you realize that

relating the jurisdictional contours of the United States to those

contours which a King should have and not have, makes everything

seem easy to understand.  This is particularly so when relating a

factual question of police powers limitation, or of a taxing

limitation, to something tangible and natural like a King's

expected jurisdictional contours.  Additionally, a "King" also

accurately reflects lingering English Jurisprudence here in the

United States, and also reflects the present KING TO PRINCE

satropic relational status of the United States Government to the

several States, following the enactment of the AFTER TEN

Amendments that shifted the RATIO DECIDENDI of power to

Washington.



=============================================================[003]



Like Irwin Schiff here in late 1985, Armen Condo's reluctance in

1984 to get rid of his bank accounts forecloses a teachable state

of mind one must have to understand multiple other invisible

contracts that our King is dealing with, and that are more

difficult to discern and appreciate the significance of.  So if a

PERSON, seeking a shift in relational Status to INDIVIDUAL, is

unwilling to first get rid of his bank accounts, then talking to

him about anything else is an improvident waste of time.  [004]



[004]=============================================================



The word PERSON is of particular legal significance in American

Jurisprudence; it is distinguished from the word INDIVIDUAL, with

the semantic differential in effect between the two being

inherently Status oriented.  Although sounding innocent under

common English semantic rules, on the floor of a Courtroom these

semantic rules take upon themselves deeper significance, as it is

quietly known by all Judges that PERSONS are clothed with multiple

layers of juristic accoutrements giving that PERSON'S presence in

that Courtroom a special and suggestive flavoring to it.  On the

one hand, PERSONS have special legal rights, benefits, and

privileges originating from a juristic source; and on the other

hand, PERSONS also carry upon themselves various obligatory duties

(some of which, if not handled properly, can be very self-damaging

at times) -- but both rights and duties are often invisible.  In

contrast to that layered state of juristic accoutrement

encapsulation, INDIVIDUALS walk around without any such

accoutrements [they would be "liberated" as the contemporary

vernacular would characterize it].  As a point of beginning,

PERSONS can be either natural human beings like you and me, or

artificial juristic entities (such as foreign governments,

Corporations, Agencies, or Instrumentalities) and the like -- at

least, here in 1985, those are the only two existing divisions of

PERSONS presently recognized by the Judiciary (i.e., human beings

and paper juristic entities).



  "Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person

  may be defined as an entity that is subject to a right.  There

  are good etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral

  definition.  The Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to

  DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman Law the term was adapted to

  refer to anything that could act on either side of a legal

  dispute...  In effect, in Roman legal tradition, PERSONS are

  creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the

  legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to

  have, or only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside

  of the legal sphere.  The law, on the Roman interpretation, is

  systematically ignorant of the biological status of its

  subjects."



  -  Peter French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16

  American Philosophical Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).



But some time off in the future, the world will come to grips

with the deeper meanings of Peter French's comments about how

PERSONS ARE CREATIONS and how the law is ignorant OF THE

BIOLOGICAL STATUS OF ITS SUBJECTS, because common knowledge will

be changing one day as the recombinant DNA cellular cultivation

technology perfected in the late 1970s in special basement

laboratories designed into the CIA's Langley offices by Nelson

Rockefeller blossoms out one day into the Commercial Sector, and

genetic replicas of humans are brought forth into the public

domain.  It is my legal Prophesy that it is only a matter of time

before a Court ruling or some slice of LEX makes its appearance

somewhere, saying that the original natural born human being

takes upon themselves full civil and criminal liability for all

acts performed by their genetic replicas as soon as they emerge

from the chemical tank, under the ALTER EGO ["second self"]

DOCTRINE; and that those biological replicas (or SYNTHETIC

ALTOMETONS, as the Bolsheviks would say) will also be deemed at

that time to be PERSONS, fully layered with all of the same

juristic accoutrements that their natural born human sponsor

possesses [or would have possessed under similar circumstances].

The use of look alikes, or DOUBLES, has a very long history to

them, particularly in dynastic settings where tremendous wealth

is available for some looting; here in the United States of 1985,

Bolshevik SYNTHETIC ALTOMETONS have already produced marvelous

results for their sponsors, in both family dynasty and political

settings involving important positions held in Juristic

Institutions.  When common public knowledge of this technology

actually will blossom out into the open, I do not know.  When the

Apostle John was exiled to the Isle of Patmos, he once wrote a

story on events he had seen in a vision; John talks about how

someday the world's Gremlins, continuing to incorporate deception

into their MODUS OPERANDI like they do, will make a big deal out

of a man they will one day raise up for their purposes.  Like the

inflated, dramatic, and overzealous presentation of Henry

Kissinger's intellectual credentials, this man will be shown on a

much grander scale working great wonders going about the world

ending one tough crisis after another, as the imp goes about his

mischief trying to get folks to place trust and confidence in him

(just like with Henry); and great political power and authority

will be given to this imp.  John describes a fellow who will

bring down fire from Heaven, perform other great wonders, and

then be fatally wounded.  As part of the Gremlin deception show,

this little imp will heal his own wounds and bring himself back

from the dead.  This little Gremlin won't actually heal his own

wounds, as the world's news media will then want you to believe

in furtherance of Gremlin conquests, but actually a DOUBLE will

be brought forth that will have been previously manufactured,

while the body of the mortally wounded and double-crossed imp

will be quietly disposed of out the back door; and at the present

time, excellent genetic DOUBLES are very feasible to manufacture.

At the time the world's Gremlins pull off their impending MAGNUM

OPUS theatrics [meaning "great act" theatrics], John tells us

that they will succeed in deceiving many people.  Few people have

in-depth factual knowledge on Gremlin movements, and so few folks

have trained themselves to be able to think in terms that

Gremlins think in:  Terms that involve deception, intrigue, and

the use of doubles, murder, and whatever other CRACKING is

necessary to get the job done.  Like Tax Protestors never

bothering to try and see things from the Judge's and the King's

position, by folks never bothering to try and see things from the

Gremlin perspective, the result is going to be exactly what John

tells us:  That many people will be held in awe of this little

Gremlin, just like many people have already held Henry Kissinger

in awe when they should have thrown him in the trash can, as the

little Hitler the real Henry once was.  As for bringing down fire

from heaven and other MAGNUM OPUS appearances that John talks

about, the holographic technology to create multiple colored

images is now also highly developed.  Using a confluence of

monochromatic radiation sources (lasers), impressive visual

images can now be created in an air reception media (just like in

STAR WARS).  The technically impressive show that the world's

Gremlins will one day sponsor to try and impress people world

wide -- THAT THEIR LITTLE IMP IS WORTH ADMIRING -- will actually

have been rehearsed in a studio first, before being brought for

on some world exhibition stage the Gremlins will create.  [See

the 13th chapter of REVELATION].



One of the dominate themes of this Letter is INDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBILITY, and correlative to that, it is my proposition that

Gremlins can actually never succeed in forcing deception on

others.  The reason why is because deception has to be first

created, then conveyed, and then accepted by others -- then only

can deception succeed.  Deception can only find fertility in a

human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it; similarly,

in a sense, it actually takes two people to manufacture a

successful lie:  The first to utter the lie, and the second to

accept it as such.



=============================================================[004]



That Letter was intended to be the private correspondence between

two persons, or so I thought.  Since no further dissemination of

the Letter was expected, no detailed explanation of the factual

setting otherwise relevant to the subject matter content of the

Letter was made, nor was any detailed discussion of other limiting

factors or peripheral elements of jural influence made.  Both

parties already knew key elements of the factual setting that gave

rise to the Letter, and the subject matter I addressed was

intended to be a narrow one, talking about bank accounts only as a

point of beginning.  For that reason, now the expansive factual

application of that Letter to mean that a Person's contractual

relationship with a Federally regulated financial institution was

exclusively the only acceptable PRIMA FACIE Evidence [005]



[005]=============================================================



PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE is Evidence that is good and sufficient on

its face.  PRIMA FACIE differs from CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE in the

sense that PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE may be contradicted or attacked by

other Evidence, whereas CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is not open to such an

attack.  If left unexplained or unchallenged, PRIME FACIE EVIDENCE

is deemed to be of sufficient merit to sustain a judgment in favor

of the issue at hand that it is supporting.  Both PRIMA FACIE and

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE are Evidentiary Rules involving the use of

PRESUMPTIONS, which I will discuss later.



=============================================================[005]



-- or even CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE -- of that Person's entry into the

juristic highways of Interstate Commerce, is an erroneous and

overly enlarged interpretation, and falls outside the contours of

the two narrow questions that I thought I had addressed in that

Letter:



  1.  What right does the King have to criminalize a

  conversation two people have, just because the content

  discussed in that conversation does not meet with the King's

  approval?  (Relating to Mr. Condo's civilly denominated

  prosecution where the United States sought a Restraining Order

  silencing his YHPA ["Your Heritage Protection Association"];



  2.  What rights does the King have to incarcerate a Person for

  a mere circumstantial omission that is in want of both a MENS

  REA [006]



[006]=============================================================



The MENS REA is an evil state of mind that is necessarily inherent

in all criminals as they knowingly go about their pre-planned work

by intentionally damaging someone else.



  "Criminal liability is normally based upon the concurrence of

  two factors, 'an evil-meaning mind and an evil-doing hand...'

  ...Few areas of criminal law pose more difficulty than the

  proper definition of the MENS REA required for any particular

  crime.  [Extended discussion then follows defining what the

  MENS REA is and is not]."



  -  UNITED STATES VS. BAILEY, 444 U.S. 394, at 402 (1979)



=============================================================[006]



and a CORPUS DELECTI... [007]



[007]=============================================================



The CORPUS DELECTI is the hard evidentiary "body of the crime"

that is supposed to exist on the record; it is related to DUE

PROCESS in the sense that it ferrets out a unique form of error.

Originated as a Common Law rule by judges in our old Mother

England, the Britannic judiciary had been embarrassed by having

consented to execute a man for murder, when the individual

believed to have been murdered later returned to the village very

much alive.  As a corrective result, the judiciary then required

that in all capital murder cases, the prosecuting Crown has the

burden of adducing satisfactory evidence that the alleged victim

is actually dead (separate from, and in addition to, other

evidence that the accused is guilty.)  Today, the CORPUS DELECTI

rule is very much a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE for those criminal

prosecutions falling under Tort Law indicia (where no contract

governs the grievance); but it lies largely in slumber.  It could

be a test of the factual setting for the presence of hard damages

on the criminal record, and as such would screen out illegitimate

prosecutions where the Complainant never experienced any damages;

but as our Father's Common Law has been replaced by contractual

LEX, this rule has largely faded away into atrophy.  Should it

ever be resuscitated, perhaps in the form of mandating Criminal

Arraignment Magistrates to document either a contract or the twin

Tort indicia of MENS REA/CORPUS DELECTI on the record, as a

condition for allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed on to

Trial, such a procedural rule would automatically disable any

Special Interest Group from succeeding in having their little

penal Majoritarian LEX forced on others in violation of both the

REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT CLAUSE of Article 4, and of

PRINCIPLES OF NATURE that replicate the thinking of Heavenly

Father.  All Special Interest Groups sponsored penal LEX is always

characterized by the absence of any contract or damages present in

the factual setting that the defendant is being prosecuted for --

such as growing Marijuana in your backyard and gambling in your

basement.  There is a chilling story to be told some other time of

the Special Interest Temperance sponsors of the Prohibition of the

1920's here in the United States and of their descendants, who

today are heavily involved with drug smuggling, so called; as the

criminalization of plants and plant derivatives that are in broad

demand creates a FABULOUS Black Market to pursue Commercial

enrichment in.



=============================================================[007]



the criminalization of a non-event that never happened?  (Relating

to Mr. Condo's 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE prosecution).



You have me in such a position, Mr. May, that writing this

response to you makes me feel like I am the United States Supreme

Court, reaffirming a prior Opinion, yet turning around and writing

voluminous explanative text discussing the implications to a

slight twist to the factual setting.  [008]



[008]=============================================================



In a limited cognitive sense, I am also sympathetic to the

position Dr. Albert Einstein was in when he first disseminated his

THEORY OF RELATIVITY in 1929 with qualifications, as he knew then

that only a few people were in a position to come to grips with

its contents:



  "... his latest formal document -- the new "Field Theory" on

  the relations between gravitation and electromagnetism --

  concerning which he himself declares it is absurd to waste

  time to try to elucidate it for the public because 'probably

  not more than a dozen or so men in the world could possibly

  understand it'."



  -  The NEW YORK TIMES ["Einstein Distracted by Public

  Curiosity; Seeks Hiding Place"], Page 1 (February 4, 1929).



=============================================================[008]



The narrow answers explaining why Mr. Condo was just plain wrong

in both of those questions were discussed in that letter --

because in both questions, the United States had written

Commercial contracts Armen Condo had entered into wherein Mr.

Condo agreed not to disseminate any erroneous tax information, and

additionally, where Mr. Condo agreed not to withhold or fail to

file any information the Secretary of Treasury deemed necessary to

determine Mr. Condo's Excise Tax Liability (with the amount of tax

being measured by net taxable income).  Those contracts the United

States was operating on were Mr. Condo's bank accounts.



Furthermore, to aggravate the just plain "wrongness" of Mr.

Condo's position, those contracts were entered into by Mr. Condo

in the circumstantial context of Mr. Condo's attempting to

experience monetary profit or gain through the operation of those

contracts.  In other words, there had been an exchange of

financial Consideration (benefits) involved, and in Contract Law,

the exchange of valuable Consideration (benefits) is of particular

significance.  [009]



[009]=============================================================



CONSIDERATION is technically defined to be either a benefit or a

detriment -- meaning that some operation of NATURE out there in

the practical setting took place.



  "Under the common law of Missouri, Consideration sufficient to

  support a simple contract may consist either of a detriment to

  the Promisee, or a benefit to the Promisor."



  -  IN RE WINDLE, 653 F.2nd 328, at 331 (1981).



  "The very essence of Consideration... is legal detriment that

  has been bargained for and exchanged for the promise...  The

  two parties must have agreed and intended that the benefits

  each derived be the Consideration for a contract."



  -  JOSEPHINE HOFFA VS. FRANK FITZSIMMONS, 499 F.Supp. 357, at

  365 (1980).



This CONSIDERATION DOCTRINE -- this requirement that there must

first be a practical operation of NATURE prior to triggering the

Law is very important, and applies across all factual settings,

and not just on contracts, as I will explain by the end of this

Letter.  But for the purposes of this Letter, only the benefit

slice of CONSIDERATION will be discussed.



=============================================================[009]



This Consideration requirement is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE,

[010]



[010]=============================================================



Yes, the requirement for CONSIDERATION originated in the Heavens,

but not so to lawyers, who begin their analysis of the Law by

starting off in the wrong direction when assuming that men created

the Law.  Just like collegiate intellectual's conjecture that the

organic history of technological innovations is the result of

accidents, so too do lawyers skew their perceptions off into

factually defective tangents:



  "Bargain consideration was invented for the sake of bilateral

  agreements and then was extended to unilateral agreements..."



  -  Hugh Willis in RATIONALE OF BARGAIN CONSIDERATION in 27

  Georgetown Law Journal 414, at 415 (1939).



  The author then continues on with his dribblings.



=============================================================[010]



because it is immoral and unethical to hold a contract against a

Person under circumstances in which that Person never received any

benefits from out of it.  [011]



[011]=============================================================



See Charles Fried in CONTRACT AS PROMISE "Consideration" [Harvard

University Press, Cambridge (1981)].



=============================================================[011]



It has to be this way, otherwise the Judicature of the United

States would be working a Tort (damage) on someone else.  So

simply giving the other party some up front Consideration, which

is generally $10 in cash, separately and in addition to any other

benefit the contract may call for, will vitiate and deflect any

attack against the future enforcement of that contract on the

grounds the other party never experienced any benefit from it (the

attack is called FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION).  [012]



[012]=============================================================



For commentary in this area of CONSIDERATION, see:



  -  James Barr Ames in TWO THEORIES OF CONSIDERATION, 12

  Harvard Law Review 515 (1899) [discussing the relationship

  between Consideration and both unilateral and bilateral

  contracts];



  -  Arthur Corbin in THE EFFECT OF OPTIONS ON CONSIDERATION, 34

  Yale Law Journal 571 (1925);



  -  Arthur Corbin in NON-BINDING PROMISES AS CONSIDERATION, 26

  Columbia Law Review 550 (1926);



  -  Joseph Beale in NOTES ON CONSIDERATION, 17 Harvard Law

  Review 71 (1903);



  -  Melvin Eisenberg in THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSIDERATION, 67

  Cornell Law Review 640 (1982);



  -  Samuel Williston in SUCCESSIVE PROMISES OF THE SAME

  PERFORMANCE, 5 Harvard Law Review 27 (1894).  Samuel Williston

  authored several tremendous books on contract law called:



  1.  WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS, [Baker & Voorhis, New York

      (1936-1945) 9 volumes];



  2.  CASES ON ENGINEERING CONTRACTS ("engineering" meaning

      "drafting" contracts), [Little Brown, Boston (1904)];



  3.  RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW ON CONTRACTS [American Law

      Institute, St. Paul (1932)].



=============================================================[012]



This Consideration [meaning some practical benefit being exchanged

or some operation of Nature taking place] can also originate from

third persons not a party to the contract.  [013]



[013]=============================================================



  "In most actions upon contracts, the Consideration 'moved'

  directly from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, either by way of

  a benefit conferred or a loss sustained, or both, and the

  promise sued upon was made by the Defendant directly to the

  Plaintiff.  But occasionally the whole Consideration arises

  between the Defendant and some third person other than the

  Plaintiff, and the promise is made to such [third] person

  alone; and the question arises, 'Can any other person than the

  promisee maintain an action upon such promise, solely because

  he is beneficially interested in its performance?'  Many cases

  seem to hold that he can.  Is that a universal or general rule?

  Is not the general rule the other way?  If A sends a package to

  B by an expressman and pays him double price upon his promise

  to deliver the article promptly, can B recover damages for the

  carrier's non-performance of that contract?  ...A perfect,

  well-rounded contract requires not only a promise and a

  Consideration, but a participation by each party in both of

  these elements..."



  -  Edward Bennett in CONSIDERATIONS MOVING FROM THIRD PERSONS

  in 9 Harvard Law Review 233, at 233 (1895).



As we change settings from a common everyday Commercial

arrangement where merchandise is being transported back and forth,

over to a juristic setting involving contracts with Government,

nothing changes either -- as Consideration is deemed to have been

exchanged based upon an operation of indirect third persons not a

party to the contract [as I will discuss under the CITIZENSHIP

CONTRACT later on].



=============================================================[013]



The word CONSIDERATION has so many different meanings that anyone

trying to use the word instructionally finds themselves starting

over from scratch in the presentation of a definition.  [014]



[014]=============================================================



  "The term CONSIDERATION has been used in so many senses that

  anyone who employs it must define it for his own purposes anew.

  In using it as a title, I mean to include thereunder all acts

  or omissions on the part of anyone other than the promissor

  which, taken in connection with the promise, may be thought to

  afford a reason for granting a legal remedy upon its breach.

  So stated, the question whether Consideration exists in any

  given instance depends not on the character of the particular

  act relied upon as Consideration, but on its relation to the

  parties, to the promise, and to the particular remedy which is

  sought."



  -  George Gardner in AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW

  OF CONTRACTS, 46 Harvard Law Review 1, at 9 (1932).



In the typical case of a simple business contract these

relationships that Gardner was referring to appear to be complex

at first (as George Gardner did not elucidate himself very well in

that article), but they are based on very simple PRINCIPLES OF

NATURE everyone can understand; and when understanding these

Consideration rules, the indicia of Nature which creates invisible

contracts will also surface and become apparent.  For example,

let's say that A promises to B that if B will ship him a farm

reaper, then A will pay to B $500 ten days after it is shipped.

Fine.  B ships the reaper, thus bring the element of Consideration

into the factual setting, and so now an invisible contract is

formed:  How?  Since it was necessary to promise $500 as an

inducement to B to ship the reaper, it is reasonably inferred that

B experienced an outgoing DETRIMENT of something around $500.  But

as for A, he accepted a benefit (the reaper) that B first offered

conditionally -- and when practical benefits were accepted by you

that someone else offered conditionally (here, the benefit was

conditioned upon receipt of $500 within ten days), then an

invisible contract is in effect; and contracts do not now, and

never did, have to be stated in writing in order to be enforceable

by American Judges.  [The reaper sale is explained in PORT HURON

MACHINE COMPANY VS. WOHLERS, 207 Iowa 826 (1929)].



=============================================================[014]



Under some circumstances, successive Promises cascading down from

existing contracts can be deemed to be good and valuable

Consideration.  [015]



[015]=============================================================



Even though no tangible CONSIDERATION changed hands when this

successive contract was executed, the original contract did

trigger an exchange of CONSIDERATION, an so in a sense, other

successive future contracts could be deemed ADDENDUMS to the

original contract, obtaining their life from the CONSIDERATION the

parent contract experienced.  See:



  -  C.C. Langdell in MUTUAL PROMISES AS A CONSIDERATION FOR

  EACH OTHER in 14 Harvard Law Review 496 (1900);



  -  Samuel Williston in SUCCESSIVE PROMISES OF THE SAME

  PERFORMANCE in 8 Harvard Law Review 27 (1894);



  -  Ballantine in MUTUALITY AND CONSIDERATION in 28 Harvard Law

  Review 121 (1914);



  -  OLIPHANT in MUTUALITY OF OBLIGATION IN BILATERAL CONTRACTS

  AT LAW in 25 Columbia Law Review 705 (1925);



  -  Samuel Williston in THE EFFECT OF ONE VOID PROMISE IN A

  BILATERAL AGREEMENT in 25 Columbia Law Review 857 (1925);



  -  Corbin in NON-BINDING PROMISES AS CONSIDERATION in 26

  Columbia Law Review 550 (1926).



=============================================================[015]



Harnessing the element of FRAUD to inure to your benefit is

powerful stuff in that it vitiates contracts whenever it makes an

appearance in a factual setting predicated upon contract; [016]



[016]=============================================================



Fraud vitiates the juristic vitality and destroys the legal

validity of everything that it enters into:



  "Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it

  enters.  It affects fatally even the most solemn judgments and

  decrees."



  -  IRA NUDD VS. GEORGE BURROWS, 91 U.S. 426, at 440 (1875).



  "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud

  vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even

  judgments.  There is no question that many rights originally

  founded in fraud become -- by lapse of time... no longer open

  to inquiry in the usual and ordinary method."



  -  UNITED STATES VS. SAM THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61, at 64

  (1878).



Notice how the lack of timeliness impairs one's ability to invoke

this DOCTRINE OF FRAUD and successfully have contracts, documents,

etc. annulled where fraud has surfaced as an element; and as we

change arguments, the Principle of Timeliness (Laches) does not

change, so the importance of handling FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION in

a timely manner as a defense line will also surface as a key

important judicial indicia in deciding whether or not to award a

FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION judgment in your favor.



=============================================================[016]



and likewise, when contracts are up for review and judgment, the

element of CONSIDERATION is also so important that the mere

absence of it nullifies the judicial enforceability of any factual

setting alleging the existence of contractual liabilities.  As the

PRESENCE of fraud vitiates contracts, so in a similar manner does

the ABSENCE of Consideration nullify contracts.  [017]



[017]=============================================================



In the early 1970's, a business called Erika Incorporated had been

the recipient of a train of money originating from medical claims

filed with University Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama for the Blue

Cross "C-Plus" payment plan.  Blue Cross had been sending the

money to University Hospital, who in turn sent the money to Erika.

But in the Summer of 1975, University Hospital decided to

terminate relations with Erika, and so Blue Cross then started

paying its subscribers directly for services rendered by Erika.

Now Erika had to go through the nuisance of trying to collect

money from some distant patients; this was an expensive procedure,

and necessarily generated administrative headaches; and so now

Erika tried to get set up with Blue Cross directly as a PROVIDER,

now that University Hospital stopped paying Erika.  In a

preliminary attempt to get paid directly from Blue Cross, Erika

presented some ASSIGNMENTS that its customers had signed,

instructing Blue Cross to pay Erika directly, but Blue Cross

erected some administrative impediments.  Later, Erika then asked

Blue Cross for a PROVIDER NUMBER to return to a relationship where

they get paid directly from Blue Cross, but Blue Cross refused to

issue out such a PROVIDER NUMBER.  So in the Summer of 1975,

numerous letters were going back and forth between the corporate

management of Erika and Blue Cross.  The letters seem to indicate

that Blue Cross deemed that a PROVIDER NUMBER for Erika really was

not necessary, and that special checks could be issued out to

Erika in circumvention of house rules, but things never worked out

for Erika.  Circumstances came to pass later where Erika is

unhappy over the loss of revenue, so Erika started an action in

Federal District Court, now claiming that the letters from Blue

Cross stating possible circumvention of PROVIDER NUMBER was an

offer to a contract which Erika later accepted, and therefore a

contract was in effect.  The Federal Judge ruled that an exchange

of letters is not a contract, and that all of the offers and

acceptances stated in such letters means nothing -- since NO

CONSIDERATION EVER CHANGED HANDS:



  "Even if the exchange of letters can somehow be construed as

  containing essential elements of the agreement, no contract

  was formed because there was no Consideration.  Consideration

  for a promise is an act, a forbearance, or the creation,

  modification or destruction of a legal relation, or a return

  promise, bargained for and given in exchange for the promise.

  [Remember that CONSIDERATION is a hard practical operation of

  Nature taking place.] ... In the instant case, there was no

  Consideration to Blue Cross from Erika for any promise made by

  Blue Cross.  Although legal detriment to the promisee is a

  valid Consideration as a benefit to the promisor, ... that

  Consideration must be bargained for, and in the instant case

  there is no evidence that the action of Erika in submitting

  bills in the form and manner set forth by Blue Cross and

  refraining from sending such bills to Blue Cross' subscribers

  was in any way bargained for.  The Court finds that the

  exchange of correspondence did not form a contractual

  obligation on the part of Blue Cross to pay the money directly

  to Erika."



  -  ERIKA, INC. VS. BLUE CROSS, 496 F.Supp. 786, at 788 (1980).



I simplified the factual setting on this Case, but the essential

factual elements relating to the promises written on paper,

without any correlative operation of Nature (CONSIDERATION) is

largely accurate.  Here in ERIKA, just like Tax Protestors

throwing Temporary Restraining Order Petitions at a new Employer,

one party lost no time barreling into Federal Court demanding some

perceived rights.  And as is very often the case, as happened

here, a third party intervenes into the factual setting [here Blue

Cross], and for reasons the complaining party had little control

over, damages are being experienced.  With Tax Protestors, the

third party intervening into their factual setting by preemptively

grabbing their earnings is the IRS.  By the end of this Letter,

you should see quite clearly that the Law now continues to operate

out in the practical setting where it always has operated before

recent technological developments like paper, pens, and the like,

and even general public literacy, which surfaced generally as late

as the 1300's to 1600's.  The Law does not operate on paper

[whenever the Law is based on NATURE]; what is written on paper is

merely a STATEMENT OF THE LAW.  Importantly, I hope you should see

why.



=============================================================[017]



In general terms, both American Jurisprudence and Nature that it

is modeled after are divided into actions that fall generally

under Tort Law and Contract Law.  [018]



[018]=============================================================



For a presentation of the history of the bifurcation of Law into

Tort and Contract going back into 1200 A.D., see C.H.S. Fifoot in

HISTORY AND SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW, TORT AND CONTRACT; [Stevens

and Sons, London (1949)].



=============================================================[018]



Numerous references will be made throughout this Letter to the two

great divisions in American Jurisprudence:  TORT LAW and CONTRACT

LAW.  Very simply, Contract Law applies to govern a settlement of

a grievance whenever a contract is in effect.  This means that

only certain types of very narrow arguments are allowed to be

plead in Contract Law grievances, since only the content of the

contract is of any relevance in the grievance settlement.  The

reason why statutes are sometimes brought into a Contract Law

judgment setting, statutes that do not appear anywhere within the

body proper of the contract, is because the contract was written

under the supervisory Commerce Jurisdiction of the State, and that

therefore those statutes form a superseding part of the contract.

[019]



[019]=============================================================



Before 1933, it was common practice in the United States for

various contracts to contain covenants stating that a sum set

certain would be paid in Gold Coin, and so these special covenants

were then called GOLD CLAUSES.  They would read something to the

effect that "... will pay (amount) dollars in gold coin of the

United States of the standard weight and fineness existing on

(date of contract)..."  In this way, creditors protected

themselves from losses due to Government creating a monetary

change in currency value.  When a Joint Resolution of Congress in

June of 1933 [31 U.S.C. 463] explicitly abrogated the judicial

enforcement of these GOLD CLAUSES in Commercial contracts, there

was the usual Patriot howling, claiming that worn out Patriot

argument of UNCONSTITUTIONALITY; some lingering residues of which

continue on down to the present time.  However, long ago in the

early 1800's, an American jurist with great foresight, who

understood the correct relational status in effect between

COMMERCIAL contracts and the Constitution, had a few words to say

about this state of affairs:



  "Nay, if the legislature should pass a law declaring, that all

  future contracts might be discharged by a tender of any thing,

  or things, besides gold and silver, there would be a great

  difficulty in affirming them to be unconstitutional; since it

  would become part of the stipulations of the contract."



  -  Joseph Story in III COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION at 248

  ["Prohibitions - Contracts"] (Cambridge, 1833).



By the end of this Letter, you too should see why COMMERCIAL

contracts are born, live and then die, in their own strata,

without the Constitution offering any significant restrainment on

Legislative intervention.  See generally:



  -  THE GOLD CLAUSES, 294 U.S. 240 (1934);



  -  Barry, GOLD, 20 Virginia Law Review 263 (1934);



  -  Phanor Eder, THE GOLD CLAUSE CASES IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY,

  23 George Washington Law Review [Part 1 at Page 369 (Basic

  concepts of money); and Part 2 starts at Page 722

  ("Debasement, Devaluation and Depreciation")] (1934);



  -  Russell Post and Charles Willard, THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS

  TO NULLIFY GOLD CLAUSES, 46 Harvard Law Review 1225 (1933);

  and others mentioned elsewhere in this Letter.



Although it seems momentarily pleasing to ventilate Patriot

frustrations by throwing invectives at the spineless Congress for

their successive continuum of enacting Rockefeller Special

Interest Group legislation with the national damages created

secondarily in their wake, by the end of this Letter, the true

remedy will be found lying within yourself.



=============================================================[019]



There are many subdivisions within Contract Law, such as

Securities Law, Estate Inheritance, Quasi-Contract, [020]



[020]=============================================================



Quasi-contracts are just contracts.  Sir Henry Maine showed the

use of the adjunct QUASI in such Roman expressions as

quasi-contract (quasi ex contractu), but it is just an assignment

of superfluous terminology.  See a review of William Keeton's book

called QUASI-CONTRACTS by Everett Abbott in 10 Harvard Law Review

209 (1896).



=============================================================[020]



Statutory Contract, Taxes, Copyright and Trademark Infringement

Law, Commercial Business Practice under either the Law Merchant or

the Uniform Commercial Code, Insurance, Admiralty and Maritime

Contracts, etc.  Operating a business under a regulated statutory

juristic environment is very much a contract, since a numerous

array of Government benefits are being accepted by Gameplayers in

Commerce, as I will discuss later.



And in contrast to that, we have Tort Law.  Think of Tort Law as

being a Judgment Law to settle grievances between persons where

there are damages, but without any contract in effect between the

parties.  [021]



[021]=============================================================



  "A tort is a breach of duty (other than contractual duty) which

  gives rise to an action for damages.  That is, obviously, a

  merely procedural definition, of no value to the layman.  The

  latter wants to know the nature of those breaches of duty which

  give rise to an action for damages.  To put it briefly, there

  is no English Law of Tort; there is merely an English Law of

  Torts, i.e., a list of acts and omissions which, in certain

  conditions, are actionable.  Any attempt to generalize further,

  however interesting from a speculative standpoint, would be

  profoundly unsafe as a practical guide."



  -  Miles, DIGEST OF ENGLISH CIVIL LAW, Book II, Page xiv

  (1910).



This pitiful line of reasoning and of poorly presented facts

without any guidance Principles, is what collegiate law students

are taught, so we should not be too surprised to start uncovering

damages that lawyers have done to our Father's Law.



=============================================================[021]



A good contrasting way to define a Tort is by enumerating on the

things that it is not:  It is not a breach of contract.  Included

under the heading of Torts are such miscellaneous civil wrongs,

ranging from simple and direct interferences against a person like

assault, battery, and false imprisonment; or with some property

rights, like trespass or conversion; and various forms of

negligence are Torts ("judge, the defendant was negligent in

maintaining his parking lot by not fixing a dangerous and obscure

crevice that was in it") -- but the final definition is a simple

one:  Any wrong that has been worked by someone, where there is no

contract in effect, falls under Tort Law when the damaged person

brings the grievance into Court and tries to seek a judicial

remedy.  [022]



[022]=============================================================



  "...it is a distinguishing characteristic of Torts that the

  duties from the violation of which they result are creatures of

  the law and not of peculiar agreements.  As contractual duties

  properly have their origin in, and derive their vitality from,

  the assent of the parties, a breach of such duties only does

  not constitute a Tort."



  -  62 CORPUS JURIS 1091, at 1092, Section 2.  [See also 86

  CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM under "Torts -- Definition, Distinctions,

  and History"; 86 CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, Section 2 also

  discusses "Torts -- Distinction From, and Relation To,

  Contract"].



=============================================================[022]



Such an easy concept to understand as that, with parallel easy to

understand rules and judgment reasoning -- and lawyers are

actually baffled by it.  [023]



[023]=============================================================



And they have been poorly writing cases, statutes and memoranda

for a very long time:



  "The law of Edward I's reign draws no clear line between tort

  and contract."



  -  Sir William Holdsworth in Volume II, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH

  LAW, at 369 [London (1936); 18 Volumes].



But they should not have been baffled; back in the early English

days of King Henry, strategies for bringing actions into court

under either Tort or Contract was being fluently discussed back

then:



  "[While discussing the beginnings of ASSUMPSIT (ASSUMPSIT was

  a court action to recover from breach of contract on simple

  unwritten contracts)]  ...The King's Court was not very fond

  of contract, but it showed some interest in tort, and it is in

  the action of trespass that the quickest progress was made.

  ...The debate [back in the 1300's] makes it clear that all

  parties recognized that the situation was fundamentally

  contractual, and that it was being forced into the form of

  tort simply because the action of covenant could be brought

  only upon deed upon seal.  In this particular instance, the

  contrast with trespass is well made, and the case is left,

  procedurally, at least, as a case of negligent damage to a

  chattel.  But it must not be imagined that this is the story

  of the slow dawn of the idea of contract in the minds of

  common lawyers.  They knew quite well [back then] what a

  covenant was, but they deliberately resorted to juggling with

  [the tort of] trespass because they felt unable to sustain an

  action of covenant without a deed."



  -  Theodore Pluckett in HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW, Page 637

  [Little Brown Publishers, Boston (1956); 5th Edition].



Today in 1985, lawyers will still juggle their arguments around,

trying to find the most advantageous position for their client;

and so applicability of Tort Law or Contract Law is still being

argued down to the present day.



=============================================================[023]



Similarly, orthodox medical doctors here in the United States are

also blind, by replicating the advisory suggestions of drug

companies pursuing Commercial Enrichment, to exclude the

identification of simple nourishment deficiency as the true

seminal point of mammalian disease origin.  Against that sad

background (of professionals not even knowing their own

profession), [024]



[024]=============================================================



Even prominent American jurists have had difficulty coming to

grips with the simple ideas of Tort and Contract:



  "But it must be remembered that the distinction between tort

  and breaches of contract, and especially between the remedies

  for the two, is not found ready made.  It is conceivable that

  a procedure adapted to redress for violence was extended to

  other cases as they arose."



  -  Oliver W. Holmes in THE COMMON LAW, at 13 [Little Brown,

  Boston (1881)].



=============================================================[024]



the actual identification of Tort Law as an actual branch of the

Majestic Oak is a relatively recent recognition by American

lawyers.  Up until about 1859, Tort Law was not understood as a

separate and distinct branch of Law.  [025]



[025]=============================================================



  "The definition of a tort may be said to have baffled the

  text-book writers not so much on account of the inherent

  difficulty of the conception as because of the implication of

  the conception in questions of jurisdiction.  ...Perhaps none

  of the text-books succeeds in introducing all of these

  limitations into its definition."



  -  Lee, TORTS AND DELICTS, 27 Yale Law Journal 721, at 723

  (1918).



=============================================================[025]



The first treatise in ENGLISH ON TORTS was published in 1859 by

Francis Hilliard of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who was followed a

year later by an English author named Addison.  [026]



[026]=============================================================



For a discussion of the recent recognition of Tort Law by lawyers,

see generally, PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS, Page 1 [West

Publishing (1984)].  By the time you have finished this Letter,

you will see that Tort Law has been in effect long before this

World ever came into existence, and long before para-legals

masquerading as professionals created a privately shared monopoly,

the Bar Association, in which to artificially limit new entrants

and quietly pursue enhanced Commercial self-enrichment.  The fact

that Tort Law has only recently been recognized in American

Jurisprudence since the late 1800's does not mean that Tort Law

did not exist prior to such recognition -- it only means that

lawyers were groping in the dark back then [and not that things

have really changed that much].



=============================================================[026]



Even as late as 1871, the leading American legal periodical

remarked that:



  "We are inclined to think that Torts is not a proper subject

  for a law book."  [027]



[027]=============================================================



5 AMERICAN LAW REVIEW 341 (1871).  [Violating a premier PRINCIPLE

OF NATURE with the baneful and stupid conclusion that factual

ignorance is beneficial to you.]



=============================================================[027]



In 1853, when Mr. Joel Bishop proposed to write a book on the Law

of Torts, he was assured then by all publishers he surveyed that

there was no such call for such a work on that subject.  [028]



[028]=============================================================



Mr. Bishop was told that:



  "... if the book were written by the most eminent and

  prominent author that ever lived, not a dozen copies a year

  would be sold."



  -  Joel Bishop in NON-CONTRACT LAW, Page 2 (1889).



=============================================================[028]



Yet, the distinction in effect between Tort Law and Contract Law

was in effect during the Roman Empire.  [029]



[029]=============================================================



See ROMAN LAW AND COMMON LAW, at Page 18, by W.W. Buckland

[Cambridge University Press (1936)].



=============================================================[029]



But in addressing Tort Law itself, if I were to hit you over the

head with a baseball bat or burn down your house, there is no

contract in effect governing the grievance, so Tort Law rules,

reasoning, and arguments govern the settlement of this type of

grievance.  In addition to damages, judges always want to examine

the factual record presented to analyze the Defendant's character,

and make sure that the intent to damage was there (as consent and

accidental damages can vitiate liability).  [030]



[030]=============================================================



This means that if you had asked me to burn down your house, you

would be unsuccessful if you later tried to sue me for Tort

damages -- because you had CONSENTED.  As for bringing down a

baseball bat on you, what we have here is an assault, and it is

necessary to argue CONSENT when assault is alleged.  However, the

STATE OF MIND of the actor in assault Tort proceedings is of

interest to judges for other deeper reasons [because the STATE OF

MIND is a behavioral point of beginning and leads to other

things]:



  "As to assault, this is, perhaps, one of the kind in which the

  insult is more to be considered than the actual damages,

  though no great bodily pain is suffered by a blow on the palm

  of the hand, or the skirt of the coat, yet these are clearly

  within the legal definition of assault and battery, and among

  gentlemen too often induce duelling and terminate in murder."



  -  RESPUBLICA VS. DELONGCHAMPS, 1 Dallas 111, at 114 (1784).



=============================================================[030]



And so hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat is called

an "assault," and there lies a Tort; however, there are many types

of Torts that do not have any names assigned to them.  [031]



[031]=============================================================



Smith, TORTS WITHOUT PARTICULAR NAMES, 69 University of

Pennsylvania Law Review 91 (1921).



=============================================================[031]



Some writers have attempted to uncover certain characteristics

that lie in common to all Torts as a starting point to identify

some Principles (yes, there may be some hope for a few of you

lawyers after all).  [032]



[032]=============================================================



See writers like:



  -  Radin in A SPECULATIVE INQUIRY IN THE NATURE OF TORTS, 21

  Texas Law Review 697 (1943);



  -  Stone in TOUCHSTONES OF TORT LIABILITY, 2 Stanford Law

  Review 259 (1950);



  -  Seavey in COGNITIONS ON TORT (1954)



=============================================================[032]



One of the reasons why lawyers try and raise numerous

subclassifications of Tort up to the main level of Tort and

Contract (as they grope and search in the dark the way they do),

is because they do not see the invisible contracts that are often

quietly in effect, correctly overruling Tort Law intervention,

since an examination of the factual setting seems void of any

contract.  By the end of this Letter, you will see many invisible

contracts for what they really are, and you will see how to

identify the indicia that create invisible contracts.



You may not understand the deeper significance of the distinction

in effect between Tort and Contract right now, but after reading

this Letter through a few times, the semantic differential in

meaning should become very apparent to you, as I will give many

examples of Contract Law and Tort Law reasonings and arguments, as

applied across many different factual settings; as whenever there

is a judgment of some type, there is always in effect some rules

and an exclusion of some evidence in the mind of the judge as to

what arguments will and will not be allowed to be heard -- (even

though this process goes on unmentioned orally by the judge); and

the real reason why there is an important significance here that

you might be interested in taking PERSONAL NOTICE of [just like

Judges take JUDICIAL NOTICE of special items], in Tort and

Contract rule differentials in judgment settings, is because we

all have an impending Judgment with Heavenly Father -- where

arguments then presented will be judged under similar Tort and

Contract rules; a judgment setting where the pure magnitude of the

consequences renders unprepared incorrect reasoning injudicious

and lacking in foresight.



Like in Contract Law, there are numerous subdivisions within Tort

Law to place a specific grievance into, such as:  Civil Rights,

Wrongful Death, Product Liability, Aviation Law, Personal Injury,

Accident Recovery, Professional Malpractice, Unfair Competition,

Admiralty and Maritime Torts, and certain Fraud and Anti-Trust

actions, etc.



[033]=============================================================



See:



  -  Section 2, subsection 3, by Salmond, LAW ON TORTS, 7th

  Edition (1928);



  -  Goodhart, THE FOUNDATION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY, 2 Modern

  Law Review 1 (1938);



  -  Williams, THE FOUNDATION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY, 7 Cambridge

  Law Journal 111 (1938);



  -  James, TORT LAW IN MIDSTREAM: ITS CHALLENGE TO THE JUDICIAL

  PROCESS, 8 Buffalo Law Review 315 (1959).



=============================================================[033]



Based on the Status of the person involved and certain elements in

the factual setting, and certain types of damages asked for, then

what grievance normally would be under Contract Law, could be

changed to fall under Tort Law.



So there is the general distinction in effect between Tort and

Contract.  Question:  What if a grievance falls into an area of

grey where it could fall under rules applicable to either Tort or

Contract?  Although my introductory remarks in this Letter are

necessarily simplified, numerous commentators have mentioned that

defining the line between Tort and Contract is sometimes

difficult.  [034]



[034]=============================================================



  "Never did a Name so obstruct a true understanding of the

  Thing.  To such a plight has it brought us that a favorite

  mode of defining a Tort is to declare merely that it is not a

  Contract.  As if a man were to define Chemistry by pointing

  out that it is not Physics or Mathematics."



  -  Wigmore, SELECT CASES ON THE LAW OF TORTS, page vii (1912).



=============================================================[034]



However, what is important is the reason why a simple distinction

became difficult:  Because the parties to what started out as a

Contract Law grievance did not fully anticipate all future events

that could have occurred between the parties in contract.  [035]



[035]=============================================================



For example:



  "If I employ a piano tuner to tune my piano and he does it

  badly, in fact does not really tune it, I have a claim for

  recovery of what I may have paid, and for damages for breach

  of contract, and I can resist action on the contract if I have

  not paid.  But there is no question of tort:  The duty broken

  was created by the contract.  If, however, he not only fails

  to tune the piano, but in the course of his operations breaks

  some of the hammers, the case is altered.  If he breaks the

  hammers negligently, I can sue him for the damage either in

  contract or in tort; if intentionally, then I can sue him in

  tort or (probably) in contract."



  -  W.W. Buckland in ROMAN LAW AND COMMON LAW, ["Tort and

  Contract"] at page 273 [Cambridge University Press (1936)].



=============================================================[035]



Typically, all blurry factual settings that involve an area

between Tort and Contract have their seminal point of origin in a

Contract that did not completely define what would and would not

happen under all possible scenarios; and this is called INCOMPLETE

CONTRACTING.  [036]



[036]=============================================================



In response to grievances arising out of fractured and

insufficient contracts, judges sometimes create legal fictions to

deal with these voids that the particular contracts were silent

on; such fictions are the DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED CONDITIONS and the

DOCTRINE OF PRESUMED INTENT [see Farnsworth in DISPUTES OVER

OMISSION IN CONTRACT, 68 Columbia Law Review 860 (1968)].  Since

the contract does not specify rights and duties, a limited slice

of Tort Law reasoning enters into the Court's judgment, and so now

Tort questions of FAIRNESS are then entertained by the Judge,

under these special limited circumstances (but remember, Judges

are merely filling voids that were left unsaid by the contract --

so there is no derogation of our Father's Law when such limited

slices Tort are allowed to intervene into what started out as a

Contract Law grievance).



In other cases, sometimes there are unallocated benefits or losses

coming out of contracts, because quite frequently the contract did

not provide for them [see Schwartz in SALES LAW AND INFLATION, 50

Southern California Law Review 1, at 8 to 10 (1976), discussing

that if the parties have assumed the risk of inflation within

certain boundaries, then the consequences of inflation experienced

outside the specified boundaries of the contract is to be

distributed pursuant to the FAIRNESS of judicial discretion].

Since the contract is silent on the effect of high inflation

occurring outside of its boundaries, Tort Law reasoning of

fairness and unfairness is then allowed to properly enter into the

picture for this limited reason.  Another area of Tort Law

reasoning making its appearance to fill areas of voids in

contracts comes when contract grievances are brought into Courts

arguing that the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE Section 2-615 now allows

them to weasel out of their contract for some reason [see Hurst in

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN AN UNSTABLE ECONOMY: JUDICIAL REALLOCATION

OF CONTRACTUAL RISKS UNDER UCC 2-615 in 54 North Carolina Law

Review 545 (1976)].  UCC Section 2-615 ["Excuse By Failure of

Presupported Conditions"] allows parties in contracts to try and

weasel their way out of the contract because some excusable

circumstances came to pass; when such a contract termination is

presented before a Judge, factors considered in the Judge's mind

also center largely around Tort Law arguments of fairness -- but

only because the contract is silent, and where contracts are

silent, Contract Law yields to Tort Law arguments of fairness and

unfairness [see FAIRNESS AND UTILITY IN TORT THEORY by George

Fletcher, 85 Harvard Law Review 537 (1972)].



=============================================================[036]



Once a determination has been made that Tort or Contract governs

the question presented, very important differences and rules then

apply to settling claims and grievances based on the factual

setting falling under Principles governing Tort Law, or under

Principles governing Contract Law; and as you can surmise, the

question as to whether or not a grievance belongs under Tort or

under Contract is often a disputed and hotly argued question

between adversaries in a courtroom battle, as the question as to

which Law governs can spell total success or total failure for the

parties involved.  For example, see BUTLER VS. PITTWAY

CORPORATION, [037]



[037]=============================================================



770 F.2nd 7 (1985).



=============================================================[037]



where two adversaries argued Tort Law or Contract Law governance

in a pre-Trial appeal, which was a product liability/warranty

case.  [038]



[038]=============================================================



Meaning that some merchandise was first purchased under contract,

and then evidence of a manufacturing defect surfaced later on, so

now Tort Law claims were thrown back at the manufacturer (claims

for damages can be enlarged under Tort Law, since Tort Law is a

free-wheeling jurisdiction; claims for damages under Contract Law

are restricted to the content of the contract, as in BREACH OF

CONTRACT).



=============================================================[038]



In deciding whether to allow Tort or Contract Law to govern, the

Second Circuit mentioned that:



  "This case falls into a grey area between tort and contract

  law that has never been fully resolved."  [039]



[039]=============================================================



BUTLER VS. PITTWAY CORPORATION, id., at 9.



=============================================================[039]



So, for the introductory purposes of this Letter, I will only be

discussing the differences between Tort Law and Contract Law in

general.  [040]



[040]=============================================================



Other summary articles discussing the necessary distinctions in

effect between Tort and Contract are:



  -  THE PAST OF PROMISE by E.A. Farnsworth, 69 Columbia Law

  Review 576;



  -  CONTRACT DAMAGES by W.R. Purdue, 46 Yale Law Journal 52 to

  96 (1936-37).



=============================================================[040]



This stratification of the Law into two separate jurisdictions of

Tort and Contract is quite necessary, and in so doing, the

Judiciary is no more than conforming the contours of American

Jurisprudence to more tightly replicate the profile of Nature; and

as you will soon see there will be very profound consequences

experienced by folks who try to outfox Nature by using Tort Law

reasoning in a Contract Law judgment setting.  You should also be

aware that very often, we all occasionally get ourselves into

contracts that become invisible for any number of reasons, and

then erroneously use the logic of Tort Law reasoning to try and

weasel our way out of the contract we forgot about.



Experientially well seasoned contractualists know that the desires

and wants of people routinely change with the passage of time, and

that it is quite common that contracts that are entered into today

are often unattractive and unappealing in the hindsight of the

future.  So this Consideration rule is of particular importance in

those types of marginal contracts where the benefit a Person

experiences from the contract depends upon some future efforts

that same Person must make, or where the benefits are qualified or

otherwise conditional.  For our purposes, correctly understood,

Consideration is a benefit.  Comprehension of the significance of

Consideration is fundamental to one's understanding as to why the

Judiciary is largely ignoring the IN REM CONTRACT RECESSIONS many

folks are filing on their Birth Certificates; and understanding

Consideration (the acceptance of benefits) is the Grand Key to

unlocking the mystery as to why some of the King's Equity hooks

are so difficult to pull out of you, as I will discuss later.



There having been an exchange of valuable CONSIDERATION, when Mr.

Condo entered into his bank account contracts, Mr. Condo was in an

extremely weak position -- he was just plain wrong with his bank

accounts and other invisible contracts (having experienced hard

cash benefits [Consideration] as a result of the contract, as well

as giving the King CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that he was a participant

in Interstate Commerce and the acceptant of federal benefits) and

so as a result, there was not a lot of substance left over for Mr.

Condo to argue about... like trying to argue that the Earth's

rotation about its own axis is some type of an elliptical

illusion, just somehow.  Yes Virginia, there are absolutes in both

Nature and in Contract Law; and Defendants in prosecutions can be

plain and simple wrong.  When one is inside of a King's cage, one

begins to appreciate just how strong contracts can be.

Additionally, Mr. Condo was trying to argue the basic unfairness

of the proceedings against him, but that unfairness argument as

well was non-applicable to his Contract Judgment.  [041]



[041]=============================================================



Unfairness, and all of its correlative arguments, are Tort Law

arguments and have no place whatsoever in the settlement of

grievances falling under Contract Law Jurisprudence:



  "Since the relationship between the United States and

  petitioner is based on commercial contract, there is no basis

  for a claim of unfairness in this result."



  -  STENCEL AERO VS. UNITED STATES, 431 U.S. 666, at 674

  (1976).



Commentators have pointed out the fact that Tort Law is primarily

fairness oriented.  See:



  -  Epstein in DEFENSES AND SUBSEQUENT PLEAS IN A SYSTEM OF

  STRICT LIABILITY, 3 Journal of Legal Studies 165 (1974);



  -  Epstein in A THEORY OF STRICT LIABILITY in 2 Journal of

  Legal Studies 151 (1971);



  -  James Henderson in PROCESS CONSTRAINTS IN TORT, 67 Cornell

  Law Review 901 (1982).



=============================================================[041]



Unfairness is a concept that is related to moral Tort Law.  [042]



[042]=============================================================



Questions of FAIRNESS and UNFAIRNESS are questions reserved for

grievances that fall under Tort -- a concept commentators note

over and over again:



  "...Tort theory has served to explain and to justify the

  changing notions of fairness... that are captured by the

  kaleidoscope of tortious events."



  -  William Rodgers in NEGLIGENCE RECONSIDERED:  THE ROLE OF

  RATIONALITY IN TORT THEORY, 54 Southern California Law Review

  1, at 1 (November, 1980).



When contracts are in effect, questions of fairness are not

relevant -- because only the content of the contract is relevant.



=============================================================[042]



Questions of damages, and lack of damages, of the MENS REA

criminal intent, of fairness, of risk assumption, of equity, and

equality are all reasoning and arguments reserved for a Tort Law

judgment setting.  Remember that Tort Law doctrine governs the

settlement of grievances that arise between parties without any

contract being in effect.  Tort Law is generally a free-wheeling

jurisdiction, and anything goes.  The decision by the New Jersey

State Supreme Court to hold sponsors of parties responsible for

the acts of persons who drank in their homes is a Tort Law

grievance.  [043]



[043]=============================================================



The case I am referring to is KELLY VS. DONALD GWINNELL, 476 A.2nd

1219 (1984).  For Commentary, see:



  -  Paul Verardi in SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY, 23 Duquesne Law

  Review 1307 (1985);



  -  Maura Mahon in IMPOSING THIRD PARTY LIABILITY ON SOCIAL

  HOSTS, in 5 Pace Law Review 809 (1985);



  -  Case Notes in TORTS - NEGLIGENCE -- SOCIAL HOST WHO SERVES

  LIQUOR TO A VISIBLY INTOXICATED ADULT GUEST, KNOWING THE GUEST

  WILL THEREAFTER DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE, MAY BE HELD LIABLE, in 89

  Dickerson Law Review 537 (1985).



As the ripple effect of Tort Law liability attachment ascends up

the ladder to reach third persons seemingly not involved with the

heated grievance, then so too do distant and removed Employers get

held for similar attachments of Tort liability, just like Social

Hosts [see Mark Gutis in EXPANDING THIRD PARTY LIABILITY FOR

FAILURE TO CONTROL THE INTOXICATED EMPLOYEE WHO DRIVES, 18

Connecticut Law Review 155 (1985); the Case Mark Gutis refers to

in his Law Review article is OTIS ENGINEERING CORPORATION VS.

CLARK, 668 S.W.2nd 307 (Texas, 1983).  This legal reasoning is

largely just an extension of the liability that has always been in

place regarding the liability of the Principle for the Torts of

his Agents, when those Torts were done without the knowledge or

authority of the Principle [see William Vance in LIABILITY FOR THE

UNAUTHORIZED TORTS OF AGENTS in 4 Michigan Law Review 199 (1904)].



=============================================================[043]



In contrast to the elastic and expansive nature of Tort Law, when

Contracts are in effect, only the content of the Contract is of

any significance when the grievance is up for review and judgment.

[044]



[044]=============================================================



If a music store sold you a piano and agreed to have it delivered

before 6pm tonight, and the piano does not get delivered when you

need it, do you think you can ask for simple breach of contract

damages, plus compound the requested damages relief asked for in a

Court to compensate you for the PSYCHIC INJURIES that you

experienced because of the embarrassment and humiliation you

suffered before the eyes of your party guests that evening, as the

partying went on without that piano being there?  Such a request

for equitable relief in your Complaint for Breach of Contract is

patently ridiculous -- however, you need to know why:  Because

when contracts are in effect (the purchase and correlative

expected delivery of the piano was very much a contract), then

only the content of the contract will be addressed and considered

by the Judge when a grievance arises.  If you want to get

supplemental secondary damages (called CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES by

lawyers) because of the lack of timeliness in the delivery of the

piano, then you need to get the other party to agree to pay such

damages on their default, in advance, within the body of the

contract; then a Court can address your claims of secondary

damages [because then your claim falls within the content of the

contract].  The question of demanding something as indefinite,

vague and arbitrary as PSYCHIC DAMAGES is a question that belongs

in the free-wheeling world of Tort Law, where such indefinite

questions of fairness and unfairness have their home:



  "The primary root of legal liability through psychic causes

  can be traced back to the year 1349 to a tort action which

  recognized a liability for assault without [any] physical

  touching under the WRIT OF TRESPASS."



  -  Harold McNiece in PSYCHIC INJURY AND TORT LIABILITY IN NEW

  YORK, 24 Saint John's Law Review 1, at 3 (1949).



Harold McNiece then spends the rest of the article talking about

the difficulty a court has in assigning a set sum of money as

relief compensation for something as vague and indefinite as

perceived PSYCHIC DAMAGES:



  "The problem of tort liability where a mental injury is

  involved has troubled the courts for a great many years, and

  even at present no consistent pattern of liability rules

  exist.  When injuries and causes of injuries leave the realm

  of the tangible world and enter the uncharted areas of the

  mind, courts understandably have difficulty in establishing

  principles of law calculated to assure substantial justice.

  In the psychic injury field, Mr. Justice Douglas' observation,

  though made in another connection, seems to be of peculiar

  pertinence:



  "But there are few areas of the law in black and white.  The

  grays are dominant and even among them the shades are

  innumerable.  For the eternal problem of the law is one of

  making accommodations between conflicting interests.  This is

  why most legal problems end as questions of degree [quoted

  from ESTIN VS. ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541, at 545 (1948)]."



  -  Harold McNiece, id., at 1.



By the end of this Letter, you will see very well the real deep

reasons why the bifurcation of our Father's Law into Tort and

Contract is an important PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that originated --

not with "some Commie Federal Judge throwin' Patriots in jail" --

but in the mind of Heavenly Father who created that abstraction

Judges now call NATURE.



=============================================================[044]



Tort Law means that for every damage someone works on you,

corrective damages will be applied back to that person as the

remedy (call the retort).  For example, in Tort Law, if you burned

down a neighbor's house out of a grudge and without the owner's

consent (since no Contracts are in effect, Tort Law governs the

courtroom grievance), pure natural moral Tort Law requires that

you be damaged in return, i.e., that a retort be worked on you in

order to satisfy the demands of Justice.  As the Sheriff or other

neutral disinterested third party that administers the retort (to

perfect the ends of Justice), by stuffing you in one of his cages,

that encagement retort itself is largely exempt from experiencing

further retorts for his damages on you.  [045]



[045]=============================================================



This is a contributing reason why it is so difficult for people to

get TITLE 42, SECTION 1983 Civil Rights relief, unless both hard

damages and special circumstances are present in the factual

setting, because under normal circumstances, the Sheriff is

largely immune from further retort since he operates in the retort

cycle of Justice.  [But that is another Letter.]  In order for a

Federal Civil Rights Case to prevail, the elements of unjustified,

exceptional, and pathetic circumstances must be present in the

factual setting to trigger Federal relief -- and then when the

relief is granted, the Judiciary is really not interested in

enriching you as much as they are interested in awarding damage

money to preventively restrain the recurrence of unreasonable

police Tortfeasance in the future:



  "Remedies for constitutional wrongs, like other legal

  remedies, chiefly involve measures either to prevent or

  terminate the wrong or to redress the harm caused by past

  unconstitutional [police] conduct."



  -  Professor Sager, as quoted by Bruce Miller in

  UNDERINCLUSIVE STATUTES, 20 Harvard Civil Rights -- Civil

  Liberties Law Review 79, at 112 [footnote 145] (1985).



=============================================================[045]



So the cycle of Tort and retort ends there by the Sheriff jailing

you for damaging your neighbor the way you did by burning down his

house.  This is Tort Law, and this is a key concept to understand,

because numerous people throughout the world have so deliberately

and very carefully arranged their affairs as to have all their

murders and MAGNUM Torts executed on their behalf under the

liability vitiating and recourse free operating environment of

pure natural Tort Law, as I will explain later.  Think about this

Tort and Retort Doctrine for a while, as it is very powerful --

with it damages can be justified in a judgment setting, if your

damages occurred to accomplish the ends of Justice.



These people, taking counsel from Gremlins, by arranging their

damages to be justified as a retort, believe quite strongly that

they are morally correct and that Heavenly Father [046]



[046]=============================================================



Yes, we very much have a Heavenly Father:



  "If our Father and God should be disposed to walk through one

  of these aisles, we should not know of him from one of the

  congregation.  You would see a man, and that is all you would

  know about Him; you would merely know Him as a stranger from

  some neighboring city or country.  This is the character of

  Him who we worship and acknowledge as our Father and God...

  He is our Heavenly Father..."



  -  Brigham Young, President of the Mormon Church, in remarks

  delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, January 8, 1865.

  11 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 39, at 40 [London (1867)].



And we are quite similar to our Father in many ways:



  "If we believe there is any truth in the writings of Moses,

  the Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles, and the teachings of

  Jesus, if we would indeed be consistent Christians and receive

  the writings of the fathers, and believe what was said unto

  them, we must believe that man is made in the image of God,

  and consequently that we are of the species of the gods.

  However child-like and feeble we are in this condition of

  mortality, we are nevertheless descended from the gods, made

  in their image and after their likeness."



  -  Erastus Snow, in a discourse in Salt Lake City, January 20,

  1878; 19 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 322, at 323 [London (1878)].



[The JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES is a large collection of instructional

pronouncements by early Mormon Church authorities that was

published over a number of years in London, England.  This Letter

contains many quotations from the JOURNAL, and since these are

transcripts of speakers, I made nominal changes in punctuation,

capitalization, and spelling that I deemed provident under the

circumstances; in so doing, there was no derogation of the

original idea and meaning expressed by the speaker.  Please check

original citations before requoting.]



=============================================================[046]



is required to support them and their abominations at the Last

Day, as their murders have in fact been executed under the

vitiating retort cycle of pure moral Tort Law, and therefore

immune from further recourse, just like the Sheriff is immune from

further recourse for the damages he worked on you when he stuffed

you into one of his cages for burning down that house.



And those people arranging their behavior to conform themselves

into a Tort Law judgment profile with damages immunization

reasoning are correct, because Tort Law is a correct and pure

operation of Nature, and their damages can very much be justified

before Father at the Last Day; but the question of justification

of damages is not going to be relevant at the Last Day, and for

the identical same reason as to why the question of no damages

being present in Highway traffic code prosecutions and Income Tax

enforcement actions is also not relevant.  Because just one tiny

little problem for these Tort Law justification imps surfaces,

based upon an obscure, remote, and little known Doctrine uncovered

from the archives of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City.  I'll

explain all that later, but understanding the original Tort and

recourse free "Justice" retort concept, and its appreciation as a

true PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, is necessary before we probe deeper into

Lucifer's extremely clever Illuminatti reasoning and Father's

little known "Ace" that he has up his sleeve; and then into the

deeper meaning of this Life, which involves (as you could guess by

now), a Contract.  But Contracts, of and by themselves, are never

the end objective, they are only a mechanical and procedural tool

used to accomplish a larger objective:  An objective to someday

have all of the rights, power, domain, keys, status, and authority

as our Heavenly Father now has.  [047]



[047]=============================================================



  "I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to

  show what kind of a being God is...  God himself was once as

  we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in

  yonder Heavens.  That is the great secret.  If the veil was

  rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its

  orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his

  power, was to make himself visible -- I say, if you were to

  see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like

  yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man;

  for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness

  of God, and received instructions from, and walked, talked,

  and conversed with him, as one man talks and converses with

  another.  ...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an

  Earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.  [Our Heavenly

  Father when through his Second Estate with his Father and has

  his Father to answer to, and so on back up the line]."



  -  Joseph Smith, President of the Mormon Church, in remarks

  delivered at a Conference in Nauvoo, Illinois, on April 6,

  1844; 6 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 1, at 3 [London (1859)].



=============================================================[047]



The Grand Meaning of this Life is quite a story, and simply

focusing in on the relevant material is difficult by virtue of the

large volume of distraction material that is floating around out

there.  Nevertheless, as strange as it may initially seem, people

correctly talking about it generally find themselves having to

tone things down a bit.  [048]



[048]=============================================================



  "The whole object of the creation of this world is to exalt

  the intelligences that are placed on it, that they may live,

  endure, and increase for ever and ever...



  The lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods

  like himself; [and this will happen after] we have been

  proved in our present capacity, and have been faithful in all

  things he puts into our possession [namely Contracts]...



  Mankind [is] organized of elements designed to endure to all

  eternity; it never had a beginning, and never can have an

  end.  There never was a time when this matter [our Spirits],

  of which you and I are composed, was not in existence, and

  there never can be a time when it will pass out of existence;

  it cannot be annihilated.  [This matter] is brought together,

  organized, and capacitated to receive knowledge and

  intelligence, to be enthroned in glory, to be made angels,

  Gods -- beings who will hold control over the elements and

  have power by their word to command the creation and

  redemption of worlds, or to extinguish suns by their breath,

  and disorganize worlds, hurling back into their chaotic

  state.  This is what you and I are created for...  We are

  organized for the express purpose of controlling the

  elements, of organizing and disorganizing, of ruling over

  kingdoms, principalities, and powers..."



  -  Brigham Young in multiple discourses; 7 JOURNAL OF

  DISCOURSES 290; 3 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 93; and 3 JOURNAL OF

  DISCOURSES 356 (1856 to 1860).



So much for those collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA clowns, propagating

intricate theories of evolution on American campuses; like Tax

Protestors flirting with Tort Law rationalizations in summary

Contract enforcement proceedings, the individuals damaged by

intellectuals with their factual error are largely themselves (as

others can only be damaged by deception to the extent that such a

deceptive skew is wanted and accepted).  And this remains true

even though a large number of people, and even Congressmen,

support Tax Protestors; and a large number of people with

impressive worldly credentials also support evolution (after all,

"It's been accepted as scientific fact").  Yes, factual verities

do march on independent of any acceptance, rejection, or

comprehension of them by anyone.



...The word INTELLIGENTSIA, of a Russian origin, has spread world

wide, and means generally those members of the educated class or

informed people who were criticizing institutions and pushing

theories around.  In Russia, there were philosophically illicit

political overtones semantically associated with the

characterization INTELLIGENTSIA:



  "The concept of INTELLIGENTSIA must not be confused with the

  notion of INTELLECTUALS.  Its members thought of themselves as

  united by something more than mere interest in ideas; they

  conceived of themselves as being a dedicated order, almost a

  secular priesthood, devoted to the spreading of a specific

  attitude to life, something like a gospel.  ...they invented

  social criticism."



  -  Isiah Berlin in RUSSIAN THINKERS ["Birth of the Russian

  Intelligentsia"], at 117 [Viking Press, New York (1978);

  sentences quoted out of order]



For our purposes, a member of the American INTELLIGENTSIA is also

an INTELLECTUAL, bristling with theories, who pushes and

propagates popular theorems and notions they believe that the

world wants to hear, while tossing aside countermanding factual

information that negates the theory's veracity.  Occasionally, I

will throw a spicy little invective at INTELLIGENTSIA

INTELLECTUALS by supplementally characterizing them as CLOWNS -- a

somewhat strong characterization, but nevertheless appropriate

when used.  Gremlins, too, have also found the use of this word

attractive:



  "Fahun, the foreign minister, had been adamant, but now Sadat

  overruled both Fahun and himself -- and accepted Henry

  Kissinger's proposition... it was at that moment that

  Kissinger decided he was dealing, not with a clown, but with a

  statesman."



  -  "How Henry Kissinger Did It," an advertisement in FOREIGN

  AFFAIRS MAGAZINE, page A29 [Council on Foreign Relations, New

  York (April, 1976)].



Due to the strong contrasting semantic differential CLOWNS

creates, it neatly wraps up into one word what would have been

several paragraphs of negative commentary discussing the absence

of both competence and intellectual prowess.



=============================================================[048]



Tax Protestors, like their brothers in contract defilement, Draft

Protestors (as I will explain later), denounce the basic

illegitimacy of the United States -- our fat King -- silencing

speech, and of criminalizing something that just didn't happen

("How could not filing a piece of paper be a crime?  Why, the

Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta be a witness against my self.

Common Law says there can be no Constructive Offenses..."; and on

and on).  But unappreciated by Mr. Condo was the Contract Law

jurisdictional environment he was being prosecuted in:  A summary

Commercial contract enforcement proceeding, up for review and

enforcement based on administrative findings of fact.  [049]



[049]=============================================================



In such administrative enforcement proceedings under grievances

arising out of privileges and contracts that Congress created,

Federal Judges are acting MINISTERIALLY as a Legislative Court,

functioning as an extension of the agency for the King, and not

JUDICIALLY as an Article III Court acting like neutral and

disinterested Referees calling the shots as umpires between

adversaries; and so some steps taken by the Judge acting

MINISTERIALLY, to shorten the proceedings or otherwise silence the

Defendant when irrelevant subject matter is being discussed, are

largely non-reversible on appeal.  In NORTHERN PIPELINE VS.

MARATHON PIPE LINE [458 U.S. 50 (1982)], the Supreme Court ruled

that Congress can create non-Article III LEGISLATIVE COURTS in

three areas:  Territorial Courts, Military Courts Martial, and in

disputes involving privileges that Congress created in the first

place [MARATHON, id., at pages 64 et seq.].  Participating in that

closed private domain of King's Commerce is very much accepting

and benefiting from a privilege created by Congress.



=============================================================[049]



In these Equity contract enforcement proceedings, questions of

morality, of Torts, [050]



[050]=============================================================



Throughout this Letter, the word TORT is a multiple entente, and

may mean either its general public semantic understanding of just

plain damages, or of Tort Law Jurisprudence which generally

circulates around both damages as a center of gravity and

correlative retort immunization reasoning.



=============================================================[050]



of basic reasonableness, of pure natural justice, of fairness, of

mental intent, of the presence of a CORPUS DELECTI, of privacy

rights, of equality between this instant Defendant and other

previous Defendants and the like, are all irrelevant.  And the

only thing that is relevant is the content of the contract that

was entered into some time earlier, in general, and the exact

technical infraction the United States, as your Adversary in a

7203 Action, wants addressed as the grievance, in particular.

Under some limited circumstances, Federal Judges will annul

contract enforcement actions where unreasonable and over-zealous

statute enforcement Tortfeasance has taken place -- what appears

to be "fairness" -- but such annulment is really only to

preemptively restrain such Tortfeasance from recurring in the

future, and not to benefit you at all.  So whether in a driver's

license contract grievance setting of a highway speeding

infraction, or in a Commercial contract WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE

grievance setting with the King through a bank account and other

contracts, the only thing that is relevant is you and your

contract.  All other previous persons, their cases of defilement,

and their grievances, and what arguments they made or did not

make, is irrelevant.  Translated into the practical setting where

a poor Defendant is presenting a defense line, this means that

all motions that are made for dismissal, based on grounds

relating to anyone else's previous prosecution, are automatically

denied, as being irrelevant to the instant factual setting.

Equality and fairness are not relevant in settling contract

grievances.  Equality and fairness are Tort Law arguments; they

are definable only along the infinite; and if the Judiciary

allowed equality or fairness to enter into the contract arena,

then the effect of allowing equality and fairness on one side is

to work a Tort on the other side -- so the Judiciary simply

rules, very properly, that when contracts are in effect, only the

content of the contract is relevant.  Although this policy has

the uncomfortable secondary effect of making Federal Judges

appear to be carefully selected Commie pinkos when dealing with a

Tax Protestor (as Federal Judges go about their work enforcing

invisible contracts), restraining the subject matter that will be

discussed in a Contract Judgment setting to include only the

content of the contract, is a correct attribute of Nature, and

does correctly replicate the mind, will, and intention of

Heavenly Father (as I will discuss later on) in the area of

laying down rules for settling contract grievances.  The very

common belief that folks have, that since 100 other persons

prosecuted for the same contract infraction got suspended

sentences, and therefore in equality you too should get a

suspended sentence, is in error.  What other people do or don't

do, or what happens to or does not happen to them in their

contract judgment, is not relevant to you and your contracts.

This equality and fairness applicability is an important

principle to understand, because we all have an important

Judgment impending at the Last Day.  Here is where Heavenly

Father is going to judge us at the Last Day along very similar

lines; because Father is operating on numerous invisible

Contracts I will discuss later.  You Highway Contract Protestors

and Income Tax Protestors out there now have such a marvelous

advantage, if you would but use your valuable knowledge acquired

through such prosecutions and your study of the Law, to avoid

making the same Tort Law argument mistakes at the Last Day before

Father -- where unlike now, there will be no more going back and

trying some argument line out again.  Today, you can go back into

a courtroom over and over again, throwing one successive argument

after another at the Judge as many times as you feel like, until

you finally figure out what legal reasoning is correct, what is

incorrect, and why.  Such a repetitive presentation of error is

not going to be possible at the Last Day -- there will be no

going back to Heavenly Father a second and successive times and

throwing another round of defensive arguments at Him.  Your Tort

Law reasoning of equality, fairness, and of no damages and no

MENS REA, when presented before Father at the Last Day to justify

your behavior down here will fall apart and collapse, and for

very good reasons that I will explain later.  This judicial

enforcement, separating Tort from Contract in WILLFUL FAILURE TO

FILE prosecutions, is but one manifestation of the extent to

which rare gifted genius rules in the Federal Judiciary.  [051]



[051]=============================================================



The word GENIUS is deemed by some to be a strong characterization

whose presentment should be sparingly used.



  "Genius is a word that ought to be reserved for the rarest of

  gifts."



  -  Justice Felix Frankfurter, in MARCONI WIRELESS VS. UNITED

  STATES, 320 U.S. 1, at 62 (1942).



On the day President Nixon announced on behalf of Nelson

Rockefeller that Warren Burger was going to be nominated to be the

new Chief Justice of the United States, President Nixon stated

that in filing vacancies on the Supreme Court, he would look for

those judges who would follow in the tradition of Felix

Frankfurter.



QUESTION:  Who is Felix Frankfurter?



Born in 1882 in Vienna, Austria, Felix Frankfurter emigrated to

the United States with his family.  Three previous generations of

European Frankfurters were jewish rabbis; Felix's dad had studied

for the rabbinate, but he pursued commercial interests here in the

United States while his son Felix went to Harvard University to

study Law.  Felix stayed in Cambridge afterwards generally to

teach Law, although he took short stints to New York City and

Washington.  Nominated to the United States Supreme Court by FDR

in 1939, Felix Frankfurter was one of the most intellectually

strong and intense, high-powered Spirits that was ever brought

forth into this Estate -- and I admire him so much for his

impressive calibre.  Merely reading his Supreme Court rulings is a

stretching exercise in intellectual gymnastics, as he compressed a

well-blended train of ideas into a single sentence and selected an

organically enlarging succession of words and phrases to swirl

around his justifications and elucidations on both peripheral

ideas and concepts turning on a central axis.  Yes, Felix

Frankfurter was very much a man of great and tremendous ability,

operating on a slice of rare gifted genius so exalted in stature

that he left all others biting the dust behind him -- but here is

where I stop throwing accolades at Felix Frankfurter:  Because

Felix Frankfurter was a Gremlin.



...In April of 1913, that fateful year again, there was held a

little known CONFERENCE ON LEGAL AND SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY; organized

largely by Harold Laski, Felix Frankfurter, and his close friend

Morris Cohen, the CONFERENCE was chaired by John Dewey; Keynote

Speaker was Roscoe Pound, Dean of the Harvard Law School.  Out of

that CONFERENCE held in 1913, wrote Felix Cohen [son of Morris

Cohen]:



  "...much of the social and philosophical consciousness of

  modern American jurisprudence derives."



Felix Frankfurter was an admirer of imp Roscoe Pound, and openly

propounded the redirection of American jurisprudence into what

Felix Frankfurter called SOCIOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE (meaning in a

sense, that Law was going to be now determined by the social needs

of the community, and those old worn out relics of fixed Property

Rights, Common Law rules, hard Constitutional pronouncements and

the like that are difficult for Gremlins to massage, are just not

anything that we need to be concerned with anymore).  In 1913,

Felix Frankfurter talked about a "great job" that would have to be

done on American Law, stating that:



  "That it has to be done -- to evolve a constructive

  jurisprudence going hand in hand with the pretty thorough

  going overturning that we are in for."



Felix Frankfurter admired Gremlin economist John Maynard Keynes

and actually accepted his doctrines; Felix expressed recurring

high remarks for a "socially sound taxing system" of high estate

and income taxes; and while teaching at Harvard, he taught his

students that:



  "The Constitution is not a fixed body of truth, but a mode of

  social adjustment."



President Teddy Roosevelt once sent a letter to a newspaper in

Boston attacking Felix Frankfurter for his Bolshevik orientation

and sympathy, and came down on Felix for the assistance he was

giving to Communists -- but an attack on Felix Frankfurter through

Teddy Roosevelt is not necessary to see the imp in Felix

Frankfurter (scan Felix's personal correspondence in THE

BRANDEIS--FRANKFURTER CONNECTION by Bruce Murphy [Oxford

University Press, New York (1982)].  Yes, Felix Frankfurter was a

Gremlin; he taught their doctrines, he admired their philosophy

(damaging others through the instrument of taxation never bothered

Felix at all), he attended their conferences, he spoke at their

forums, he offered to them his assistance, he expressed sympathy

at any difficult position they would be in, and he also created

the model image of an imp Jurist that the Gremlins wanted so much

for emulation by others.  This brief sketch was extracted largely

from:



  -  Mike Parrish in FELIX FRANKFURTER AND HIS TIMES [The Free

  Press, New York (1982)];



  -  Helen Thomas in FELIX FRANKFURTER -- SCHOLAR ON THE BENCH

  [John Hopkins Press (1960)];



  -  Leonard Baker in BRANDEIS & FRANKFURTER: A DUAL BIOGRAPHY

  [Harper and Row, New York (1984)];



  -  Nelson Dawson in LOUIS BRANDEIS, FELIX FRANKFURTER AND THE

  NEW DEAL [Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut (1980)];



  -  Joseph Lash in FROM THE DIARIES OF FELIX FRANKFURTER [WW

  Norton & Company, New York (1975)];



  -  Wallace Mendelson in FELIX FRANKFURTER: A TRIBUTE [Respnal

  & Company, New York (1964)];



  -  H.N. Hirsch in THE ENIGMA OF FELIX FRANKFURTER [Basic

  Books, New York (1981)];



  -  Phillip Kurland in MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND THE

  CONSTITUTION [University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1971)];



  -  Melvin Urofsky in THE BRANDEIS--FRANKFURTER CONVERSATIONS

  [Supreme Court Review (1985), at 299 (University of Chicago

  Press)].



This is the same Gremlin that Richard Nixon was once told to say

something nice about, and this is the same little high-powered

Gremlin I will be quoting throughout this Letter.



=============================================================[051]



Yes, contractual equity is a hard line to abide by, and people who

operate their lives with that smooth and envious SAVIOR FAIRE

always avoid entering into such tight binding regulatory

restrainments in their affairs that they know that their minds

just cannot handle in the future.  [052]



[052]=============================================================



Throughout this Letter there are numerous examples cited of

invisible Contracts and invisible Principles in effect that are

latent and difficult to see; although the consequences for

violating the Principles and Contracts are also invisible

initially, yet their latent nature remains elusive and invisible

only for a short while.  Eventually, there is a hard accounting

coming due on all Principles that are violated, and so when Judges

throw their corrective snortations at improvident defense

arguments, they are actually your friends -- even though their

status of such also remains invisible.  Anything that even vaguely

replicates a corrective presentation of error is to our benefit in

the advance similitude of the Last Day it creates for us.  In the

Armen Condo Letter, I quoted United Supreme Court Justice Felix

Frankfurter on the advisory statement he made that yes, equity is

brutal -- but that Judges are merely enforcing contracts [so the

remedy for the problem actually lies within ourselves].  And just

as invisible Contracts sometimes get us into difficult positions,

so too do invisible Principles get invoked by Judges to

correctively retort improvident positions being taken by parties.

For example, when a Judge invokes JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL against you,

he is actually invoking an invisible PRINCIPLE OF NATURE to

operate to your advantage, by preventing you from defiling

yourself.  [I will discuss JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL later on.]

[Transcriber's Note:  Yes, the author seems predisposed to

delaying the discussion of a LOT of things "later," but keep in

mind we are now ONLY on page 35 of a 745-page book, so when the

author says "later" remember that there's a lot of room to

elaborate on "later."]  When Judges invoke this DOCTRINE OF

JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, the appearance created on the floor of the

Courtroom is that



  "The rule is a harsh and rigid one which deprives a litigant

  of the right to assert a claim."



  -  UNITED STATES VS. CERTAIN LAND, 225 F.Supp. 338, at 342

  (1964).



Like the appearance created that Judges are Fifth Column Commies

by greasing the procedural skids of a Tax Protestor into a Federal

Cage as they merely enforce invisible taxation contracts in

effect; Federal Judges know that the enforcement of invisible

PRINCIPLES OF NATURE on the floor of their Courtroom also creates

the image that the rulings are harsh, unnecessarily rigid, and

patently unfair.  But the Judge is merely invoking PRINCIPLES OF

NATURE that the defendant has no knowledge of.  So the seminal

point of correction lies within ourselves; and to uncover the

existence of invisible Contracts and invisible PRINCIPLES OF

NATURE in effect is to uncover our Heavenly Father who created

that abstraction that Judges now call NATURE.



=============================================================[052]



Yes, experienced people will forego some immediate benefits all

contracts initially offer, just to avoid the larger liability and

cost picture later on.  Yes, it is better to forego experiencing

impressive glossy benefits and accept nominal benefits that

accomplish the same thing, and avoid a contract altogether.  For

example, this could mean buying a used car for cash without an

installment contract, rather than a new one on installment

payments, unless the structure of your livelihood is such that

enrichment is experienced as a result of the gloss benefits, such

as real estate salesmen, who need the gloss to make a SUB SILENTIO

statement:  That they are a very important person; someone you

should better start paying some attention to; someone you had

better start doing some business with.



There are folks out there, marvelous, bright, and otherwise just

great all around, but who are weak in some administrative

dimension; these types should generally shy away from difficult

and marginally feasible contracts they can't handle.  In a

domestic family setting, marriage counselors report back identical

observations:  That it was household mismanagement or unmanagement

originating from infracted contracts previously entered into under

a relaxed level of interest or inappropriate budgetary environment

that caused unnecessary secondary grief sometime later on.  (In

other words, like Armen Condo, they entered into contracts

unknowingly incompatible with their philosophy, and not

appreciating the significance of the contract's terms thereof.  So

the recourse significant became invisible to them.  Those are the

contracts and Equity Relationships they should have avoided all

along from the beginning, AB INITIO.)  [053]



[053]=============================================================



The word EQUITY is an ENTENTE in that it carries multiple meanings

in Law, depending on the semantic context in which it is

exposited.  On one hand, it can mean fairness or justice, and also

a "nexus relationship with benefits accepted equal to contract

relational status" on the other hand.  For a profile review of the

jurisprudential foundations of American Equity Jurisprudence going

back into the old B.C. Greek days of Aristotle, see EQUITY AND THE

CONSTITUTION, by Gary McDowell [University of Chicago Press,

Chicago (1982)]; and the several hundred citations therein.



=============================================================[053]



So, from a counseling perspective, a general attitude might be to

have a spirit of reluctance about your MODUS OPERANDI before

entering into recourse contracts.  Entering into Commercial

contracts with anyone without careful respect to the terms that

the contract calls for is an invitation for nothing but headaches

and aggravations you don't need, and could have, and should have,

avoided at a lower, pre-contract chronological level.



In order to appreciate just how wrong Mr. Condo really was, and

just how stupid and not very well thought out his sophomoric

badmouthing was of the presiding Federal Judge, [054]



[054]=============================================================



I am aware of the distinction between a FEDERAL Government and a

NATIONAL Government.  A FEDERAL Government can freely change

itself through acts of the Legislatures, while a NATIONAL

Government can only be changed or altered by the direct popular

consent of the Citizenry, and not through acts of Legislatures.

The United States Constitution is a composite hybrid blend of the

two, meaning that it possesses limited grants of NATIONAL power

and limited grants of FEDERAL power.  For this Letter, that

distinction will be abated and addressed later.



=============================================================[054]



one needs to study and be brought to a knowledge of Contract Law

-- its majestic origins and history, and of recourse Commercial

contracts -- their enforcement and life in the contemporary

American judicial setting.  What I am about to say may very well

surprise you, but the reality is that those seemingly unnatural

and artificial instruments we call Contracts are actually highly

and tightly interwoven into Nature and Natural Law.  [055]



[055]=============================================================



  "Take away Covenants, and you disable Men from being useful

  and assistant to each other...  We therefore esteem it a most

  Sacred command of the Law of Nature, and what guides and

  governs, not only the whole method and order, but the whole

  grace and ornament of Human Life, that every man keep his

  faith, or which amounts to the same, that he fulfill his

  Contracts, and discharge his promises."



  -  Samuel de Puffendorf, THE LAW OF NATURE AND OF NATIONS

  (1729); (Translated from the French by Basil Kennett.)



=============================================================[055]



And it is very rare that I have found any contract enforcement or

grievance proceeding to have been inappropriately adjudged, based

upon the factual setting presented, the issues raised for

settlement and the question addressed by the presiding

administrative or judicial magistrate.



Such strong enforcement of contracts improperly concerns some

people, who don't give too much thought to the consequences of

being able to have any Commercial contract simply tossed aside and

annulled judicially, just because one of the parties no longer

feels like honoring the terms of the contract.  [056]



[056]=============================================================



And COMMERCIAL CONTRACT means a full recourse contract that will

be enforced before a Judge, and you are up against asset seizure

and incarceration on your default, unless explicitly waived by the

other party.  By the end of this Letter, you will see just what

you are really in for, when entering into a so-called COMMERCIAL

CONTRACT.  Don't be fooled by those nice pleasant smiles, those oh

so friendly salesmen on the floor -- they are out for your money,

and they are going to use the guns and cages of the State to

finish getting what they want:  Your money.



=============================================================[056]



That's right, under that line of reasoning, contracts should be

tossed aside and annulled just because one of the parties doesn't

feel like it anymore:  Like Armen Condo no longer feeling like

sending in a 1040 anymore.  His self declarations of lofty Status

are initially impressive ("I am not a slave anymore"); but

unilateral self declarations do not now, and never have, annulled

contract liability.  By the end of this Letter, you will know how

to get out of a contract, but such a termination does not involve

self declarations of status.  The reason why there is such a tight

adhesive relationship going on in American Jurisprudence between

contract enforcement and Nature/Natural Law is because Contracts

are very much on the mind of the Great Creator who made Nature.

[057]



[057]=============================================================



Yes, Heavenly Father created our Jurisprudence, a fact which when

given some thought is so obvious that even private legal

commentators remark on it occasionally:



  "Law, whose seat is in the bosom of God..."



  -  Morgan & Maguire in LOOKING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS AT

  EVIDENCE, 50 Harvard Law Review 909, at 910 (1937).



=============================================================[057]



And so when American Jurisprudence so strongly enforces contracts,

then the Judiciary, as an agent of Nature, is merely replicating

the mind of our Creator who wants to have people learn to honor

their contracts -- and yes, even more so when those contracts

contain philosophically bitter terms, like the Bolshevik Income

Tax.  Learning the deeper meaning of that Principle is a bit more

important than some folks realize:  Because Contracts are very

important to Heavenly Father.  And the design of Nature to so

strongly enforce contracts is inverse evidence to indicate that

Father deals extensively with Contracts, wants people to learn to

respect Contracts, and will honor his Contracts with you (if you

can get a Contract out of Father).  Heavenly Father is similar to

the King in the limited sense that both of them want something

from us, and both of them use the same tools to get what they

want.  Father wants our bodies, and the King wants our money, and

both use Contracts extensively to accomplish their end objectives.

I conjecture that the King is far more successful in gross

aggregate percentage terms by his manipulative adhesive use of

invisible contracts to get what he wants than Father is with His

invisible Contracts, as Father does not force himself on unwilling

participants.  The King deals with people out of the barrel of a

gun and accomplishes through clever administrative arm-twisting

and adhesion contract wringing what otherwise cannot be sustained

in front of the Supreme Court in freely negotiated contract terms;

whereas in contrast Heavenly Father deals with people very

conservatively on the basis of their wants, and where no Contract

is wanted, I can assure you none will be forced on you.  The King

has copied the MODUS OPERANDI of Father to deal extensively in

Contracts, and then has added his own Royal enrichment twist to

it:  Unlike Father's altruism (legitimate concern for the

interests of others), our King is only interested in himself, his

own welfare, and in that Golden Money Pot he passes out to

Special Interest Groups who make their descent on Washington

when Congress is in Session, in vulture formation.  [058]



[058]=============================================================



  "History shows that financial power and political power

  eventually merge and unite to do their work together...  The

  federal bureaucracy at the present time is effectively under

  the control of the corporate and moneyed interests of the

  nation."



  -  Supreme Court Justice William Douglas as quoted by Bob

  Woodward and Scott Armstrong in THE BRETHREN, page 399 [Simon

  & Schuster, New York (1979)].



Please be advised that the mere mentioning of THE BRETHREN does

not constitute an endorsement of that book, as that was a very

tacky and childish book for two CIA agents to have written.



=============================================================[058]



There are numerous reasons why Heavenly Father wants our bodies --

one is so, for our benefit, we can be Glorified some day and have

a continuing association with Him again.  Such a statement is

implicitly a status statement, since in order to associate with

Father, one's stature must be on a similar calibre to Father.

[059]



[059]=============================================================



  "How many Gods there are, I do not know.  But there never was

  a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were

  not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing

  through.  That course has been from all eternity, and it is

  and will be to all eternity.  You cannot comprehend this, but

  when you can, it will be to you a matter of great

  consolation.  It appears ridiculous to the world, under their

  darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a

  finite being...  He has passed on, and is exalted far beyond

  what we can now comprehend." [Our Heavenly Father had his

  Father, and so on back up the line; there never was a time

  when this line of progression from son to father to son was

  not in effect].



  -  Brigham Young, in a discourse at the Tabernacle, Salt Lake

  City on October 8, 1859; 7 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 331, at 333

  to 334 [London (1860)].



=============================================================[059]



But Father first wants to patiently see who His friends really

are, under circumstances where his very existence is difficult to

see.  Yes, these are Adversary proceedings we are in down here

(and when you take out a new Contract with Father, you will know

what I mean, as Lucifer the Great Adversary ("Great" in terms of

ability), will suddenly start to take you very seriously).  If

Heavenly Father has the Celestial Jurisdiction it takes to Glorify

a person into such an indescribable state similar to his own

Status, as people entering into Father's highly advanced Contracts

down here have been explicitly and bluntly promised, then Father

ought to be very carefully listened to.  [060]



[060]=============================================================



There are several layers of Contracts available down here beyond

the introductory Contract of Baptism.  They become increasingly

difficult to administer, not because they are inherently difficult

in themselves, but because you will be placed under tremendous

pressure by the Adversary to either be in default or otherwise

infract the Contract, and unfortunately Lucifer and his army of

hardworking imps know exactly what they are doing, as they go

about their work trying to run folks into the ground.



=============================================================[060]



There are a few people who have lived upon this Earth before us,

who now have such Glorified bodies under advanced timing

schedules, and FIRST PERSON EVIDENCE of that nature (an eye

witness) is difficult for Heathens to reverse or countermand under

attack, so they have no choice but to ignore it and talk about

something else.  [061]



[061]=============================================================



For example, the July 1985 issue of AMERICAN ATHEIST is quite

political with extensive negative commentary on the Federal

Judiciary of the United States.  When religion itself is addressed

as a subject matter, rather than talking about a specific

Spiritual event they cannot refute (such as the many personal

appearances of Jesus Christ Himself going on today in the United

States), they back off and take a lighter, safer road:  By

badmouthing the institution of religion in general:



  "All religions come from man's absurd egocentricity, from his

  planetary xenophobia, from his arrogant sense of being the

  center of things."



  -  AMERICAN ATHEIST, id., at page 20.



Beginning with the unreality and limited factual knowledge that

they do, by travelling down the wrong tangent, AMERICAN ATHEISTS

have no choice but to exercise one defective judgment after

another in order to support multiple erroneous successive

conclusions predicated upon their seminal factual assumptions.  To

begin a correct initial point of beginning, we will enlarge the

initial factual setting assessed, and enter into evidentiary

consideration of FIRST PERSON eye witness evidence that operates

to countermand and overrule all of their internal conclusions that

God does not exist:  As there are, in fact, people now living,

here in the United States of 1985, who have seen and conversed

with Jesus Christ, face to face, just as one man speaks to

another.  AMERICAN ATHEISTS are in the same ecclesiastical posture

that Gremlin Nikolai Lenin was once in, who once stated quite

flatly:



  "Every religious idea, every idea of God, even flirting with

  the idea of God, is unutterable vileness... of the most

  dangerous kind, 'contagion' of the mos