[BOF:INCON 006]



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



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



                     ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION



                         [Pages 300-385]





  2.  Next, we turn now and address the legal procedures used to

  crack Protesting giblets when an invisible Federal taxation

  reciprocity contract has been layered on us from that heavy

  and overweight King we have in Washington, with the

  administration and enforcement of those invisible contracts

  falling under a very curt, short, accelerated, and abbreviated

  legal procedure called ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  I will be

  discussing two separate items under this section --



    1.  First, the legal procedure of ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION,

    which is not necessarily related to taxation; and



    2.  A specific ADMIRALTY TAXATION CONTRACT itself.

    Federal Judges do not call this contract an ADMIRALTY

    CONTRACT, but my use of this nomenclature occurs by reason

    of relational identification, because there are invisible

    financial benefits originating from the King that involve

    LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY, which is characteristic of

    ADMIRALTY.



The legal procedure known as ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION applies in

Federal areas concerning tax collection, because once a PERSON

takes upon any one of the many invisible taxation contracts that

the King is enriching his looters through, then ADMIRALTY

JURISDICTION as a relational procedure can be invoked by the

Judiciary and the King's termites in the IRS to get what they want

out of you:  Your money.



Admiralty is a subdivision of King's Commerce such that all of

King's Commerce that takes place over waterways and the High Seas

(at least, such a geographical restriction of Admiralty to

navigable waterways of all types is now only theoretical), is

assigned to be governed by a special set of grievance settlement

and evidentiary rules, just custom tailored to Commerce of that

nature... at least that was the case in the old days when

Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate business

transactions with the King out on the High Seas.



Back in the old days, back way early in England's history, our

Fathers saw that the rules governing the settlement of grievances

that occurred on land just didn't seem to fit right into

grievances that merchants had with each other on some Commerce

that transpired out on the High Seas.  A large portion of business

involved the transportation of merchandise from one place to the

next.  For example, on land, goods that were damaged in transit

for some reason were generally always recovered from the accident

for valuation and insurance adjustment purposes, and eye witnesses

were often present to describe how the damage happened, i.e.,

whether a gust of high winds came along, or some other carriage

violated rights-of-way and caused the accident, or that thievery

took place.  In that way, fault and damages could be properly

assigned to the responsible party.  But transportation that

crosses over water is very different, indeed.  Whenever high gusts

of squall wind came about on the High Seas as merchandise was

being shipped from, say, England to India, then many ships were

lost at sea.  No one saw the ship sink, the merchandise is gone

for good, the crew is gone as well, and months and years transpire

in silence as a ship that was expected to arrive in a foreign port

never appears.  It could have been piracy, a Rogue Wave, or the

weather, or that the captain and crew made off with the boat to

the South Pacific, but in any event, there is no other party to be

sued, and no one knows what happened (there were no radios then).

In some cases, searching expeditions were sent out to look for the

lost ship, and so years would pass between the initial sinking or

stealing, and a declaration to the fact that was accepted by all

interested parties.



Question:  How do you assign negligence for damages out on the

High Seas?  No one saw anything happen; no one has any evidence

that anything happened.  Who was at fault, and why?



On land, assigning fault and making partial recovery by the

responsible party is quite common, but not so out on the High

Seas.  So this special marine jurisdiction (and "jurisdiction"

meaning here is simply a special set of rules) was developed

organically, piece by piece and sometimes Case by Case, which grew

and developed to limit liability exposure to the carrier and

others, and also minimized the losses that could be claimed by

forcing certain parties to assume risks they don't have to assume

when merchandise is being shipped over land.  Also, some of the

other special rules applicable to grievances brought into a Court

of Admiralty are that there is no jury in Admiralty -- never --

everything is handled summarily before a Judge in chronologically

compressed proceedings.  Also, there are no fixed rules of law or

evidence (meaning that it is somewhat like an Administrative

Proceeding in the sense that it is a free-wheeling evidentiary

jurisdiction -- anything goes).  [383]



[383]=============================================================



In such a loose evidentiary arena, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is

generally considered the ultimate form of proof in Maritime and

Admiralty litigation matters.  Again, this is so by reason of the

special factual setting that Admiralty grievances have their

gestation in.  For example, in Admiralty such factors as "seaman

status" or unseaworthiness are generally not admitted and must be

demonstrated through a series of logically connecting factors.

The only way to demonstrate the existence of these factors and the

conclusions that they have a significant meaning within the

confines of Admiralty Law is through strong proof of

circumstantial evidentiary chains leading to inferences of the

various types of status.  In COX VS. ESSO SHIPPING [247 F.2nd 629

(1957)], a seaman brought an action for Maritime Tort damages

after he fell twenty feet to the deck of the ship.  The maritime

jury was not instructed that it was not Cox's duty to choose

seaworthy equipment (which allegedly caused the fall) or to select

good equipment from bad, but rather under ADMIRALTY JURISPRUDENCE,

it was the duty of the shipowner to select good equipment from

bad.  By the trial court having improvidently instructed the jury

along such a biased evidentiary skew, failure to explain the

special assignments of negligence liability inherent in ADMIRALTY

mandated reversal on appeal.  But it was CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

that won the Case.



==============================================================[383]



And so when limitations of liability were codified this way into

the King's Statutes, this was actually Special Interest Group

legislation to benefit insurance carriers.)  [384]



[384]==============================================================



The insurance companies never change their MODUS OPERANDI in their

very successful manipulative use of legislation to limit the

amount of money they have to pay out on claims.  For example, few

people realize it, but here in the United States, up until the

early 1950s there were no commercial nuclear power plants in

operation, and none were going to be built.  Reason:  No insurance

carrier wanted to underwrite and pay for the potential losses

involved if an accident occurred.  The insurance companies knew

that some day there would be problems surfacing with one of those

nuclear plants -- insurance companies know risk and risk

management better than anyone else on the fact of this Earth.  So

electric utilities who wanted to build nuclear plants, but could

find no insurance carrier, acted in combination with insurance

carriers in sponsoring the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT in Congress, which

limited the potential liability of Tort claims of a domestic

nuclear accident to $500,000,000.  [Remember that Tort claims are

lawsuits between parties where there is no contract in effect

between the parties to govern the grievance].  See the

PRICE-ANDERSON ACT today in Title 42, Section 2210.  Had there

been no PRICE-ANDERSON LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ACT, there would

be no Commercial nuclear power plants built in the United States.

For a brief history of the development of nuclear power in the

United States, see the Supreme Court in DUKE POWER VS. CAROLINA

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, 438 U.S. 59 (1978).  The well-known

involvement of the private insurance companies and their influence

on the legislation bringing forth the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT is

discussed in DUKE POWER, starting at page 64, et seq.



=============================================================[384]



Insurance company risk analysts are brilliant people, and they now

know, like they have always known, exactly what they are doing at

all times when sponsoring statutes that limit the amount of money

they have to pay out in claims.  [385]



[385]=============================================================



"The [Federal] Limitations of Liability Act has been applied to

even small boats like outboard motorboats... but the law is...

understood and [insurance] underwriters in particular know exactly

what they are dealing with."



  -  A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A

  PARTY; FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS,

  [Part II] in Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee,

  Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United

  States Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, discussing Senate

  Bill 1876, at page 697 (May, 1972).



=============================================================[385]



And due to the extended time factors that were involved in the

shipping of Commerce out on the High Seas in old England, rules

regarding the timeliness of bringing actions into court, just

never fit just right with a ship lost for months or years before

the involved parties even knew about it.  So something originated

out on the High Seas known as DOUBLE INSURANCE; which is a general

business custom, continuing to be in effect down to the present

time, for carriers to purchase double the value on merchandise

transiting in a marine environment (insuring Commercial

merchandise in transit for twice their cash value), and this

insurance doubling was later enforced by English statutes to be

mandatory, due to the "inherent risks involved."  [386]



[386]=============================================================



DOUBLE INSURANCE means collecting double the premium, but the

number of ships lost at sea did not double, so the claims did not

double.  The insurance companys' lobbyists were busy behind that

legislation, as they made their descent then on the Parliament in

vulture formation, just like today.  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY

defines DOUBLE INSURANCE as existing where:



  "...the same person is insured by several insurers separately

  in respect to the same subject and interest."



    -  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, Fifth Edition ["Double

    Insurance"].



This is a correct definition of what is known as DOUBLE INSURANCE,

but that is not the DOUBLE INSURANCE once forced on Admiralty

carriers in another era (and, of course, you just don't need to

concern yourself with something illicit being pulled off by an

insurance company).



=============================================================[386]



Do you see the distinction in risk and procedure between Commerce

transacted over the land and Commerce transacted over the High

Seas?  As we change the situs from land to water, everything

changes in the ability to effectuate a judicial recovery for goods

damaged in transit.  And everything in Commerce comes into the

Courtroom eventually, so setting down a variety of courtroom rules

just custom tailored to marine business also developed in time,

and properly so.



So in the right geographical place (meaning in the right risk

environment), the application of special marine rules to settle

Commercial grievances is quite appropriate.  And insurance, i.e.,

the absorption of Commercial risk by an insurance underwriter in

exchange for some cash premiums paid, has always been considered

by the Judiciary to be an Admiralty transaction.  In other words,

even though the merchandise is not being shipped over water, and

even though the business insurance policy has absolutely nothing

to do with a marine environment or a physical High Seas setting,

the issuance of the policy of insurance now attaches Admiralty

Jurisdiction right then and there.  [387]



[387]=============================================================



Such a seemingly expansive use of Admiralty Jurisdiction initially

triggers an inquisitive attitude questioning such an expansive

application of Admiralty.  But the Judiciary is merely replicating

the legal environment out on the High Seas that risk insurance was

born in.



  "Polices of insurance are within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of

  the United States."



    -  DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 7 Federal Cases 418, Case #3776, at

    page 444 (1815) [that Case also has a very extensive

    history of Admiralty Jurisdiction discussed in it].



Consider the words of Federal District Court Judge Pelag Sprague:



  "...I consider the jurisdiction of the Admiralty over polices

  of insurance, to be the settled law and practice of this

  circuit."



    -  YOUNGER VS. GLOUSER MARINE, affirmed on appeal, 2 Curt.

    C.C. 323; as cited in DECISIONS OF THE... DISTRICT COURT

    OF MASSACHUSETTS IN ADMIRALTY AND MARINE CAUSES, 1841-1861

    (1854).



=============================================================[387]



And all persons whose activities in King's Commerce are such that

they fall under this marine-like environment, are into an

invisible Admiralty Jurisdiction Contract.  Admiralty Jurisdiction

is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas, and if the King is a

party to the sea-based Commerce (such as by the King having

financed your ship, or the ship is carrying the King's guns), then

that Commerce is properly governed by the special rules applicable

to Admiralty Jurisdiction.  But as for that slice of Commerce

going on out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that

Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the

private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment.  At

least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way

things once were, but no more.



Anyone who is involved with Admiralty or Maritime activities are

always Persons involved with Commercial activities that fall under

the King's Commerce, but since Admiralty and Maritime are

subdivisions of King's Commerce, the reverse is not always true,

i.e., not everyone in King's Commerce is in Admiralty or Maritime.

Admiralty Law Jurisdiction is a body of legal concepts,

international in character, which has its own history of organic

growth concurrent both within the parallel Anglo-American

development of King's Equity and Common Law Jurisdictions, and in

addition to organic growth from outside Anglo-American Law.

Admiralty Law has been around for quite some time, and it very

much does have its proper time and place.  Admiralty Jurisdiction

goes back quite farther than just recent English history involving

the Magna Carta in 1215; it has its roots in the ancient codes

that the Phoenicians used, and it appears in the Rhodesian Codes

as well.



Generally speaking, Maritime Jurisdiction is the IT HAPPENED OUT

ON THE SEA version of Common Law Jurisdiction and Jury Trials are

quite prevalent; Admiralty Jurisdiction is the IT HAPPENED OUT ON

THE SEA version of summary King's Equity Jurisdiction, and

generally features non-Jury Trials to settle grievances (as Kings

have a long history of showing little interest in Juries).  [388]



[388]=============================================================



Trial by Jury has never, ever been a feature of prosecutions held

under summary Admiralty Jurisdiction rules.  See:



  -  UNITED STATES VS. LAVENGEANCE, 3 U.S. 297 (1796);



  -  WHELAN VS. THE UNITED STATES, 711 U.S. 112 (1812);



  -  THE SARAH CASE, 21 U.S. 391 (1823).



=============================================================[388]



Just what grievance should lie under ordinary Civil Law, or should

lie under Admiralty Jurisdiction is often disputed even at the

present time, and has always been disputed.  [389]



[389]=============================================================



"...the precise scope of [American] admiralty jurisdiction is not

a matter of obvious principle or of very accurate history."



  -  Justice Holmes in THE BLACKHEATH, 195 U.S. 361 (1904).



=============================================================[389]



Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas,

while Maritime Jurisdiction could be said to be the COMMON LAW of

the High Seas.  If you and I (as private parties) entered into

Commercial contracts with each other that has something to do with

a marine setting, that would be a contract in Maritime.  If you or

I contract in Commerce with the King (such as shipping his guns

across oceans), then such an arrangement would fall under

Admiralty Jurisdiction.  This distinction does not always hold

true any more, as lawyers have greatly blurred the distinction by

lumping everything into Admiralty.  [390]



[390]=============================================================



An exemplification of lawyers simply lumping everything into

Admiralty would be a treatise that teaches lawyers how to do

exactly just that:  See a huge seven volume set of Admiralty

Jurisdiction practice Law and Rules called BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY,

by Matthew Bender Publishers in New York City.  (Kept current with

frequent updates to subscribers).



=============================================================[390]



This is why Admiralty is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas and

navigable rivers and lakes (or at least, should be).  A least,

that is the way it used to be.  Up until the mid-1800s here in the

United States, very frequently merchants paid off each other in

gold coins and company notes, i.e., there was no monopoly on

currency circulation by the King then like there is today.  So in

the old days, it was infrequent that the King had an involvement

with private Maritime Commerce.  And there was an easy-to-see

distinction in effect back then between Maritime Jurisdiction

contracts that involved private parties (or Maritime Torts where

neither parties in the grievance are agencies or instrumentalities

of Government) and Admiralty Jurisdiction, which applied to

Commercial contracts where the King was a party.  (Remember that

Tort Law governs grievances between people where there is no

contract in effect.  So if a longshoreman fell on a dock and broke

his leg, his suing the owner of the dock for negligence in

maintaining the dock should be a Maritime Tort Action).  However,

today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private

parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime

Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty:  Reason:  The

beneficial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes makes

the King an automatic silent Equity third party to the

arrangements.



In England, which has long been a jurisprudential structure

encompassing Maritime and Admiralty Law, open hostility and

tension has flared on occasion regarding the question of applying

a marine based jurisdiction on land.  During the reign of King

Richard II, there was a confrontation between inland Equity

Jurisdiction Courts and the assertion of normally sea based

Admiralty Jurisdiction Courts.  The confrontation resulted in a

King's Decree being issued to settle the grievance.  That Decree

provided that:



  "The admirals and their deputies shall not meddle from

  henceforth of anything done within the realm, but only of a

  thing done upon the sea..."  [391]



[391]=============================================================



13 RICHARD II, c.5. (1389)



=============================================================[391]



This Decree abated the encroachment grievance for the time being,

but other encroachment questions arose later on, because the use

of fee based summary Admiralty Jurisdiction raises revenue for the

Judges, and is administratively quite efficient, and therefore all

factors considered, the inherently expansive nature of Admiralty

is quite strong, and as such, Decrees issued by Kings trying to

limit the contours of Admiralty were simply tossed aside and soon

forgotten.  So now one meaningless Royal Decree was soon followed

by another:



  "...of all manner of contracts, pleas, and quarrels, and other

  things arising within the bodies of the counties as well by

  land as by [the edge of] water, and also by wreck of the sea,

  the admiral's court shall have no manner of cognizance, power,

  nor jurisdiction; but all such manner of contracts, pleas, and

  quarrels, and all other things rising within the bodies of

  counties, as well by land as by water, as afore, and remedied

  by the laws of the land, and not before nor by the admiral,

  nor his lieutenant in any wise."  [392]



[392]=============================================================



15 RICHARD II, c.3. (1391)



=============================================================[392]



In the reign of King James the First, the disputed boundary

controversies between the Courts of Common Law and the Admiralty

Jurisdiction Courts continued on, and "even reached an acute

stage."  [393]



[393]=============================================================



The ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, Volume One ["High Court of

Admiralty"], page 171 (1929 Edition).



=============================================================[393]



We find in the second volume of Marsden's SELECT PLEAS IN THE

COURT OF ADMIRALTY, and in Lord Coke's writings [394]



[394]=============================================================



REPORTS, Part 13, page 51; and COKE'S INSTITUTES, Part IV, Chapter

22.



=============================================================[394]



that despite an agreement made in 1575 between the justices of the

King's Bench and the judge of Admiralty, the judges of the Common

Law Courts successfully maintained their right to prohibit suits

in Admiralty upon contracts that were made on shore.  (Notice who

your friends are:  Judges sitting over Common Law Courts).  Other

complaints of encroachment by Courts of Admiralty into land based

grievances surfaced during the rule and reign of King Henry the

Fourth.  [395]



[395]=============================================================



This resulted in his statutes being modified to restrain the

expansion of the Admiralty Courts.  See 2 HENRY IV, c.11 (1400).



=============================================================[395]



So, Admiralty Jurisdiction is by its historical nature an

expansive and adhesive Jurisdiction for Kings to use to accomplish

their Royal revenue raising and administrative cost cutting

objectives.



Our Founding Fathers also had an inappropriate assertion of this

expansive Admiralty Jurisdiction thrown at them from the King of

England, which was a strong contributing reason as to why the

American Colonists felt that the King had lost his rightful

jurisdiction to govern the Colonies.  [396]



[396]=============================================================



In the DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

1774, we find the following words:



  "Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British

  parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of

  America by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts

  expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various

  pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue,

  hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies,

  established a board of commissioners with unconstitutional

  powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty

  not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of

  causes merely arising within the body of the county."



    -  JOURNALS OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, edited by

    W.C. Ford, Volume I, page 63 et seq.



=============================================================[396]



Yes, King George was very much working American Colonial giblets

through an Admiralty Cracker; and so Admiralty has had a long

habitual pattern of making appearances where it does not belong,

of creating confrontations, and of being used as a juristic whore

by Kings functioning as Royal pimps:  And all for the same

identical purpose:  To enrich the Crown and nothing else.



This concept of using Admiralty as a slick tool for Revenue

Raising is an important concept to understand, as this procedure

to raise revenue through an invisible Admiralty Contract is now

surfacing in the United States in the very last place where anyone

would think a marine based jurisdictional environment belongs:  On

your Internal Revenue Service's 1040 form, as I will explain later

on.



What is important to understand here is not merely that there has

been an expansive atmosphere of perpetual enlargement of the

jurisdictional contours that characterize Courts of Admiralty that

has been in effect for a long time in old English history, but

what is important is why this state of expansion continuously took

place:



  "The present obscure and irrational state of admiralty

  jurisdiction in America is the consequence of the long feud

  between the English common law and admiralty judges, clerks

  and marshals, who competed for jurisdiction by fees, not

  salaries, until 1840.  They, therefore, competed for

  jurisdiction of profitable litigation between merchants, but

  were happy to escape unprofitable cases.  In particular, the

  common law judges sought exclusive jurisdiction whenever a

  jury of vicinage could be empaneled."  [397]



[397]=============================================================



A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A PARTY;

FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS [Part II] in

Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on

Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United States Senate, 92nd

Congress, 2nd Session, discussing Senate Bill 1876, at page 639

(May, 1972).



=============================================================[397]



So the reason why King Richard II and the other Kings of England

had to keep issuing out restraining Decrees, to hem in the

Admirals with the ever-expanding jurisdiction that they were

assuming, was because those admirals were financially compensated

based on the number and types of Cases they accepted to rule on --

so they obviously accepted and asserted Admiralty Jurisdiction

over the maximum number of Cases practically possible; and why

should they care about "mere technical details" as to whether or

not that grievance really belonged under Admiralty or not?  Why

should they concern themselves with the mere question of

jurisdiction when the more important event of looting a Defendant

was so imminent?  Why should they concern themselves with the

comites of limited inter-tribunal jurisdiction when an operation

of banditry was so close at hand?  What the old Admiralty Judges

wanted was to savor, experientially, the conquest of financial

enrichment, and with such fee compensated Courts, Admiralty Judges

got what they wanted.  Can't you just hear the old Admiralty Judge

now:



  "Why, the Plaintiff brought this Case into my Court, I've got

  jurisdiction!"



Here in the 1980s in the United States, have you ever heard this

same identical line when challenging some rubbery little Star

Chamber Town Justice on a speeding ticket?  That determined little

Justice of the Peace wants just one thing from you:  Your money.

Like the Admiralty Courts of old England, his little Star Chamber

is also fee based.  And he represents everything curt,

accelerated, and inconsiderate when ignoring your traffic

infraction citation jurisdictional arguments that was also curt,

accelerated, and inconsiderate when fee based Admiralty Courts

assumed jurisdiction on Cases they had no business taking in 1300

A.D.



Those old Admiralty Courts wanted the self-serving financial

enrichment that filing fees paid by Plaintiffs gave them.  And so

in seeking Admiralty Jurisdiction relief, Plaintiffs expected and

got quick, fast, and summary relief.  And being financially

compensated the way they were, are you really surprised that

Admiralty Jurisdiction Courts were simply expected by custom to be

the shortest, curtest, most summary, and chronologically most

abbreviated form of adjudication imaginable?  Who has time for a

Jury in Admiralty?  I can just hear a poor fellow try to argue

rights in an old Admiralty Court back then.



  "You want what?  You want Due Process in this Court?  You want

  your Magna Carta rights?  Ha!  [SNORT]  This is Admiralty.

  Judgment entered in for the Plaintiff.  Next Case."



Today in the United States, just like in those days of King

Richard II, there is now an assertion of Admiralty and Maritime

Law going on in places where it does not belong, and it is now

trying to make an appearance where it has no business.  Admiralty

Jurisdiction has in many respects, "come ashore" and now "meddles"

with much of our domestic "realm," as it currently affects almost

every element of our inland Commercial society.  Today's practice

of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction is found not only in its

appropriate home in that slice of business of King's Commerce that

is going on out on the seas, but also on the navigable rivers of

the United States, as well as world-wide off-shore well drilling

activity.  Admiralty Jurisdiction rules are used to settle claims

and grievances regarding cargo, international conventions,

financing, banking, insurance, legislation, navigation, hazardous

substances from nuclear power plants, stevedoring (the unloading

of a vessel at a port), and undersea mining and development.  An

examination of some Commercial contracts that aerospace defense

contractors enter into with the Pentagon and each other (from

general contractor to subcontractor) reveals slices of Admiralty

very much now in effect.  It is probable that Admiralty

Jurisdiction will also surface sometime in the future to settle

Tort claims arising out of the CIA's planting of ICBMs on the

ocean floor up and down the East Coast in the 1960s under

instructions from David Rockefeller, using that ship Howard Hughes

built especially for this purpose, called the GLOMAR EXPLORER.

Every few years since 1977, strange stories have appeared in the

news regarding whales beaching themselves on American coasts.  On

February 6, 1977, a large number of whales began beaching

themselves at Jacksonville, Florida for no apparent reason;

commentators conjectured that the whales must have lost their

sense of navigation.  Soon, 120 whales had mysteriously beached

themselves at Jacksonville.  [398]



[398]=============================================================



See the NEW YORK TIMES ["Rescuers Head Whales Back from Florida

Beach"], page 14 (February 7, 1977).



=============================================================[398]



NBC Television News reported that evening that no autopsies were

going to be performed on the whales, but NBC was fed inaccurate

information.  When privately dissected by doctors who knew what to

look for, those whales had empty stomachs [meaning that the whales

had not eaten in a while and were sick], and also had heavy

plutonium poisoning in their lungs, originating from one of the

undersea missiles leaking plutonium, located on the seabed 290

miles ESE of Jacksonville, at 30 9.9' North and 77 8.44' West,

which is one of those aging CIA underwater ICBM's sites.  What the

whales were up against was a fungus like infection that had

interfered with their breathing, originating from the water-born

plutonium; and when dragged out back to sea from the Jacksonville

beaches, the whales returned to the beach [negating the "loss of

navigation" theories].  The whales preferred to die on the beach,

rather than carry on life in their underwater agony.  Those

beached whales were collected and buried at the Giren Road

Landfill in Jacksonville, Florida, but today, they should not be

forgotten.  Whales are mammals like you and me, and soon, rather

than mammalian whales acting strange (like running up a stream,

and refusing to go back into the ocean) and others trying to die

by beaching themselves, people are next; [399]



[399]=============================================================



Exploratory plutonium poisoning trials were conducted at the

American Legion Convention in Philadelphia on July 21 to 24, 1976;

and as expected by the Gremlins who administered the poisons

through an atmospheric discharge, the symptoms that surfaced were

of a flu-like nature [see ["20 Flu-Like Deaths in Penn Still A

Mystery"] in the NEW YORK TIMES for August 4, 1976, page 1].  The

TIMES article noted the puzzling sickness variation of what

appeared to be a flu; but without possessing requisite background

factual knowledge on the invisible high-powered toxicity involved,

the medical doctors stumbled from one erroneous diagnostic

conclusion to another [id., at 1].  [Also note the Government's

selection of patriotic war veterans for their SUB ROSA plutonium

poisoning tests, as opposed to some lesser sub-class of Americans,

such as perhaps convicted felons serving life sentences without

parole in a federal cage somewhere for heinous crimes committed,

or perhaps irretrievably insane occupants of numerous mental

hospitals scattered around the countryside.  In other words,

assume for the moment that you were in charge of selecting the

"test group"; would you select American war veterans innocently

enjoying a convention gathering in Pennsylvania of their peers,

who had previously put their lives on the line for "god and

country," who had served their country honorably and

patriotically?  Furthermore, please note that somewhere, right

now, the person or persons responsible for this atrocity, who are

guilty of felonious murder in the First Degree (20 American Legion

veterans were murdered), and/or who were accessories to this

multiple murder, have yet to be brought to justice.  Where is

"America's Most Wanted" now?]



=============================================================[399]



and municipal medical examiners performing autopsies are not

oriented to perform plutonium toxicity density examinations in the

cadavers they ponder over, so the real cause of strange behavior

and death will likely be puzzling for a while.  [400]



[400]=============================================================



Very few American doctors are skilled in recognizing the symptoms

of atomic particulate plutonium poisoning; plutonium is not

measurably radioactive in that it does not radiate ionizing

electrons at a rate sufficient to trigger geiger counters.  This

type of radiation toxicity is easily misdiagnosed, and not just

for medical reasons, but for political and LACK OF JUDGMENT

reasons stemming from the manipulative withholding of public

information on uncontrolled atmospheric plutonium distributions by

Gremlins.  The symptoms of such ionizing toxicity replicates

closely the symptoms associated with a flu like illness, but since

medical doctors are unaware of any public concern for radiation

toxicity, the uncomfortable idea of a THREE MILE ISLAND scenario

is tossed aside by the diagnosing physician, and the more

comfortable but incorrect diagnosis of a hybrid flu-like illness

is then substituted in its place.  For a discussion on some of the

uncontrolled atmospheric discharges of radioactive elements in the

United States, see THE MEDICAL BASIS FOR RADIATION ACCIDENT

PREPAREDNESS by Hubner and Fry, Editors [Elsevier-North Holland

(1980)], which discusses publicly suppressed radiodines discharge

"accidents" in 1974 and 1978 in New Jersey, and 1978 in Algeria.

And it is my hunch that other similar radioactive incidents have

also occurred worldwide, with knowledge of the existence of those

events also being publicly sequestered.  Bureaucratic Gremlins

nestled in Juristic Institutions have also withheld public

dissemination about radioactive atmospheric contamination

originating from the now abandoned Central Core Vault of the

United States Gold Bullion Depository located at Fort Knox

Kentucky, which is leaking radioactive plutonium 239 that the

Government improvidently stored there in 1968.  Folks placing

reliance on Government for both radiation accident recovery

assistance as well as deflecting the occurrence of the toxic

poisoning event altogether ar exercising defective judgment --

individual responsibility is the correct management technique;

and, as a point of beginning, factual knowledge is required.  For

beneficial advisory information in this area, see generally ARE

YOU RADIOACTIVE?  PROTECT YOURSELF by Linda Clark [Devin-Adair in

Old Grenwich, Connecticut (1973); republished by Pyramid

Publications in Moonachie, New Jersey (1974); republished by the

Cancer Control Society in Los Angeles (1977)].  The isochronous

dietary incorporation of potassium iodine is known to manifest

great relief from radioactive poisoning, due to its "sponge" like

effect in going after those determined little plutonium

contaminates that home in on your thyroid gland; and this remains

true even though some physicians, speaking through institutions

sponsored by Gremlins, do not want you to take any such

preventative measures [Dr. David Becker, et al., discourages such

use in THE USE OF IODINE AS A THYROIDAL BLOCKING AGENT IN THE

EVENT OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, appearing in 252 Journal of the

American Medical Association, at page 659 (August 2, 1984).  For a

story of the financial sponsorship of the American Medical

Association in the late 1800s by Gremlin EXTRAORDINAIRE John

Rockefeller, Sr., see Volume II of WORLD WITHOUT CANCER -- THE

STORY OF VITAMIN B17 by G. Edward Griffin [American Media, West

Lake Village, California (1980)].]



=============================================================[400]



But when correctly identified, the King's Admiralty Jurisdiction

will be there to settle those impending claims, as the source of

the Tort is juristic.  There are a lot more numerous sources of

plutonium now available to contaminate American drinking water

supplies than just some aging undersea missiles, and whatever

plutonium cannot slip into your drinking water by itself, will one

day have the liberating assistance of a terrorist.  And it is my

conjecture that when the first hotel is built on the Moon or some

other remote astral place, Admiralty Jurisdiction will be right

there to make an appearance when the doors open.  [401]



[401]=============================================================



Admiralty Jurisdiction has a long term habit of "following"

Government around when new conquests are made.  When His Britannic

Highness would conquer a foreign land, Consular Courts of

Admiralty followed His Majesty's conquests to the far corners of

the globe.  While India was under British colonial rule,

Vice-Admiralty Courts were established in Calcutta, Madras, and

Bombay.  Similarly in China, Japan and Turkey, while under British

colonial rule, a layer of Admiralty Jurisdiction was smothered on

them.  Parliament enacted the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act in

1890 to automatically confer Admiralty Jurisdiction on Civil

Jurisdiction Courts, where ever His Highness exercised his

dynastic dominion.



=============================================================[401]



Here in the contemporary United States, the very first Federal

Court ever established by Congress, was a Court of Admiralty.

[402]



[402]=============================================================



See THE FIRST FEDERAL COURT by Henry J. Bourguignon [American

Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (1977)].



=============================================================[402]



And so the use and availability of Admiralty Jurisdiction is

deemed very important to our King; and for the identical same

reasons why Admiralty Jurisdiction organically grew into the most

summary, shortest, and swiftest form of "Justice" imaginable in

the old fee based Admiralty Courts:  Because the King is

financially enriched by the maximum number of assertions of

Admiralty Jurisdiction that he can get.  So likewise our King

today is being financially enriched by his expansively asserting

"Courts of Admiralty" where they rightly do not belong.  Today in

the United States, a King's Agent (some hard working private

contracting Termite who works for the IRS) simply sends a letter

to an Employer stating that a particular Employee's wage

deductions are being disallowed, or this fine is being levied, and

the Employer jumps instantly and sends the money into the IRS

without even telling the Employee that the summary confiscation

took place.  No opportunity to be heard in opposition, no

expectation of even being heard in opposition to the Notice, just

summary confiscation.  And the more the King confiscates without

any Administrative Hearings preceding the confiscation, the richer

the King gets, just like in the old fee based Admiralty Courts of

old England -- so you can just forget about getting any Contested

Case Administrative Hearing on a grievance with the IRS.



The reason why summary Admiralty Jurisdiction is of concern to us

is because our King is using jurisdiction attachment rules

applicable to an Admiralty Jurisdictional environment to us

interior folks out here in the countryside where Admiralty

Jurisdiction does not correctly lie.  (The only ordinary land

based folks who should properly be under King's IN PERSONAM

Admiralty Jurisdiction are Government Employees (Federal and

state), Military Service personnel, and those who specifically

contract into Admiralty Jurisdiction (such as Employees working

for a Defense contractor with a Security Clearance, and private

contractors hired by Government to perform law enforcement related

work)).  The King and the Princes are using Admiralty

Jurisprudence reasoning to effectuate an attachment of

Enfranchisement on Natural Persons, by virtue of all Citizens, so

called, being made a Party to the 14th Amendment; well, that is

the process by which Admiralty attaches, however the confluence of

reasons why the King so attaches Admiralty all focuses on just one

Royal objective:  The King wants your money, and he is going to

hypothecate you, and use invisible contracts in Admiralty to get

what he wants.  [403]



[403]=============================================================



When a Natural Person is "enfranchised," such a PERSON takes upon

himself the status of a corporation, which isn't very much.



  "The corporation is an artificial creation of the state

  endowed with franchises and privileges of many kinds which the

  individual has not."



    -  The Wisconsin Supreme Court in THE INCOME TAX CASES,

    148 Wisconsin 456, at 515 (1912).



However, the low status of corporations that numerous Patriots

emphasize in status distinction arguments is actually not that

important [meaning, you are not hitting the nail right on the

head], because such a low relational status is only the net effect

of having accepted benefits the state created; and when benefits

conditionally offered by the state are accepted by you, as a human

being, then contracts are in effect and alleged status

distinctions are irrelevant.  This is the real meaning of

"enfranchisement" -- a contract is in effect that is largely

invisible -- because juristic benefits carrying taxation hooks on

them were accepted by you.  Some of the invisible juristic

benefits that are automatic in corporations are:



  "The corporation,... enjoys under our laws many privileges

  separate and apart from simply doing business, such for

  instance as the legal status to sue and be sued in the Courts

  of our state, continuity of business without interruption by

  death or dissolution, transfer of property interests by the

  disposition of the shares of stock, advantages of business

  controlled and managed by corporate directors, and the general

  absence of individual liability, among others."



    -  The Supreme Court of Louisiana in COLONIAL PIPELINE VS.

    TRAIGLE, 421 U.S. 100, at 106 (1974).



=============================================================[403]



Most folks think that, well, the 14th Amendment just freed the

slaves, or maybe something noble and righteous like that.  Not so.

Every single Amendment attached to the Constitution after the

original Ten in the Bill of Rights, is in contravention to the

original version of 1787 for one reason or another, and each of

the AFTER TEN were sponsored by people -- Gremlins, imps --

operating with SUB SILENTIO sinister damages intentions.  Under

the 14th Amendment, there now lies a state of Debt Hypothecation

on the United States that all Enfranchised persons bear some

burden of, [404]



[404]=============================================================



To hypothecate means generally to pledge assets to someone else,

without delivering either Title or possession of the asset.  Debt

Hypothecations are sometimes used when the collateral does not

lend itself well to Title or possession security, such as

borrowing a Certificate of Deposit to be held by a bank in your

name, when the person who really owns the money has practical

control over it (such as through his signature on the deposit

card).  In contrast, when borrowing money to finance a new car,

the Title, so called, is normally mailed by your regional Prince

to be in the possession of the first lien holder, so car loans are

not considered to be Hypothecated Debts.



=============================================================[404]



i.e., all citizens who are a Party to the 14th Amendment can be

made personally liable for the payment of the King's debt.  So now

when the King comes along with his statutes and claims that,

despite his own 14th Amendment, his Enfranchised subjects are now

going to be limited in their liability profile exposure to

national debt, important financial benefits are being conferred

upon Citizens, and the King believes that Admiralty Jurisdiction,

with all of its giblet cracking accoutrements, attaches right then

and there.  [405]



[405]=============================================================



An exemplary accoutrement of what Admiralty Jurisdiction can pull

off that Common Law did not allow, was the summary seizure of

property in criminal Cases, pending a posting of bail by the

Defendant:



  "Historically, maritime attachment originated as a means of

  obtaining by attachment of the defendant's property the same

  security for payment of a judgment against the defendant's

  property which was obtained by the marshal's body arrest and

  holding to bail of the defendant's person.  ...  Just as when

  a defendant's body was arrested in personam, he was required

  to give bail in order to be released from the custody of the

  marshal, so when his body could not be found for such arrest

  IN PERSONAM, his property was attached by the marshal and held

  to bail in the same way."



    -  A report on ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, UNITED STATES AS A

    PARTY; FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION; THREE JUDGE COURTS,

    [Part II] in Hearings held before the Judiciary Committee,

    Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, United

    States Senate, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, discussing

    Senate Bill 1876, at page 645 (May, 1972).



=============================================================[405]



The King and the Prince are using twisted logic to justify this

assertion of Admiralty Jurisdiction where it does not belong:

Where it belongs is out on the High Seas where it came from.

Royalty now believes that the legal environment of Limited

Liability conferred on risk takers sufficiently replicates the

original legal risk environment of Limited Liability that

organically grew up out on the High Seas to be Admiralty

Jurisdiction.  Remember that Limited Liability itself is a legal

trick of enrichment used by insurance companies as debtors to

reduce the amount of money they have to pay out on claims; yes,

Limited Liability is a marvelous legal tool for the insurance

companies to bask in.  From the PRICE-ANDERSON ACT that cuts

nuclear power plant losses to the Warsaw Convention that cuts

airplane crash losses, [406]



[406]=============================================================



The international WARSAW CONVENTION of October, 1929 was ratified

by the United States Senate in June of 1934.  Section 21 of that

Convention Limits the amount of money air carriers need concern

themselves with on claims payments for Tort damages.  And as

International Law, it is binding on all courts in the United

States.



=============================================================[406]



from ADMIRALTY LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY ACT [407]



[407]=============================================================



Title 46, Section 181 to 183.



=============================================================[407]



on marine shipping to medical doctors malpractice suits, [408]



[408]=============================================================



In the mid 1970s, medical doctors in California "went on strike"

to protest high insurance premiums they paid for protection

against on medical malpractice claims thrown at them for Tort

damages they worked on their clients (such as being told to

surgically cut out a defective left kidney, and the doctor takes

out the right kidney on the operating table, thus leaving the poor

patient with no kidneys -- surprisingly, mistakes like that are

actually quite frequent, and doctors have no one to snicker at but

themselves).  Numerous state legislatures enacted statutory

limitations on the amount of money trial courts could award for

medical malpractice suits.  In California, it was the MICR ACT of

1975, but those statutory wealth transfer schemes were later

declared to be unconstitutional [see AMERICAN BANK VS. COMMUNITY

HOSPITAL, 660 P.2nd 829 (California, 1983), and ARNESON VS. OLSEN,

270 N.W.2nd, 125 (North Dakota, 1978)].



=============================================================[408]



Limited Liability is nothing more than a brilliant wealth transfer

instrument for Special Interest Groups to bask in, and all very

neatly accomplished through the use of statutes.  [409]



[409]=============================================================



Limited Liability for Tort claims is very much a marvelous tool

for insurance carriers to amass wealth through; but there is

always a pathetic footnote to be told when Special Interest Groups

reign supreme in the corridors of Legislatures.  For a sad

discussion on the legislative massaging by insurance company

produced statutes mandating the Limited Liability of Tort claims

for damages from airplane crashes, has relaxed both the level of

safety interest by insurance carriers in the airplane products

that they insure, as well as also diminishing economic incentives

by the airlines themselves for safer operations (particularly in

TCA's), see IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN AN AIRLINE? by Robert Poole, 10

Reason Magazine 18 (January, 1979).



=============================================================[409]



So in a limited sense, the legal environment of Admiralty

Jurisdiction could be properly said to apply to any Commercial

setting where a debtor owes money to other people as risk

insurance, with the amount of debt payable by the risk insurance

carrier being artificially lowered by statutory Limitations of

Liability.  The true origin of the adhesive attachment of

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (which is just legal procedure) lies in the

existence of invisible contracts that are in effect, with the

contracts being of such a maritime nature that grievances arising

from them are settled pursuant to Admiralty Jurisdiction rules.



Let us be objective like an umpire or a judge for a moment, and

stop thinking in terms of what we want and don't want for

ourselves, so we can Open our Eyes to see what is really there, by

trying to view things from the perspective of an adversary.  [410]



[410]=============================================================



Remember that throughout Life, in all factual settings, always try

to evaluate the position of the other party with an open mind;

quite often we will find that the other party has a strong case

and that there has been some error in our reasoning or standing.

No, it is not an easy procedure to be objective; the snickering by

a Protester of what is being viewed in the Courtroom [of a judge

throwing one successive retortional snortation after another at

the Protester, seemingly ventilating expressions of philosophical

discomfort with the arguments and the position of defiance taken

by the Protester] -- snickering at the judge is much easier than

adopting the following procedure into our MODUS OPERANDI:  Maybe

let us assume, just for a moment, that we are in fact not correct

when trying to weasel out of WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE and

correlative traffic ticket scenarios where invisible contracts

actually govern the grievance (as I will explain later).  Rather

than adopting the MODUS OPERANDI of a Protester by the presumption

he is right, and that the judge is a moronic Commie pinko

philosophically opposed to the defiant political position being

taken by the Protester, let us assume, just for a moment, that the

expressions of judicial ensnortment being thrown at us might

originate with something else.  Maybe, just maybe, the snortations

from on high are actually the final stages of judicial expressions

of discontentment, with our own argument error, and the incorrect

position we are taking, and might not originate with the political

overtones associated with the philosophical position of our naked

defiance -- a defiance exhibited in areas very few people would

dare to defy.  Let us enlarge the basis of factual knowledge that

we are using to exercise judgment on and to form conclusions with,

by adopting a new MODUS OPERANDI:  By taking the judge's

snortations under advisement at first, and asking ourselves a

series of deep probing questions to try and enlarge the factual

picture we are viewing.  Let's try out this new MODUS OPERANDI on

the following news article.  Like the scene in the Courtroom we

will only initially accept what is presented to us as a point of

beginning and take it in under advisement, and we will not arrive

at a conclusion until after we have asked ourselves several deep

probing questions:



                   "A TANK IN THE PARKING LOT"



  "Many obscure imports have made their way through Baltimore's

  port, but this one was a true rarity:  a Soviet T-54 tank.  It

  was discovered last week near Pier 10, perched on top of a

  flat bed trailer in the parking lot of a farm-supply company.

  Not quite sure just why the tank was there, a specially

  equipped unit of the Baltimore police force dismantled the

  T-54's two .250 caliber machine guns and carted them off for

  safekeeping while they searched for the owner.  A call to

  nearby Fort Meade did nothing to clear up the mystery.

  Eventually, the truck driver responsible for the tank called

  the police to report two stolen machine guns.



  "The tank, of 1950s vintage, belong to the Egyptian army and

  had been transported to Baltimore on the U.S. barge LASH

  ATLANTICO on its way to Teledyne Continental Motors in

  Muskegon, Michigan for repairs and rebuilding.  The driver

  parked the T-54 for more than a week while he went off in

  search of a special permit to transport the overweight load on

  Maryland's roads.  In the end, the police returned the guns,

  and the tank continued its decades-long voyage from Moscow to

  Muskegon."



    -  This news article on the tank was extracted verbatim in

    its full text from TIME MAGAZINE ["A Tank in the Parking

    Lot"], page 23 (May 6, 1985); That article is Copyright

    (c) 1985 Time-Life, Inc.  Next to this news article, there

    appears a photograph of the huge tank, sitting on top of a

    tractor-trailer's flatbed.]



If in reading that news article while leafing through TIME

MAGAZINE we adopted the MODUS OPERANDI of Protesters, we would

then exercise our judgment and come to our conclusions based

largely on the information immediately presented to us in the news

article; so, with this interesting story on how the Baltimore

police quickly grabbed some guns from a tank on its way to

Michigan -- we would conclude that, well, it is rather obvious

that the police acted properly, decisively, boldly, and exercised

good judgment in returning the guns to the tank after they

straightened out everything.  Gee, that was pretty good work on

their part -- so let's turn the page and see what else is going on

in the world.



...To most folks reading that article, that was the typical

reaction; here is an old tank in Baltimore going through its

foibles and headaches just trying to get to Michigan -- but it is

also the same caliber of judgment that a Tax Protester exercises

his decisions and conclusions on, digesting largely only that

slice of factual information that is immediately presented to the

Protester to feed his intellectual judgments and opinions.  And

the Tax Protester replicates the MODUS OPERANDI of the general

public by simply accepting the factual picture that is presented

to them -- by the Protester in the ensnortment tornado of a

Courtroom, and by the general public in the coziness of their

living room reading some news article.  In both settings, no

probing or deeper questions were asked, and no hypothetical WHAT

IF scenarios were entertained [hmmm, WHAT IF maybe the judge is

right?].  And so as a result, the general American state of

political ensleepment continues on, accepting comforting

reassurances from news articles that the police are alert, on

their toes, and that all is well, and indifferent to the

possibility that termites are running the house in Washington;

just like the Protester continues on in argument error from one

WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE courtroom to a traffic ticket courtroom,

indifferent to the possibility that invisible contracts govern the

grievance and that he is not entitled to prevail for any reason

[except for the several technical reasons protesters frequently

win on, such as WANT OF JURISDICTION, the COUNSEL QUESTION, etc.,

that are not related to the merits of the grievance itself].



...So let us now reread the story of the tank once again, but this

time, things will be different -- because this time we are going

to start asking ourselves a few probing and razor sharp questions:



  1.  The first and only question that I would like to ask is:

  Why is a tank, manufactured in Russia, and now owned by Egypt,

  being freighted and transported halfway around the world --

  shipped literally to the other side of the globe -- to have

  some mechanical work done on it; sent to a factory located in

  one of the most expensive hourly labor cost nations on Earth,

  sent to a factory that did not manufacture this tank; why is

  Egypt willing to spend the $20,000 or so to get the tank to

  Michigan, spend the big bucks to have the work done here, and

  then spend another $20,000 or so in freight to get the tank

  sent back to Egypt?



...That is the Question I want some answers to.  Simple COMMON

SENSE is telling me that whatever mechanical and machining work

that needs to be done, can be done in Egypt.  Have you ever been

to Alexandria or Cairo, Mr. May?  Even if you have not, you should

still be ordinarily aware of the fact that Egypt has, at a

minimum, SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND cars, trucks, and other motor

vehicles on its streets, and that a very large pool of mechanical

talent exists locally to repair and re-machine parts for all types

of vehicles.  Do people in Egypt send their Datsuns back to Japan

to remachine the transmission?  Does Frank May, living in New

Jersey, send his MERCEDES-BENZ to Australia or South America for

repairs?  Even discontinued automobiles, such as STUDEBAKERS,

PIERCE-ARROWS, and PACKARDS are not sent to Australia for even

total restoration jobs or mechanical work -- New Jersey has quite

a pool of such shops right then and there.  A MERCEDES-BENZ would

never be sent to Australia from New Jersey, except for very

special reasons, and ordinary mechanical work is not a special

reason.  The reason why such long voyages are not undertaken for

work on heavy vehicles is because of the ridiculous freight

charges incurred, and simple lack of necessity to do so by reason

of very competent local situs talent.  So the Question is begging:

Why did Egypt send that tank to the other side of the planet -- to

Michigan -- for repairs?  Let us say, just for a moment, that the

tank talked about was a very highly complex machine that required

the maintenance attention of specially factory trained experts

[which was not the case with a tank out of the 1950s -- those

tanks had no more back then than an engine, a unique transmission,

and firing power]; great, let's say that technical expertise was

required -- but that still does not answer the question:  Why was

that tank sent to Michigan for repairs instead of anywhere else in

the Middle East or the Mediterranean Coast -- or even Russia

itself where the tank was manufactured?



...We find the ANSWER to this QUESTION the same way that the

Protester would find the Answer to his Question:  Why is this

judge snorting at me?



The Protester needs to ask himself a hypothetical Question:  What

if I am wrong for some reason I don't know of?  But Protesters

never ask that Question -- his tremendous volume of Tort Law

arguments and of Case Law from another era is staggering and

impressive, and the mere possibility that error might be present

in the defiant position being taken, because of something

invisible controlling the grievance that he is unaware of, is not

even being considered.  Unlike the Protester, we will now consider

the possibility that factual elements governing Egypt's motive in

sending that tank to the other side of the globe for repairs were

not presented to us in that news article; and we will now consider

the possibility that the factual picture presented to us is

distorted slightly (although not necessarily intentionally by the

news media's reporters who wrote the article).



...The reason why the tank was transported from one side of the

planet to the other side, from Egypt to Michigan [if in fact the

tank even originated in Egypt], the reason why someone was willing

to spend those big bucks just to get the tank here, is because

that Russian tank is on a special trip:  On a one-way trip into

the United States, and not for the cover story of its needing

mechanical repairs.  That tank will never leave the United States.

When that tank is finally at its home somewhere in the United

States, it will be hidden away in some barn, some warehouse, some

garage, or some old industrial building converted into an AD HOC

Russian military storage depot.  This author has photographs of

other Russian military hardware sitting inside American army

bases; generally that hardware is stored behind fenced areas.  The

word sent around the base is that those Russian tanks "...were

captured somewhere," when in fact they are literally brand new and

are stored here very much with not only Russian consent, but with

Russian supervision as well.



This tank in TIME MAGAZINE is waiting for a great and grand

Russian Day to appear, that long awaited Russian Day of conquest,

when along with the other extensive hardware that has been slowly

and quietly smuggled into the United States over a 20 to 30-year

time period, it will be brought forth out into the open in some

variation of a RED DAWN attack on the United States [a provoked

attack based partially on military hardware already sitting at its

final destination inside the United States], to bring about the

great Bolshevik objective of merging the United States with

Russia.  Yes, Russian intellectual element of conquest are

involved here, as the quick lock down of American military

installations will be justified to the world at that time as being

necessary to prevent a nuclear war -- when in fact the political

sponsorship of a Patriot to the Presidency would accomplish the

same thing under less intensive circumstances.



The Russian strategy for North American conquest, through the slow

accumulation of a handful of tanks, personnel carriers, and jeeps

each week, is a brilliant strategic move that the Bolshevik

Gremlins are now controlling the American House in Washington want

to see occur, even though those Gremlins in Washington are the

very targets Russia is really going after.  That's right, the tank

described in that news article will never leave the United States

-- until, at least, it has first been used offensively in military

operations against the United States.



...Yes, that tank is on a one-way trip into the United States [if

in fact it ever gets to Teledyne Continental].  See what happens

when we accept information presented to us, and take it in under

advisement, holding its acceptance out in abeyance as a point of

reference, until we first ask ourselves some peripheral questions

about it from several different view points?  What happens when

asking ourselves deeper questions than was presented to us, is

that great Truths come forward to us, are appreciated by us, and

our Eyes are Opened.  This is a procedure that should be followed

in all settings -- business, commerce, work, school, family life,

everything -- and particularly in ecclesiastical settings, as we

ask ourselves a sequence of the single most important Questions

that could ever be asked down here:  WHO AM I?  WHAT AM I DOING

HERE?  WHERE AM I GOING?



...The Answer is that you are literally, Mr. May, the offspring of

Celestial Beings, and that a germ of Deity dwells within you --

THAT IS WHO YOU ARE.  You were brought forth into this world

bristling full of Gremlins and their intrigues from the presence

of your Father in Heaven -- THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE.  The

correct procedure to return to Father's presence once again is to

take seriously His advice He once gave you in the First Estate

when we were all then speaking His angelic language:  Enter into

Covenants with me, be proven in all things, and a successively

ever enlarging number of planets and offspring will be yours

[remember that Contracts draw lines which enable behavior to be

measured and tested against; Tort indicia places facts on

continuum measuring the absence, presence, and extent of damages.

I personally would not want to get involved with a God who was

fixated on the mere absence of damages] -- THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE

GOING.



=============================================================[410]



If we could lay aside, just for a moment, the presumption by many

that judges are Fifth Column pinkos and are otherwise morons, and

now examine the King's reasoning on Admiralty Jurisdiction

attachment (that his Title 46 statutes have Limited the Liability

that Enfranchised Persons have encumbered themselves into through

the 14th Amendment), then unfortunately for Protesters, we find

that there is some merit to the King's contentions, and the reason

is because special financial benefits are being accepted by

Enfranchised Persons, and so now an invisible contract is in

effect, with the result being that if a grievance comes to pass on

the contract, somewhat unpleasant Admiralty settlement rules will

prevail.  [411]



[411]=============================================================



"Trials [in Admiralty Jurisdiction]... take place without the

intervention of a jury, and without any fixed rules of law or

evidence.  The rules on which offenses are to be heard and

determined... are such rules and regulations as the President...

shall prescribe.  No previous presentment is required, nor any

indictment charging the commission of a crime against the laws;

but the trial must proceed on charges and specifications.  The

punishment will be -- not what the law declares, but such as an

[Admiral] may think proper..."



  -  President Andrew Jackson in the CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39th

  Congress, 1st Session, page 916 (February, 1866).



=============================================================[411]



  [When I was first told about the story of the 14th Amendment,

  I was told a story by numerous people and groups, who should

  know better, that parents can bind their offspring into Equity

  Jurisdiction relationships with Royalty; and I heard this same

  line of reasoning from numerous different sources.  When I

  heard that line, I tossed it aside as a brazen piece of

  foolishness; the idea of having parents assign debt liability

  to their offspring by evidence of a Birth Certificate was

  then, and now remains, as utter foolishness.  I was correct in

  my ideological rebuffment of that line of liability reasoning,

  as one person cannot bind another absent a grant of agency

  jurisdiction.  But later through a Federal Judge I realized

  that there are special financial benefits that persons

  documented as being politically Enfranchised at birth

  experience later on as adults when they are being shaken down

  for a smooth Federal looting; and it is this acceptance of

  benefits as adults, in the context of reciprocity being

  expected back in return, that attaches contract tax liability,

  and not the existence of a Birth Certificate document itself.

  This concept some folks propagate -- that we are locked into

  juristic contracts by our parents since it is the parents who

  have caused the Birth Certificate to be recorded -- is not

  correct:  As a point of beginning, one person cannot bind

  another.  But most importantly, all the Birth Certificate and

  correlative documents in the world will not separate a dime in

  taxation from you until such time as you, individually, and

  personally, have started to accept juristic benefits.  The Law

  does not operate on paper; what is on paper is a statement of

  the Law, but that does not trigger the operation of the Law.

  All the documents with Royalty in the world will not separate

  a dime from you, until juristic benefits have been accepted by

  you out in the practical setting.  In a sense, Birth

  Certificates can be properly construed as documents evidencing

  your entitlement to RIGHTS OF FRANCHISE, if you decide to

  exercise those rights later on when you come of age, but the

  reciprocal taxation liability Enfranchised folks take upon

  themselves occurs by operation of contract -- the invisible

  contracts that quietly slip into gear whenever juristic

  benefits are being accepted:  Now, here, today -- and by you,

  personally and individually.  The relational status of your

  parents to Government, past and present, is an irrelevant

  factor BIRTH CERTIFICATE PUSHERS are incorrectly assigning

  significance to.  Those who warned me of the adhesive Equity

  tentacles of the 14th Amendment were absolutely correct in

  their conclusory observations of the effects of the 14th

  Amendment, but they were incorrect in their views that

  liability singly attaches by reason of the existence of a

  Birth Certificate document that their parents caused to be

  created.  By the time you are finished with this Letter, you

  will understand why written Documents, of and by themselves,

  mean absolutely nothing -- as it is the existence of

  Consideration [benefits] experienced or rejected out in the

  practical setting that attaches and severs liability, and the

  written Document or statement of the contract itself is

  unimportant for liability determination purposes -- and for

  good reasons:  Because the Law operates out in the practical

  setting and not on paper, of and by itself; to say that the

  Law cannot operate except if on paper is to say in reverse

  that if there is no paper, there is no Law.  Not understanding

  the significance of that Principle will render yourself prone

  to error in your thinking.]  [412]



[412]=============================================================



For example, when benefits have been accepted in the context of

reciprocity being expected in return, then there lies a contract;

and where no Consideration [benefits exchanged] is evident on the

record, then the contract collapses in front of a judge (FAILURE

OF CONSIDERATION).  To show you just how improper it is to rely on

documents for anything of significance in the area of attaching

liability, remember earlier, when I talked about the Taxable

Franchise of Social Security, and of Justiciability, I spoke of an

Affidavit [document] I filed admitting to an utterly heinous

agricultural crime I had committed.  But as I mentioned, the

police could do nothing without any collaborating evidence

obtained from out in the practical setting that a crime had in

fact been committed.  Yes, Nature does operate out in the

practical setting, and to understand Nature is to understand the

Law in all settings.



...Incidentally, when we shift from a worldly setting over to a

Heavenly setting, nothing changes either.  When entering into

Contracts with Heavenly Father down here, it will be emphasized to

you over and over again that the promissory Blessings [benefits]

from On High contained within the Contract are conditional, and

that the facial Contract itself that you just entered into means

nothing; and that it is what you do with that Contract out in the

practical setting that means everything.



=============================================================[412]



Having your Debt Liability Limited by statute is a very real and

tangible benefit that inures to all such named Enfranchised

debtors (imagine being an insurance company, and having to pay out

only 80% of your claims -- you then get to pocket the 20% that the

statutes restrained your policy holders from collecting); the fact

that, in examining your own individual circumstances, you cannot

assign any substantive financial significance to it isn't anything

the King is going to concern himself with.  And insurance

companies are prime examples of the institutionalized use of this

marvelous legal tool to enrich themselves, and they are also prime

examples of just how really valuable a Limitation on Liability

really is.  Remember that when benefits are being accepted in the

context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there

lies a good tight contract.  If, for example, you are an insurance

company, and your average losses for claims under homeowner's

policies is $100,000, and the King comes along and declares that

henceforth, the maximum claim anyone can make in his Kingdom

against an insurance company for damages experienced by homeowners

is $95,000, then those insurance companies very much did

experience a very real, legitimate cash benefit; and so it is now

morally correct for the King to participate in taxing the profits

the insurance companies made for this reason alone, as the King

very much assisted in enriching those insurance companies by

decreasing their cash expenditures.  Neither it is immoral for the

King to enact statutes that enrich some Gameplayers in Commerce

while simultaneously perfecting the Enscrewment of others, as

remember that entrance into the closed private domain of King's

Commerce is purely voluntary.  [413]



[413]=============================================================



At least entrance should be and is theoretically so.  This is why

that if, for any reason, the Supreme Court upholds the Income Tax

grab on a properly documented involuntary DE MINIMIS participant

in King's Commerce (who timely waived, rejected and refused all

Commercial and political benefits), then we will turn away from

dealing with the King out of the barrel of a fountain pen, and

start to deal with the King out of the barrel of a gun.



=============================================================[413]



So do you see what a well worded statute can do?  ...invisible

political benefits accepted get converted into a gusher of cash

for the King, to be used as a wealth transfer instrument by

Special Interest Groups.  The more numerous the number of wealth

transfer instruments the King can create, the more he can

correctly justify before the eyes of the Judiciary taxing certain

Persons who financially benefit from the statutory GRAB AND GIVE

scheme.  [414]



[414]=============================================================



"Does history repeat itself?  Yes.  Today, the term SECURITY is

best defined in the promises of economic kings and politicians in

the form of doles, grants, and subsidies made for the purpose of

perpetuating themselves in public office, and at the same time

depleting the resources of the people and the treasury of the

nation.  The word SECURITY is being used as an implement of

political expediency, and the end results will be the loss of

freedom, and temporal and spiritual bankruptcy.  [Throughout this

Letter, other examples will be presented showing how the violation

of Principles will always produce adverse secondary consequences,

with the true seminal point of causality remaining latent,

elusive, and obscured].  We have those among us who are calling

for an economic king, and the voice of the king replies in

promises wherein the individual is guaranteed relief from the

mandate given to Adam:



  'In the sweat of thy face thou eat bread.'



"Disobedience to this mandate involves the penalty of loss of free

agency and individuality, and the dissolution of the resources of

the individual.  These economic rulers have advocated, and do

practice, a vicious procedure called the LEVELING DOWN PROCESS

which takes from one man who has achieved and distributes to those

who are not willing to put forth like effort.  Taxation is the

means through which this LEVELING DOWN PROCESS is implemented.

Taxes in the United States during the last decade have increased

five hundred percent.  If such increases continue, it will mean

final confiscation of the property of the people.



"A clear cut example of the promises of economic kings to the

people, with all of the penalties involved, stands out in the case

of Great Britain.  Great Britain, with fifty years of rule over

the Seas of the Earth, the Sun never setting on her Empire, finds

herself now in a convulsion of spiritual, political, and temporal

bankruptcy.  She has a king, but he is merely a symbol of her past

greatness; but the people, like those of Israel, cried for a new

king, an economic king, and the king has responded with the rule

of dictatorship, bringing deterioration to the character of the

individual, loss of ambition, freedom, individual progress through

the right to work when and where he would, and regimentation.  The

people are forced to heed the call and feel the iron hand of the

dictator.  Above all, they have lost their free agency.  The

British people are but mere cogs in the great machine of

socialism.  The state is paramount; the citizen has been subdued.

Their resources have been absorbed, the treasury of the government

has been depleted, and had it not been for the generosity of this

great republic, where a few of the fundamentals of freedom,

personal initiative, and free enterprise remain, Great Britain

would have been but a memory.  Just as was in Israel, so would it

be with Great Britain -- dissension, division, and communistic

captivity.



"What does this mean to you and me?  We have those among us, too,

who over the years have cried for a controlled economy.  We have

those among us who give succor and support to such a plan, which

plan of controlled economy involves the same theories and false

philosophies that ruined Israel and are now destroying Great

Britain.  Economic kings have responded to the call of some

people, promising them security against want for their votes.  In

the attempt to meet the desires of these people, the treasury of

this great nation is being depleted, and it covers deficit

spending with promissory notes.  Expansion of this disastrous

policy will deprive American citizens of their God-given freedom,

the right to work when and where they will, freedom of speech,

freedom of the press -- and who knows but what some day the right

to worship God according to the dictates of one's conscience may

be taken away.  It is destroying, and will continue to destroy,

the very fundamentals upon which this nation and its people have

found prosperity and genuine security.  These are not idle words,

but the counsel and the words of the Lord as they have been

revealed to this nation through Prophets and the Founding Fathers

of this great Republic.  For one hundred and twenty years modern

day Samuels have pleaded with the people to preserve the

fundamentals of temporal and spiritual security by being obedient

to the Gospel, through work, being thrifty and staying out of

debt, and above all to conserve our resources to provide temporal

security during periods of sickness, unemployment, and the days of

old age.  This people has been taught by the Prophets of God that

to waste the bounties of Earth is a sin, and surely there is a

penalty therefor.  The Lord cannot bless an individual or a nation

with the bounties of the Earth and have that individual or nation

deliberately and wantonly waste them, without the law of

retribution of want and famine being imposed.



"Economic kings have advocated the doctrine that those in distress

should be provided for abundantly with no obligations on the part

of the recipients, but the Lord has revealed through his Prophets

a great welfare plan which does not rob individuals in distress of

their freedom, personal initiative, and the right to work.  In the

welfare program [of the Church] the individual is the objective,

and through the generosity and cooperative efforts of the

membership of the Church, the individual is assured of temporal

security, not as a dole or a gift, but as a bridge to cover the

gap of unemployment or illness until the individual can again

stand on his own feet and work out his temporal security.  It is

required of him that during this period of assistance from the

welfare program he shall give freely of his labor, if physically

fit, in the production of the things he needs, and out of it

becomes one of the independent sons of the Lord, having notably

received but having also given."



  -  Joseph B. Wirthlin in CONFERENCE REPORTS, at page 134

  (April, 1950).



=============================================================[414]



In your Case as a benefit acceptant Enfranchised Person under the

14th Amendment, if your share of the National Debt is $250,000,

and the King comes along and slices off $150,000 from that Debt,

so your exposure is now $100,000, then did the King just give you

a benefit?  Certainly he did, and it is now morally correct for

the King to participate in taxing the gain he participated in

creating, just like he did with insurance companies.  If in your

business judgment throwing half of your annual income out the

window to the King for these paltry artificial political debt

liability limitations is just not worth the large percentage tax

grab the King demands year in and year out without letup, then

that is a business judgment you need to make; and that business

question is not a question that a Federal Judge can or should come

to grips with in the midst of some Title 26 enforcement

prosecution, after you previously accepted the King's Commercial

benefits, and now for some philosophically oriented political

reason, you don't feel like reciprocating by paying the invisible

benefits that you previously received under an Admiralty contract.

[415]



[415]=============================================================



If you have a Lease contract as a Tenant with your Landlord to

occupy his premises and pay him rent, then is it correct and

provident that you could withhold rent from him because one night

you saw that Landlord of yours defile himself at a bar downtown by

spending your money and his strength on a pair of harlots?  No, it

is not, and your excuses and arguments not to honor the Lease

contract is foolishness and will be summarily ignored by all

judges from your local justice courts clear up to the Supreme

Court.  What your Landlord does with his money after you give it

to him through an operation of that Lease contract is his business

and none of yours, and what the King does with his money once he

has his hands on it is also his own business.  [All Internal

Income Tax Revenue collected is turned over to the Federal Reserve

Board as payment on the National Debt].  The unfairness of the

Landlord to demand and get high rents he doesn't really need, and

then to turn around and throw the money out the window on harlots,

just like the King throwing his money out the window to Poland and

to looters throughout the rest of the world... this unfairness

that eats and gnaws at you, is a Tort Law fairness

rationalization, and has no business in a Leasehold Tenant

Eviction proceeding in your local municipal court, and has no

business in a WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE action in a Federal District

Court, as both are contract enforcement actions.  Defenses and

arguments made in a Contract Law judgment setting are necessarily

very narrowly construed; background factual elements not contained

in the contract are relevant only to the extent that they

influence a clause in the contract that is presented to a court

for a ruling.  And absent unusual circumstances, only the content

of the contract is going to be discussed in any courtroom; just

like only the content of your Contracts with Father will be

discussed at the Last Day and rationalizations sounding in the

Tort of EQUALITY like this one will be ignored:



  "Oh, yes Father -- I accepted Jesus Christ, and I was just as

  good as anyone else."



=============================================================[415]



Here in New York State, the regional Prince in 1984 became the

first American Prince to enact statutes requiring the use of seat

belts by all motorists driving on HIS highways.  This statute was

openly announced as being designed to cut the hospital costs of

accident victims (meaning, to limit the liability exposure of

insurance company claims by reducing the amount of cash they spend

on each hospitalization claim while collecting the same amount of

annual motorist insurance premiums).  Here in Rochester, New York,

numerous insurance companies ran large newspaper advertisements at

the time encouraging the enactment of the Seat Belt statute.  I

have examined the lobbyists' material that was distributed to

State Legislators in 1984 on this issue; they were presented with

an impressive array of the history of similar statutes enacted in

over 90 foreign jurisdictions world wide to justify their proposed

statute in New York State -- yes, where high-powered money is at

stake, there will be high-powered research and documentation.



You may very well resent this GRAB AND GIVE environment that is

designed to enrich the King while perfecting your Enscrewment in

the practical setting, but if you do voluntarily participate in

the Enrichment Game of King's Commerce, then your resentment for

being cornered in on the GRAB side of this wealth transfer game,

and your Tort Law arguments of unfairness centered around that

resentment, means absolutely nothing to any judge at any time for

any reason.  But what if you are different?  What if you don't

voluntarily participate in Commerce?  What if you filed timely

objections, and have refused and rejected all Commercial benefits?

Now what?



The reason why the King entertains this Admiralty "Limitation of

Liability" Jurisdictional attachment reasoning goes back into the

Civil War days of the 1800s, when a Special Interest Group,

perhaps a bit overzealous, exerted strong controlling dominance in

the Congress and announced that they had effectuated the

ratification of the 14th Amendment, in order to "correct the

injustice" from the Supreme Court's DRED SCOTT Case, [416]



[416]=============================================================



DRED SCOTT VS. SANFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).



=============================================================[416]



and its majestic restrainment on the Congress not to forcibly

attach Equity Jurisdiction on individuals absent a Grant of

Jurisdiction to do so (Citizenship is Equity Jurisdiction, and the

casting of Blacks (or anyone else) into King's Equity Jurisdiction

relational settings without the requisite initiating Charter

jurisdictional authority being there, is null and void).  The

reasoning the Supreme Court used to rule on in DRED SCOTT was

quite correct; but unfortunately for political reasons, it caused

its correct reasoning to be related to persons who are Blacks

instead of persons carrying other minority demographic

characteristics, such as blue eyes.  [417]



[417]=============================================================



I once told a state judge that I was demanding my minority rights.

He looked at me and snorted something, and so I quoted the state

statute which granted a right given to generic minorities, without

any qualification of just what a MINORITY was.  So I brought in

some statistics to prove that people with blue eyes are a

demographic minority in the United States, and that therefore I

was redemanding my minority rights.  [Those minority statutes of

rights and special hand out grants are quite flaky; they are

structurally improvident, bearing no intrinsic relationship to

Nature, and are, and have always been, a Special Interest Group

political payoff to either buy or retain votes, power, and money.

But state statutes are not designed or intended to be conformal

with Nature or manifest even a quasi-rational basis:  Citizenship

is like joining a Country Club, as I will explain in the next

section on CITIZENSHIP, so house rules that operate to favor some

class of persons while harming others are largely viewed by the

Federal Judiciary as being just part of the game (just like a

Country Club's Board of Governors decision to name Tuesday as

being LADY'S DAY on the back 18 holes; no, it isn't fair to you

men when Tuesday is your only day off from work and you want to

use the back 18 holes then, but the Tort of unfairness is not

relevant as long as you are a MEMBER, because a contract is in

effect).]



=============================================================[417]



And so although the pronouncements of Law in DRED SCOTT are quite

accurate, the factual setting was twisted around just enough to

cause those poor downtrodden Blacks to be pictured on the wrong

side of the practical issue, and so the DRED SCOTT Case became a

tool used by politicians seeking a hot issue to enrich their own

fortunes.  [418]



[418]=============================================================



See generally:



  -  Joseph James in THE FRAMING OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

  [University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1956)];



  -  Phillip Paludian in A COVENANT WITH DEATH [University of

  Illinois Press, Urbana (1975)];



  -  Thomas Cooley in CHANGES IN THE BALANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL

  POWERS, AN ADDRESS TO THE LAW STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

  [Douglas and Company, Ann Arbor (March, 1878)];



  -  Howard Graham in OUR "DECLARATORY" FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 7

  Stanford Law Review, at 3 (September, 1954).



=============================================================[418]



But substitute some other demographic feature of people for

Blacks, and the DRED SCOTT Case would have been ignored.  [419]



[419]=============================================================



Abraham Lincoln was also dragged into this DRED SCOTT controversy;

on June 26, 1857, Abraham Lincoln found himself divided on the

DRED SCOTT CASE -- it was one of those difficult factual settings

where no matter what was said or done, you could only be viewed as

being wrong.  He suggested on that day in Springville, Illinois

that the rulings of the United States Court do not create binding

obligations on the two political branches of Government.  This was

a risky philosophical position for Lincoln to take; DRED SCOTT

effectively repudiated the Principles upon which Lincoln's new

REPUBLICAN PARTY rested; and Lincoln exposed himself to the charge

of "attempting to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute among the

people" [the charge was thrown at Lincoln by Steven A. Douglas in

the course of his Fifth Debate with Abraham Lincoln on October 7,

1857].  See Gary Jacobson in ABRAHAM LINCOLN ON THIS QUESTION OF

JUDICIAL AUTHORITY: THE THEORY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL ASPIRATION in

36 Western Political Quarterly, at 52 (March, 1983).



=============================================================[419]



The DRED SCOTT CASE ruled that African races, even though freed as

slaves by President Lincoln, and freed again from being slaves by

the 13th Amendment, still could not be placed into that high and

unique lofty political status called Citizen, with all of the

rights, privileges, benefits and immunities that Citizens have:

Because Congress was never given the Jurisdiction to do so, and

the reason has to do with the original intentions of the Founding

Fathers in 1787 to create a sanctuary for white Christians to live

in without the uncomfortable tensions and frictions of society

that always follow in the wake of forced relations with other

people of strongly contrasting demographic characteristics.

Although the 13th Amendment very much abolished slavery, it

nowhere talks about Citizenship, which as a contract is something

totally else, and which has very significant and important legal

meanings since Citizenship attaches King's Equity Jurisdiction.

Under this DRED SCOTT DOCTRINE, Blacks could not even become

naturalized Citizens (i.e., the Congress could not enact statutory

jurisdiction to grant Citizenship rights to Blacks that the

original version of the Constitution specifically restrained and

the 13th Amendment never reached into.)  So the 14th Amendment

came along, designed to change all that.  [420]



[420]=============================================================



Remember that pursuant to the MERGER DOCTRINE, contracts we enter

into today overrule contracts we entered into yesterday, since it

is out of harmony with Nature that contracts cannot be altered,

modified, or otherwise rescinded in the future by the consent of

the Parties.  This is why Constitutional Amendments can overrule

whatever was written into the original Constitution of 1787 at an

earlier time.



=============================================================[420]



Since politicians saw this DRED SCOTT Case as having very unique

qualities to acquire maximum political mileage out of it due to

the passionate public sentiments associated with it, the movement

towards adapting the 14th Amendment to deal with those UTTERLY

HEINOUS and RACIST SUPREME COURT JUSTICES quickly acquired

momentum; and having the powerful support that the 14th Amendment

possessed, it was simply assumed that it would quickly pass

Congress and be ratified by the States.  Like statutory bills in

Congress, [421]



[421]=============================================================



The Panama Canal Treaty ratification bill in the Senate in 1978,

being sponsored by very powerful Rockefeller Cartel interests like

it was, with people IN THE KNOW knowing that it would most likely

pass the Senate, quickly became loaded down with several hundred

amendments that wouldn't pass by themselves.  This legislative

device is sometimes called PIGGY-BACKING.  See THE PROPOSED PANAMA

CANAL TREATIES -- A DIGEST OF INFORMATION, Subcommittee on the

Separation of Powers, Committee on the Judiciary, United States

Senate, 95th Congress, 2nd Session (February, 1978); and PANAMA

CANAL TREATIES (DISPOSITION OF UNITED STATES TERRITORY), in Parts

1,2,3,4 of Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Separation of

Powers, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 95th

Congress, 1st Session (July, 1977).



=============================================================[421]



the 14th Amendment became loaded down with very interesting

declarations on the Public Debt, that had absolutely nothing to do

with granting Blacks Citizenship rights -- seemingly the very

reason for the 14th Amendment in the first place.  Like the Panama

Canal Treaties, Gremlins saw a unique window opening to perfect

just one more turn of the screws.  And those pronouncements on

Public Debts and Enfranchised Citizens are the structured legal

framework of the King to seek Citizenship contract liability as a

partial justification to pay Income Taxes here in the 1980s.

Remember that mere written documents, of and by themselves, do not

create liability.  Liability is always perfected in the practical

setting; and it is your acceptance of the benefits of

Enfranchisement (of which the Limited Liability of your share of

the Public Debt is one such benefit), that gives rise to a taxing

liability scenario, and not the unilateral debt declarations in

the 14th Amendment itself.  [422]



[422]=============================================================



Yes, the 14th Amendment, announced by its sponsors to have the

high, noble, and righteous goal of reversing that bad, wicked,

terrible, heinous and utterly evil DRED SCOTT Case, of overturning

those racist Supreme Court Justices, and giving those poor

exploited and downtrodden Blacks their political rights, actually

has a silent correlative sinister profile to it that now damages

everyone, including Blacks.  In 1978, every single member of the

United States Senate knew that Rockefeller Cartel Gremlins were

behind the Panama Canal Treaties, and knowing that, a pathetic

majority went right ahead and voted for it anyway; just the

political inveiglement surrounding the real objectives of the 14th

Amendment was also known at the time it was being considered for

Senate approval...



  "It is their deliberate purpose, tomorrow or next week, or a

  month hence, or as soon as they can, to make the Federal

  Constitution a different instrument from what it is now, and

  then, under somewhat latitudinarian expressions contained in

  this proposed fourteenth article of amendment to the

  Constitution... any kind of law the majority party here desire

  be... enacted into law."



    -  Congressman Michael Kerr of Indiana, in the

    CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 40th Congress, 2nd Session, page 1973

    (March, 1868).



=============================================================[422]



The actual legal validity of the ratification of the 14th

Amendment is now disputed.  The Utah Supreme Court once ruled that

the ratification of the 14th Amendment was invalid and therefore

the Bill of Rights was non-applicable in Utah.  [423]



[423]=============================================================



See DYETT VS. TURNER, 439 Pacific 266 (1968), and the numerous

other cites therein; that State Tribunal later backed down and

reversed itself by one vote.



=============================================================[423]



For more than a hundred years now, the courts have applied the

14th Amendment to pertinent Cases that have come before them.  And

although questions have been raised about both its language

meaning and the legal correctness of its adaption process, Federal

challenges to the Ratification of the 14th Amendment have always

fallen on deaf ears.  Its long time usage and the LATENESS OF THE

HOUR DOCTRINES have caused the Supreme Court to accept the 14th

Amendment as law.  [424]



[424]=============================================================



See COLEMAN VS. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).



=============================================================[424]



Of and by itself, the 14th Amendment is an instrument that creates

a great deal of litigation.  [425]



[425]=============================================================



Felix Frankfurter once remarked that the 14th Amendment was the

largest source of the Supreme Court's business.  [See Felix

Frankfurter in JOHN MARSHALL AND THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION, 69 Harvard

Law Review 217, at 229 (1955).]



=============================================================[425]



Despite the disputed authenticity of the background factual

setting permeating the Ratification Process of the 14th Amendment,

the story of its alleged Ratification is indeed a strange and

fascinating chapter in Constitutional history.  It goes well

beyond the natural confusion that would be expected on the heels

of a great Civil War and the secondary political readjustments

that followed the disruption of power relationships.  The nature

of the unique political conditions back then and the emerging

attitudes of individuals to furnish the key elements in the

factual setting relating to pure, raw physical force that the

sponsors of the 14th Amendment pressured on Ratification-reluctant

Southern States; and the same unique political conditions are now

responsible for the first two assertions of an invisible layer of

Admiralty Jurisdiction over us all.  [426]



[426]=============================================================



In his book entitled THE RATIFICATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT by

Joseph James [Mercer University Press (1984)], the author names

his 20 chapters after marine and maritime events, almost as if Mr.

James is quietly warning his readers allegorically as a veiled

presentation of what the 14th Amendment is really all about.  The

names range from THE LAUNCHING and SETTING SAIL to TROUBLED

SOUTHERN WATERS, DANGEROUS PASSAGE, and MAKING FOR PORT.



=============================================================[426]



Patriots now have a position to take on this 14th Amendment:  Do

we want this 14th Amendment thing or not?  On one hand, the 14th

Amendment has been used by judges as their excuse to give us noble

sounding, although largely milktoast, Due Process and other

wide-ranging rights that have been used as judicial intervention

justification jurisdiction in such diverse factual settings like

opening up Government law libraries to the public; chopping away

at the lingering vestiges of Richard Dailey's Machine in Chicago;

ordering the Tombs Prison in New York City closed; ordering

affirmative action in the hiring of policemen; ordering school

integration busing; denying retail business proprietors the

discretion to select their own customers; and in Boston, Federal

Judge Arthur Garrity actually took over administrative operations

management of a portion of the local school district in an

intervention effort to deal with that utterly heinous evil of

racism.  And it was through an operation of the 14th Amendment's

INCORPORATION DOCTRINE that the entire Bill of Rights was made

binding on your regional Prince by the Supreme Court (as the Bill

of Rights was initially binding, by original intent, only on the

King himself).  [427]



[427]=============================================================



After the Civil War, popular opinion in the Southern United States

was running against the adoption of the 14th Amendment, on the

grounds that the 14th Amendment would consolidate all power into

Washington (which is exactly what happened, and which is exactly

what some Gremlins wanted).  See the CINCINNATI COMMERCIAL for

April 21, 1866, quoting the MEMPHIS ARGUS and the CHARLESTON

COURIER for April 2, 1866.  The CHARLESTON COURIER had made the

prophetic statement that the State Judiciaries would be made

subservient to Federal authority, and that the 14th Amendment

would be conferring upon Congress "powers unknown to the original

law of the country"; which is exactly what has happened.  Yet, in

reading the 14th Amendment, no where are State Judiciaries even

mentioned.  See generally DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

INCORPORATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS?  THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING by

Charles Friedman, 2 Sanford Law Review at 5 (December, 1949).



=============================================================[427]



And on the other hand, in an area of more direct interest to

Gremlins, the 14th Amendment now spins an invisible stealthy web

of an adhesive attachment of King's Equity Jurisdiction so strong

and with benefits so invisible, that Black Widow Spiders would be

humbled if they could ever appreciate their reduced Status in

light of this new competition in the Jungle.



In a sense, what we want or do not want at the present time is

unimportant, since we as Individuals are without jurisdiction to

effectuate into the practical setting the corrective political

remedies of annulling the 14th Amendment.  In FAIRCHILD VS.

HUGHES, [428]



[428]=============================================================



258 U.S. 126 (1922).



=============================================================[428]



the Supreme Court refused to consider the possibility of the

illegitimacy of the Ratification of the 19th Amendment, and used

as contributing justification the comparative example of the

judicial recognition of the 15th Amendment by its long usage,

regardless of arguments about its technical validity.  In COLEMAN

VS. MILLER, [429]



[429]=============================================================



307 U.S. 433 (1939).



=============================================================[429]



the Supreme Court did lightly review questions pertaining to the

Ratification of the 14th Amendment, and of attempts by two States

to rescind their previous Ratification of an Amendment as an

example of their philosophy that such questions be deferred to

"the political departments of government as to [whether or not

the] validity of the adoption of the 14th Amendment has been

accepted."  [430]



[430]=============================================================



"...the question of the efficacy of ratifications by State

legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted

withdrawal, should be regarded as a political question pertaining

to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the

Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of

the adoption of the amendment."



  -  COLEMAN VS. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, at 450 (1938).



=============================================================[430]



Although the right of judges to nullify statutes was seemingly

settled in MARBURY VS. MADISON, [431]



[431]=============================================================



"...it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution

contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of

courts, as well as that of the legislature.  Why otherwise does it

direct the judges to take an oath to support it?"



  -  MARBURY VS. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).



=============================================================[431]



the question of Judicial statutory annulment lingered on, [432]



[432]=============================================================



Twenty one years after MARBURY VS. MADISON, Chief Justice Marshall

backed off slightly by making the following comment, which is

astonishing by contrast:



  "Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the

  laws, has no existence.  Courts are the mere instruments of

  law, and can will nothing.  When they are said to exercise a

  discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be

  exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and,

  when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow

  it."



    -  OSBORNE VS. BANK OF UNITED STATES, 22 U.S. 738 (1824).



Although the Judiciary is given its own perpetual existence in

Article III, in a sense Justice Marshall is correct, since it is

the Legislature that ultimately holds the upper hand.  The

Legislature could, if it wanted to, repeal Article III altogether

and shut down the Judiciary IN TOTO, and appoint, perhaps,

Committees of Congress to act in the capacity of what was once the

Judiciary by individually considering Cases that come before them.



=============================================================[432]



Judicial Review now continues down to the present day as a topical

source of conversation, since the DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW is

often used as a legal tool to justify taking a philosophical

position.  [433]



[433]=============================================================



"...the Framers did not see the courts as the exclusive custodians

of the Constitution.  Indeed, because the document posits so few

conclusions it leaves to the more political branches the matter of

adapting and vivifying its principles in each generation...  The

power to declare acts of Congress and the laws of the state null

and void... should not be used when the Constitution does not

[explicitly allow it]."



  -  Attorney General Edwin Meece before the D.C. Chapter of the

  Federalist Society Lawyers Division, November 15, 1985,

  Washington, D.C.



=============================================================[433]



Just as the low level question of statutory annulment by the

Judiciary continues on as a disputed jurisdictional item, so A

FORTIORI [434]



[434]=============================================================



A FORTIORI means "with the greater force," as one conclusion is

compared with another.



=============================================================[434]



the higher question of actually annulling portions of the

Constitution itself, due to technical Ratification procedures, is

strongly disputed.  [435]



[435]=============================================================



A minority collection of four Supreme Court Justices once stated

that:



  "[Article IV of the Constitution]... grants power over the

  amending of the Constitution to Congress alone.  Undivided

  control of that process has been given by the Article

  exclusively and completely to Congress.  The process itself is

  called "political" in its entirety, from submission until an

  amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and not subject to

  judicial guidance, control, or interference at any point."



    -  COLEMAN VS. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, at 459 [Concurring

    Opinion] (1938).



=============================================================[435]



Although that line of reasoning is facially defective if intended

to apply universally to all circumstances [the right time to do

the right thing is right now], there is some merit in the Supreme

Court's desire that grievances of this nature are best settled by

what they call the POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT, under

normal circumstances.  However, when unlawful sources of

jurisdiction are being used (such as nonexistent Constitutional

Amendments) as justification to damage someone, then the ALICE IN

WONDERLAND fantasy of gentlemanly interdepartmental political

comities that the Supreme Court would prefer to intervene and

settle the grievance, become inappropriate and unrealistic

grievance settlement remedy tools; and by indifferently allowing

fraudulent sources of jurisdiction to be thrown at someone as

justifying Government Tort damages, the judiciary is diminishing

its own stature.  [436]



[436]=============================================================



"...the glory and ornament of our system which distinguishes it

from every other government on the face of the earth is that there

is a great and mighty [judicial] power hovering over the

Constitution of the land to which has been delegated the awful

responsibility of restraining all the coordinate departments of

the Government within the walls of the great fabric which our

fathers [built] for our protection and our immunity forever."



  -  Chief Justice Edward White, in a speech shortly before he

  ascended into the corridors of judicial power; 23

  CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 6515 (1892).



=============================================================[436]



As for the holding of the Bill of Rights into binding effect on

the States, in every single Supreme Court decision I have read

involving the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause application, the

Supreme Court could have equally justified the ruling based on the

REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT CLAUSE in Article IV, Section 4, if

they wanted to -- but they don't want to.



One of the receptive concerns one finds in the Supreme Court is

their perceived lack of federal jurisdiction to intervene into,

and overrule state proceedings -- This REPUBLICAN CLAUSE is a real

sleeper as such a Grant of Supervisory Jurisdiction is inherent in

its positive action mandates.  Shifting to the meaning of the

Clause itself:  A Republic, properly understood, involves the

restrainment of the use of Government by majorities to work Torts

on minorities, as distinguished from Democracies where simple

majority rule forces their will and their Torts on everyone else.

[437]



[437]=============================================================



"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can

readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said

to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is

not as secured against the violence of the stronger..."



  -  Alexander Hamilton, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, Number 51.



=============================================================[437]



What are Minority Rights?  Those Rights are the Rights to be left

alone and ignored by Government absent an infracted contract or a

Tort damage.  [438]



[438]=============================================================



"A majority taken collectively may be regarded as being whose

opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of

another being, which is styled a minority.  If it be admitted that

a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by

wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be held liable

to the same reproach?  Men are not apt to change their characters

by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of

obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength."



  -  Alexis de Tocqueville, 1 DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, at 249

  [Arlington House (1965)].



=============================================================[438]



And those rights are very appropriate to invoke when you are in

the midst of a criminal prosecution, without any contract in

effect, without any MENS REA, and without any CORPUS DELECTI

damages being found anywhere; and it has to be this way since

wisdom is not conferred upon majorities by virtue of their sheer

collective aggregate numbers.  [439]



[439]=============================================================



"Tyranny is not the only problem.  Majorities do not necessarily

have enough knowledge, insight, or expertise to assure wisest

action... issues require expertise and understanding far beyond

that which is possessed by the majority...  The collective wisdom

is not likely to be less fallible."



  -  Bernard Siegan in ECONOMIC LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTION,

  at 273 [University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)].



=============================================================[439]



I see a real germ of tyranny in theoretical Democracies.  [440]



[440]=============================================================



"When I see that the right and means of absolute command are

conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a

democracy, a monarchy or republic, I recognize the germ of

tyranny, and I journey onwards to a land of more helpful

institutions."



  -  Alexis de Tocqueville, 1 DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, at 250

  [Arlington House (1965)].



=============================================================[440]



Since everyone, even lobbyists for Special Interest Groups,

belongs to one or more overlapping minority interest groups of

some type, then attention to this REPUBLICAN CLAUSE by the Supreme

Court (and by us in our briefs) can accomplish far more than the

less specific "Due Process" words in a sinister Amendment that

carries negative and unattractive secondary enscrewment

consequences along with it.  But we are not the Supreme Court, so

our knowledge and wisdom has to be filed away in abatement under

HIATUS STATUS, pending our future ascension into the corridors of

power.



There are several ways to cure the mischiefs of factions and their

Torts; one is to remove its seminal point of causality [by the

elimination of troublemakers, not permissible without creating

more problems than were "solved"]; another way is to control the

net practical effects of Majority Torts by creating a confederate

Republic, consisting of several regional states, and then creating

several layers of Juristic Institutions operating on narrow

jurisdictional contours, and somewhat operating against each other

to a limited extent; this is very similar to the structural

configuration of the United States, with a federal layer operating

VIS-A-VIS the regional States.  [441]



[441]=============================================================



THE FEDERALIST Number 9 goes into this in greater detail.  Not

very well known is the fact that the dual shared contours of

Federal/State legislative jurisdiction are sometimes in a state of

tension, which frictional relationship has existed right from the

start of the Union.  While the Continental Congress was once

meeting in Philadelphia on June 20, 1783, soldiers from Lancaster,

Pennsylvania arrived in Philadelphia "...to obtain a settlement of

accounts, which they supposed they had a better chance [to

collect] at Philadelphia than at Lancaster."  On the next day,

June 21st:



  "The mutinous soldiers presented themselves, drawn up in the

  streets before the State House, where Congress had assembled.

  The executive council of the State, sitting under the same

  roof, was called upon for the proper interposition [to get rid

  of the soldiers].  President Dickerson came in [to the Hall of

  Congress], and explained the difficulty, under actual

  circumstances, of bringing out the [State] militia of the

  place for the suppression of the mutiny.  He thought that,

  without some outrages on persons or property, the militia

  could not be relied on [to get rid of the mutineers].  General

  St. Clair, then in Philadelphia, was sent for, and desired to

  use his interposition, in order to prevail on the troops to

  return to the barracks.  His report gave no encouragement...



  "In the meantime, the soldiers remained in their position,

  without offering any violence, individuals only, occasionally

  uttering offensive words, and wantonly pointing their muskets

  to the windows of the Hall of Congress.  No danger from

  premeditated violence was apprehended, but it was observed

  that spirituous drink, from the tippling-houses adjoining,

  began to be liberally served out to the soldiers, and might

  lead to hasty excesses.  None were committed, however, and

  about three o'clock, the usual hour, Congress adjourned; the

  soldiers, though in some instances offering a mock

  obstruction, permitting the members to pass through their

  ranks.  They soon afterwards retired themselves to the

  barracks. ...



  "The [subsequent] conference with the executive [of

  Pennsylvania] producing nothing but a repetition of doubts

  concerning the disposition of the militia to act unless

  outrage were offered to persons or property.  It was even

  doubted whether a repetition of the insult to Congress would

  be sufficient provocation.  During the deliberations of the

  executive, and the suspense of the committee, reports from the

  barracks were in constant vibration.  At one moment, the

  mutineers were penitent and preparing submissions; the next,

  they were meditating more violent measures.  Sometimes, the

  bank was their object; then the seizure of the members of

  Congress, with whom they imagined an indemnity for their

  offense might be stipulated."



    -  Elliot, 5 MADISON PAPERS CONTAINING DEBATES ON THE

    CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION, at pages 92 et seq.

    [Washington, D.C. (1845)].



The harassment by the soldiers which had begun on June 20

continued across four days until June 24, 1783.  On this date, the

members of Congress now abandoned any hope that the State of

Pennsylvania might disperse the soldiers, so the Congress removed

itself from Philadelphia.  General George Washington had learned

of the uprising only on the same date at his headquarters at

Newburgh, and reacting promptly, he dispatched a large contingent

of his whole force to suppress this "infamous and outrageous

Mutiny"; see 27 WRITINGS OF WASHINGTON, at page 32 [George

Washington Bicentennial Commission, GPO (1938)].  But the news of

his intended response arrived too late, as the Congress had by now

packed their bags and left for Princeton, and traveled thereafter

to Trenton, Annapolis, and New York City.  There was not any

repetition of the circumstances preceding the decision by Congress

to leave Philadelphia, however, this incident was never forgotten

by the Congress.  A few months later on October 7, 1783, the

Congress while meeting in Princeton adopted the following

Resolution:



  "That building for the use of Congress be erected on or near

  the banks of the Delaware, provided a suitable district can be

  procured on or near the banks of said river, for a federal

  town; and that the right of soil, and an exclusive or such

  other jurisdiction as Congress may direct, shall be vested in

  the United States."



    -  8 JOURNALS OF CONGRESS, at 295.



Those mutineers contributed strongly to the feeling in Congress

that the United States needed its own geographical district,

exercising its own exclusive jurisdiction over it, and so when it

acquired the District of Columbia, the Congress made sure that

there were no lingering vestiges of State Sovereignty left to

surface again under possibly unpleasant circumstances.  George

Mason of Virginia expressed his sentiments in July of 1878 that

the new seat of the Federal Government, where ever that may

eventually be, not be 'in the city or place at which the seat of

any State Government might be fixed,' because the establishment of

the seat of Government in a State Capital would tend 'to produce

disputes concerning jurisdiction' and because the commingling of

the two jurisdictions would tend to give 'a provincial tincture'

to the important national deliberations [see Jonathan Elliot,

Editor, in 5 MADISON PAPERS CONCERNING DEBATES ON THE

CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION, at page 374].



Down to the present day, just what legislative jurisdiction the

Congress does have in criminal matters is disputed; no doubt it

can very much exercise criminal jurisdiction over all crimes so

listed in the Constitution, and for all crimes that take place on

land owned by the King.  But where a crime has taken place in a

building on leased land not owned by the King, the Congress

probably does not have criminal jurisdiction, and must yield to

the States for the administration of a spanking [but the criminal

Defendant has to demand it; jurisdiction originates out of the

barrel of a gun, and the King is not about to be a nice guy and

just simply turn around and walk away from exercising recourse

against an exhibition of defiance in his leased office spaces he

provides to his termites].  Necessarily so when twin separate and

distinct Juristic Institutions are making assertions of

jurisdiction over the same geographical districts, tensions and

frictions surface as the jurisdiction of one is slightly limited,

and the jurisdiction of the other is specifically limited, and one

is reaching outside of its appropriate contours.  In 1954 an

extensive study of the area of Federal-State jurisdiction was

studied by an Inter-Departmental Committee under the supervision

of imp Herbert Brownell, United States Attorney General.

Discussing in detail the legal relationship of the States to

Federal Enclaves, the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction (by

consent, by the Constitution, or on Federal Lands), Criminal

Jurisdiction, and operations of State and Federal Jurisdiction

over Residents without and within Federal Enclaves and other

Federal Lands, the report gives a good profiling glimpse into the

limited nature of Federal legislative jurisdiction.  See REPORT ON

THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF JURISDICTION OVER

FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES [GPO, Washington (April and June,

1956)].



=============================================================[441]



By the way, the original version of the United States

Constitution, which includes the first ten Amendments (the BILL OF

RIGHTS), is organic just like a contract, and is subject to

modification, annulment, and reversal by any subsequent Amendment.

[442]



[442]=============================================================



Remember the operation of the twin combination of the SPECIFICITY

DOCTRINE and the LACHES DOCTRINE as they blend together in a

confluence to form the wider MERGER DOCTRINE:  That the most

recently executed contract addendum applies first (the first being

MERGED with the last), and the most SPECIFIC contract wording also

applies first (the most general being MERGED into the most

specific).



=============================================================[442]



Therefore, the general applicability of this REPUBLICAN FORM OF

GOVERNMENT CLAUSE should be viewed cautiously, and should even be

viewed in the light of possible non-applicability on any one

Individual if any contaminating adhesive attachment of King's

Equity or Admiralty Contract Jurisdiction is found operating on

that Person.  Therefore, the pleading of this Clause without

correlative averments of Status pleading is to be discouraged, as

multiple Amendments from the 11th to the 26th have quiet SUB

SILENTIO lines of Admiralty Jurisdiction running through them

which may very well vitiate the enforcement of the REPUBLIC FORM

CLAUSE.  [443]



[443]=============================================================



In other words, plead that the implied appearance of Admiralty and

Equity i