textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/incon008.xml

<xml><p> I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
George Mercier</p>

<p> FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
[Pages 435-477]</p>

<p>[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE CONTRACTS to an
electronic medium. For an explanation of the conventions used, please download
the file <ent type='ORG'>INCONHLP</ent>.ZIP for further illumination. Other background information as
well is contained in <ent type='ORG'>INCONHLP</ent>.ZIP. It is advisable to <ent type='GPE'>EXIT</ent> this file right now
and read the contents of <ent type='ORG'>INCONHLP</ent>.ZIP before proceeding with your study of this
file.]</p>

<p>Next, we turn now and address some Commercial debt instruments that just about
everyone uses constantly. And when this Commercial paper is used and then
recirculated by you, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Benefits</ent> are being quietly accepted by you and so
now subtle contracts are in effect. As COMMERCIAL <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE COURSE, you
and the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> are experiencing mutual enrichment from each other. [577]</p>

<p>[577]============================================================= If there are
<ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE COURSE, are there also <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S NOT IN DUE COURSE? Certainly
there are. The volume of Contract Law in this area is quite extensive, and in
this brief Letter, only a brief profiling synopsis is appropriate.
=============================================================[577]</p>

<p>The <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> believes that the mere use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, those
"circulating evidences of debt" [578]</p>

<p>[578]============================================================= Federal
Reserve Notes are debt obligations of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States Government. See Title
12, Section 411.
=============================================================[578]</p>

<p>that his Legal Tender Statutes [578]</p>

<p>[579]============================================================= "United
States coins and currency (including <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes and circulating
notes of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> banks and national banks) are legal tender for all
debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not
legal tender for debts."
-Title 31, Section 5103 (September, 1982).
=============================================================[579]</p>

<p>have enhanced the value of as a co-endorser; and that the mere acceptance and
beneficial use of those circulating Commercial equity instruments of debt,
constitutes an attachment of <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction sufficiently related to
experiencing Commercial profit or gain in Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> as to warrant the
attachment of civil liability to his so-called Title 26. Remember, once you get
rid of your political contracts to pay taxes (like <ent type='ORG'>National Citizenship</ent>),
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> will then start examining the record to see if there are any
Commercial benefits out there that you have been experiencing. Once you are a
Citizen, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> will generally stop looking for other contracts; but
once <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is gone, then other normally quiescent Commercial nexuses that
attach King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction suddenly take upon themselves vibrant new
importance. [580]</p>

<p>[580]============================================================= So looking
inversely at the entire King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> pie of taxing hooks that he has got into
you, only a totally pure decontamination of yourself away from that
multiplicitious array of political and Commercial benefits the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is
offering, of all benefits up and down the entire adhesive line of largely
invisible juristic contracts, will properly sever yourself away from the
adhesive administrative mandates of Title 26.
=============================================================[580]</p>

<p>I have thought out this perspective that the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has on this subject matter
over and over again, and based on an analysis of principles, rights,
liabilities, and Cases that surface in Commercial Contract Law relating to
Negotiable Instruments (as <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes are Negotiable Instruments),
and of the rights, liabilities and duties of <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE COURSE, and I have
come to the conclusion that the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is basically correct. For example, bills,
notes, and checks are also Negotiable Instruments, as well as <ent type='ORG'>Inland Bills</ent> of
Exchange. Collectively, Negotiable Instruments differ somewhat from orthodox
Commercial contracts for the reason that <ent type='ORG'>the American Jurisprudential</ent> law
concerning them springs from several different and independent sources. Whereas
the simple Law of Contracts had its origin in the Common Law of <ent type='GPE'>England</ent>, in
contrast this Law of Negotiable Instruments arose largely out of the summary
and chronologically abbreviated practices and international customs of
merchants in <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>. Those merchants formulated a body of rules and common
practices relating to their trade which were gradually adapted into the Law of
the Law by the English <ent type='ORG'>Courts</ent>. Bills of exchange and promissory notes, of which
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes are a composite blend of, acquired early on the peculiar
quality and nature among merchants in <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> as being negotiable, i.e.,
passable as Tender to different people. <ent type='ORG'>Negotiability</ent> was then defined to mean
that if an instrument is negotiable in form and is in the hands of a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN
DUE COURSE, then possible personal defenses someone may later assert against
the <ent type='ORG'>Holder</ent> are cut off of in the Holder's favor. This idea of negotiability is
an intriguing one. It differs quite a bit from the conception of assignability
underlying the transfer of <ent type='ORG'>CHOSES</ent> IN ACTION which are not negotiable.</p>

<p>Furthermore, all factors considered, it is my opinion that the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is not only
just basically correct, but that the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is also in a very strong position
here, and that <ent type='ORG'>Federal Magistrates</ent> are not <ent type='ORG'>Star Chamber</ent> Chancellors when
throwing out your civil tax defenses that ignore this invisible and adhesive
attachment of King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction, and the strong presumption of your
entrance into King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> that the acceptance and beneficial recirculation
of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes necessarily infers. However, the seminal reason why
the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is in such a strong position is only partially related to his SUB
SILENTIO aggression against you; the largest reason is because you, by your own
default, have accepted the benefits of this Commercial nexus <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent>
relationship with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>. The <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is in a very strong position here under
normal circumstances, so you can be perfectly right for 100 reasons in your
Income Tax defense, and ignore this last tiny little area in your defense, and
lose (assuming that your Case is adjudged on the substantive merits, and not on
some technical distraction question).</p>

<p>Under the Common Mercantile Law of Commercial Contract Law applicable to
Negotiable Instruments, it has always been PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE [581]</p>

<p>[581]============================================================= PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE is moderately good and acceptable evidence, although not air tight,
and stands as valid unless countermanded. On the other hand, CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE is strong and very difficult to challenge, and is incontrovertible.
=============================================================[581]</p>

<p>that the mere issuance of <ent type='ORG'>the Negotiable Instrument</ent> itself constitutes the
evidence of the receipt and enjoyment of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>. [582]</p>

<p>[582]============================================================= Remember
that <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> is a benefit you enjoy. This PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE DOCTRINE
is replicated over and over again in numerous books on Contract Law and
Commercial Law. Our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> did not invent this PRIMA FACIE <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>
Doctrine, as its seminal point of origin goes back into the Middle Ages in
<ent type='GPE'>England</ent>, which is before our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> even existed. [Citations deleted].
=============================================================[582]</p>

<p>This acceptance of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> Doctrine is of maximum importance to
understand and appreciate in its placement into the contemporary Income Tax
setting, as this Doctrine has been around for a very long time, and the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is
only now using it for his own enrichment. Law books repeat over and over again
that acceptable <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> may be anything that will support a simple
contract, and may even specifically include previously existing debt. This
<ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> Doctrine survives the codification of the Law Merchant into the
Negotiable Instruments Law, and also survives the later restatement of the
N.I.L. into the Uniform Commercial Code.</p>

<p>The Law of Commercial Contract applicable to the use and recirculation of
Negotiable Instruments is quite old, just like King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> itself.
Commercial Paper was also used extensively by merchants in the Middle Ages, and
the origin of our contemporary LAW OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS was an unwritten
Common Law applicable to merchants, called the Law Merchant. This Law Merchant
was gradually assimilated as an appendage onto English Common Law, and
subsequently became a part of our <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Jurisprudence when the New <ent type='GPE'>England</ent>
Colonies turned into states and adapted English Common Law. The Law Merchant is
spoken of by English Judges with reference to Bills of Exchange and negotiable
securities. It is neither more nor less than the common usages of merchants and
traders in the different departments of trade, ratified by decisions of <ent type='ORG'>Courts</ent>
of Law, which <ent type='ORG'>Courts</ent> later upon such usages being proved before them, readapted
those merchant practices into the Common Law of <ent type='GPE'>England</ent> as settled law with a
view to the interest of trade and the public convenience. Therefore, what was
at one time mere custom in between merchants then became grafted upon, or
incorporated onto, the Common Law, and may now be correctly said to form an
overlapping part of the Common Law. When such general Commercial practices have
been judicially ascertained and established, those Commercial practices become
a part of the Law Merchant, which contemporary <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> courts of justice are
bound to honor. In the early 1800's, many <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> states enacted their own
statutes pertaining to Commercial paper, with the result being a lack of
uniformity in both statutes, as well as the court decisions applying those
statutes to different factual settings. Lawyers don't like lack of similarity,
and so <ent type='ORG'>the National Conference</ent> of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws drafted a
bill to make the Law of Negotiable Instruments uniform from one state to the
next. The draft of the bill was called the NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW, which
when completed in 1896 was largely enacted into <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> by almost all the states.
The contemporary Uniform Commercial Code repeals the N.I.L. in those states
that have enacted the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent>; but the kicker is that old Law Merchant himself is
still very much around, alive, enforceable, and kicking.</p>

<p>And if the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has got you accepting the <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> inherent in Negotiable
Instruments that he is a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE to, and that his Legal Tender
Statutes have enhanced the value, and additionally retains a distant <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent>
interest in, then the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has got an invisible contract on you and the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
has you plump little turkeys exactly where he wants you: Ripe for a Federal
plucking. So to correctly handle this beneficial "use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes"
creating a taxing liability story, we need to start out with the basic premise
that the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is correct in his assertions, and so are judges in their
reasoning; to believe otherwise is to be self damaging, as we have no time to
waste with any error in our reasoning.</p>

<p>If you are like most folks, the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has got you accepting his <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>
and financial benefits with your mere use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, because
most folks want to use and want to experience the beneficial enjoyment that
widespread acceptance and Commercial use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes brings. But
read those words over again carefully, as they also contain the Grand Key for
getting out of this <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Ace our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has neatly tucked up in his <ent type='ORG'>Royal</ent>
Sleeve: The contract that is in effect whenever benefits, conditionally
offered, were accepted by you. [583]</p>

<p>[583]============================================================= Yes, the
benefits that were accepted by you carried with them invisible hooks of
reciprocity, so now, as uncomfortable as the hooks are, contracts are in
effect, and <ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent> arguments sounding in the Tort of unfairness are not
relevant. =============================================================[583]</p>

<p>Examining a profile slice of the tens of thousands of Cases out there
addressing questions of Commercial Contract Law applicable to the annulment of
the rights and duties of <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE COURSE of Commercial Paper (notes,
bonds, securities, checks, equitable specialties in general, etc.), it is the
STATE OF MIND of the parties at the time <ent type='ORG'>the Negotiable Instrument</ent> was
accepted, that determines the subsequent rights and duties of <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE
COURSE. <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE COURSE, so called, are in a special Status as it
pertains to the use and recirculation of Commercial instruments. <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE
COURSE are assumed to have taken <ent type='ORG'>the Negotiable Instrument</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent>
Note) free of the defense of "Absence or Failure of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>," and
additionally, are generally free of all other defenses as well. When the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
is a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, then the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is immune to
any defense we may assert against him, as he collects on an invisible contract
created when his Commercial benefits were accepted by you. Do you see why it is
not very wide to snicker at <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> if you have not properly handled
your defense line in this area of using <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes? In some cases, a
PERSON wants to be in this <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE Status due to its protective
nature, and in other circumstances, we don't want to be a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE
due to the liabilities involved. Generally speaking, subject to the condition
that the PERSON accepted <ent type='ORG'>the Negotiable Instrument</ent> in good faith and for value,
a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE occupies a protected position free from any personal
defenses someone else may assert. But in dealing with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> on those Federal
Reserve Notes, our declared Status as <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE COURSE or <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S NOT IN
DUE COURSE is not important: Because by filing Objections and <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of
Protest, etc., the King's Status as a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE is then
automatically terminated, and getting the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> off of that sovereign Status
Throne of his is what's important.</p>

<p>So merely filing a <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of Protest and <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of Defect will automatically
deny the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> his coveted and protected Status as being a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE
with <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, as that protective status applies to you. Remember
that in our Pan Am jet leasing example, a PERSON must both want and then use a
benefit provided by another party, prior to effectuating an attachment of
<ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction strong enough to extract money from, in a judicial
proceeding, out of the part in default.</p>

<p>And in addition to outright <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>, by your Commercial use and
recirculation of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has you strapped into his debt
as an "Automatically Transferred and Joint Obligation Debtor." Under a very
large body of <ent type='ORG'>Roman Civil</ent> Law, and <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> Commercial Law going back to <ent type='PERSON'>Moses</ent>
and the <ent type='ORG'>Talmud</ent>, there is a kind of an obligation in law whose source is not
contract or promise in the classical sense, but due to a ripple effect of debt,
an obligation can be automatically transferred down a line of notes passers and
debtors. This Doctrine is elucidated quite well in <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> Law, where this
doctrine is formally known as SHIBUDA D'RABBI NATHAN (meaning the line of Rabbi
Nathan). Under this liability dispersion model, debt ripples from one PERSON to
another back up the line, without the appearance of any contract being readily
apparent. Say that a PERSON "A" owes money to "B", and "B" owes money to "C".
PERSON "C" can then recover from "A" an amount of money not exceeding the sum
PERSON "B" owes to "C". [584]</p>

<p>[584]============================================================= For a
discussion on how the right of a first debtor to come and operate a liability
against a second ripple debtor, back to the first debtor's creditor, see Rabbi
<ent type='PERSON'>Isaac Herzog</ent>, Chief Rabbi of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>, in the Second Volume of MAIN INSTITUTES OF
JEWISH LAW, entitled "The Law of Obligations" (1967).
=============================================================[584]</p>

<p>The reason why this debt liability being rippled back up the line a few person
is called "<ent type='PERSON'>Rabbi Nathan</ent>'s <ent type='PERSON'>Lien</ent>" is because this rule is generally attributed to
<ent type='PERSON'>Rabbi Nathan</ent>, a tannaitic sage (<ent type='GPE'>Babylonia</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Palestine</ent>, in the Second
Century), who first formulated it on the basis of a certain interpretation of a
<ent type='ORG'>Mosaic</ent> text. Here in the contemporary United States, a very similar analogy is
found operating both in Contract Law and in Tort Law, but for different
reasons.</p>

<p>1.Under Tort Law liability reasoning, persons who you never had any
contract or contact with, are liable for damages they work on you. For example,
be underneath an airplane when it crashes. Under the JOINT AND SEVERAL
LIABILITY DOCTRINE, attorneys will sue <ent type='ORG'>the Federal Aviation Administration</ent>, the
pilot, the local political jurisdiction that owns the airport, the contractor
who built the airport, the airline, the airline's insurance company, the
airline's airplane manufacturer, persons who supply parts to the airplane
manufacturer, the pilot's mother, etc., without limit, right up the line.</p>

<p>2.When a grievance is under Contract Law jurisprudence, generally,
persons not a party to the contract are normally exempt from liability absent
an interfering Tort the worked, somehow (called TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACT).</p>

<p>But properly viewed at the conclusion of the grievance, this <ent type='PERSON'>Rabbi Nathan</ent>'s
<ent type='PERSON'>Lien</ent> is no more than just an asset seizure against debtor's assets held by
third parties, and whether the underlying factual setting behind the <ent type='EVENT'>Judgment</ent>
was under Tort Law or Contract Law is now irrelevant, once the <ent type='EVENT'>Judgment</ent> has
been docketed, and that PERSON'S assets are now under attack. So when a
judgment has been obtained against <ent type='ORG'>Party</ent> "B", and <ent type='ORG'>Party</ent> "C" owes "B" some
money, then when <ent type='ORG'>Party</ent> "A" throws an action at "C", then that arrangement is no
more than the equivalent of a directed wage garnishment that goes on every
single day of the week, here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States. And just as this Liability
Ripple Scenario goes on at such a quiet level with wage garnishments, so too
does it carry on at a national level with you and I and our assets being
pledged to pay off the National Debt of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States.</p>

<p>But our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is our adversary in <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>, and his attorneys use partially twisted
logic to quiet our exception from taxation arguments, and so their attitude is
a simple "you pay." But important for the moment is your knowledge that your
Commercial use and recirculation of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes is properly deemed a
sufficient nexus to the King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction as to effectuate an
attachment of liability for the payment of the King's outstanding debt that he
owes to the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Board, with the amount of your payment being
measured by your net taxable income. Other personal assets are deemed
collateral material as well, but the King's key to effectuate this liability is
our Enfranchised Status, under contract. Since the Angle-Saxon Law Merchant
wants to see <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>, and <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> is present when <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent>
Notes are recirculated in King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, a taxing liability does exist of and
by itself under English Common Law. This <ent type='NORP'>Jewish</ent> Ripple Liability Model is
supporting evidence to conclude that although we might not like our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, there
is a very wide body of law out there in the world to support our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> with his
taxing justification theories. The Law is always justified, and this is just
another layer of justification for the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> to use as an excuse to raise
revenue. <ent type='ORG'>This Ripple Effect Liability</ent> Law springs forth from several different
seminal global points of pronouncement, and it does support the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> in this
very subtle attachment of taxing liability. So let's change the factual setting
by correcting our Status, and stop snickering at the fat <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, as he is only
using common law (the national equivalent of wage garnishments) and ancient law
(its longevity and long term universal acceptance means that it is well
Principled and well founded) to support his excessive financial demands.</p>

<p>Question: What if you don't want to accept the benefits of and use of Federal
Reserve Notes?</p>

<p>What if you are different? What if you have factual knowledge that the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
only got this monopoly on <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> currency circulation (both gold and silver),
not by free market acceptance and competitive universal respect and
appreciation for benefits offered by his Legal Tender Statutes, which is the
way all Commercial transactions should be based, but rather, through force,
duress, coercion, penal statutes, naked physical duress, and literally out of
the barrel of a gun: Because guns being drawn is exactly what two remaining
private coin mints saw as United States <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> Agents raided the last diehard
private coin mints in <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> in the late 1800's, and physically destroyed
them (but that intriguing <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>a history following an act of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in
1864 banning private coins as currency is another Letter). But dealing with
<ent type='ORG'>Private Coin Mints</ent> out of the barrel of a gun is only half the story, as our
<ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is usually quite thorough in whatever he decides to muscle in on. The <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
also dealt with the private circulation of Notes (both bank notes and private
company notes that circulated just as if they were currency) through a series
of penal statutes going back to <ent type='EVENT'>the Civil War</ent>. [585]</p>

<p>[585]============================================================= Starting
with the LEGAL TENDER Laws in 1862, then <ent type='ORG'>the NATIONAL BANKING ACT</ent> in 1864, then
the previously mentioned acts outlawing private coin circulation, then an act
in 1865 imposed a 10% tax on state bank note issues. In <ent type='ORG'>VEAZIE BANK</ent> VS. FENNO
[75 U.S. 533 (1869)], the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> ruled that a tax of 10% on state bank
notes in circulation was held to be Constitutional, not only because it was a
means of raising money, but that such a tax was an instrument to put out of
business such a competitive circulation of those private notes, against notes
issued by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>. The combined effect of those <ent type='EVENT'>Civil War</ent> era penal statutes
collectively was to monopolize the entire <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> currency supply under
Federal jurisdiction (which is exactly what the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> wanted). By these penal
statutes, both privately circulated coins and paper notes were outlawed, and
die hard private mints were later purchased by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, and otherwise put out
of business, permanently. And in the 1900's, under an administrative regulation
promulgated by <ent type='ORG'>the Board</ent> of Governors of the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Board, the
issuance, if even for brief promotional purposes, of publicly circulating
private bank notes by member banks, is forbidden.
=============================================================[585]</p>

<p>After <ent type='EVENT'>the Civil War</ent>, the King's enactment of currency monopoly statutes
paralleled his <ent type='ORG'>Private Express Statutes</ent> in the sense that private postal
companies previously competing with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> were ordered shut down and put out
of business at gun point, [586]</p>

<p>[586]============================================================= The Private
Express Statutes remain today as Title 38, Sections 601 to 608; and Title 18,
Sections 1693 to 1699.
=============================================================[586]</p>

<p>and our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> sealed himself up a national postal monopoly. No more would be the
days of the 1800's, when many banks and private companies issued and circulated
their own widely accepted currency. Our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> doesn't like competition, and he
has this nasty habit of his to use penal statutes and his hired bouncers (the
U.S. Marshals, as the King's Bouncers) to force people into relationships with
him, against their will and over their objection, that they would never have
voluntarily consummated on their own free will and volition.</p>

<p>[For example, here in <ent type='GPE'>Rochester</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, some enterprising folks,
seeing the escalating rise in postage prices going on in the early 1970's, and
detecting that something just wasn't right here due to the wide percentage
variance in cost and pricing, promptly went about setting up their own postal
company in 1976. They concentrated on Rochester's Central Business District,
and offering the lower prices that they did, quickly signed up law firms,
banks, accountants, hotels, and the like. Several national magazines featured
articles about them, [587]</p>

<p>[587]============================================================= Exemplary
would be <ent type='PERSON'>Fred Ferretti</ent> in "<ent type='ORG'>Private Mail Delivery</ent> vs. The Letter of the Law,"
<ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent> TIMES, September 25, 1976.
=============================================================[587]</p>

<p>but the King's Agents in the Postal Service, smelling an inexpensive upstart on
the block offering cheaper prices and accelerated delivery schedules, quickly
threw a Restraining Order Petition at <ent type='GPE'>Rochester</ent> Postal Service in Federal
District <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> here. The Petition was granted, with justifying reference being
made to the <ent type='ORG'>Private Express Statutes</ent> of <ent type='EVENT'>the Civil War</ent> Era. On appeal, the
Second Circuit in <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> City went into a discussion on how the King's right
to seal up a national postal monopoly under penal statutes has never been
successfully challenged, and remains essentially airtight.] [588]</p>

<p>[588]============================================================= UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE VS. BRENNAN, 574 F.2nd 712 (1978). There were no
non-Commercial Status arguments made by the <ent type='PERSON'>Brennans</ent>.
=============================================================[588]</p>

<p>But for our purposes here in addressing the attachment of revenue <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent>
Jurisdiction by the acceptance and use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes as a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN
DUE COURSE. What is important is that it is you, under the RATIFICATION
DOCTRINE, by your own silence and default, by your failure to object and to
object timely, it is by your silence that the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> wins. Under this Doctrine,
your silence in the face of a proposition being made to you constitutes your
approval of the proposition, if synchronous with the silence you experienced a
benefit. Reason, logic, and common sense. Let us consider the application of
this RATIFICATION DOCTRINE as it hypothetically applies to a person acting in
the subordinated position of agency for another person. [589]</p>

<p>[589]============================================================= See
RATIFICATION BY AN UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL by <ent type='PERSON'>Edwin Goddard</ent> in 2 <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> Law
Review 25 (1903).
=============================================================[589]</p>

<p>When one such person, as agent, does an act on behalf of another person, but
without complete authority, the person for whom such act is done may afterwards
adopt the act as if it is done in his behalf, thereby giving the act the same
legal effect as if it had been originally fully authorized. This subsequent
retroactive consent, the effect of which relates back to the time of the
original act and places the Principle in the same position as if he had
originally authorized the act, is called RATIFICATION. [590]</p>

<p>[590]============================================================= See Notes,
AGENCY -- RATIFICATION in 1 <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> Law Review 140 (1902).
=============================================================[590]</p>

<p>Under this hypothetical agency relationship, when a person finds that an act
has been done in his name or on his behalf, that person must either Ratify it,
or in the alternative, disaffirm it. [591]</p>

<p>[591]============================================================= See THE
EFFECT OF RATIFICATION AS BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLE AND THE OTHER PARTY by Floyd
Mechem in 4 <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> Law Review 269 (1905).
=============================================================[591]</p>

<p>But silence constitutes approval of the act. [592]</p>

<p>[592]============================================================= "Where a
contract has been made by one person in the name of another, of a kind that the
latter might lawfully make himself, and the only defect is the lack of
authority on the part of the person acting, the subsequent ratification of that
contract, while still in that condition, by the person on whose behalf it was
made and who is fully appraised of the facts, operates to cure the defect and
to establish the contract as his contract as though he had authorized it in the
first instance. From this time on, he is subject to all the obligations that
pertain to the transaction in the same manner and to the same extent that he
would be had the contract been made originally by him in person, or by his
express authority. The other party may demand and enforce on the part of the
principle the full performance of the contract entered into by his agent."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Floyd Mechem</ent> in THE EFFECT OF RATIFICATION AS BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLE
AND THE OTHER PARTY in 4 <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> Law Review 269, at 269 (1905).
=============================================================[592]</p>

<p>RATIFICATION may be implied from any form of conduct inconsistent with
disavowal of the contract; therefore anything else, other than explicit and
blunt disavowal, is RATIFICATION -- if synchronous with the silence, benefits
offered conditionally were accepted. This is quite a strong Doctrine, but it
has to be this way under Natural Law, since benefits offered conditionally are
being accepted, invisible contracts are in effect, and failure to require the
party experiencing the benefits to act quickly and reject the benefits
constitutes a Tort on the other party. This RATIFICATION is analogous under
Contract Law to the acceptance of the contract's proposition (MUTUAL ASSENT),
and hence is irrevocable. [593]</p>

<p>[593]============================================================= The Law of
Contracts requires MUTUAL ASSENT to be an element present between the parties
when contracts are entered into. However, MUTUAL assent is quite different from
MENTAL assent:
"In the field of contracts, as generally elsewhere, 'We must look to
the outward expression of a person as manifesting his intention rather than to
his secret and unexpressed intention. The law imputes to a person an intention
corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts."
-<ent type='PERSON'>LUCY</ent> AND <ent type='PERSON'>LUCY</ent> VS. ZEHMER, 84 S.E.2nd 516, at 521 [Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> of
Appeals of <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> (1954)]. Folks who believe that MENTAL (<ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>)
ASSENT is a necessary ingredient to the formation of contracts are in error. A
person can internally frown and repel a contract in the back of his mind, but
still be held to be bound by the contract due to his exterior movements in
accepting benefits. And as we shift over to discuss a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE
regulating the commencement of invisible contracts thrown at folks by Juristic
Institutions, nothing changes there, either. Protestors claiming to be exempt
from being attached to expectations of taxation reciprocity by reason of no
MENTAL ASSENT being present, are in error: Because your exterior manifestations
-- your failure to explicitly and bluntly reject juristic benefits -- overrules
whatever quiet reservations you may have about the reciprocity expectations
contained in the contract. The other party to the contract (here, the other
party is a <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institution</ent>) has absolutely no reasonable basis to consider
the applicability of its contract with you by probing into the corners of your
mind and uncovering any latent reservations that may be there. Therefore, only
the act of coming out into the open and filing a blunt and explicit NOTICE OF
REJECTION OF BENEFITS, has any reasonable meaning; and Protestors claiming
unfairness because MENTAL ASSENT is tossed aside and ignored are not addressing
the full spectrum of factual elements that judges consider when presented with
a contract enforcement prosecution.
=============================================================[593]</p>

<p>And this is why filing an Objection, <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of Defect and Rejection of Benefits
to the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, objecting to your involuntary use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes,
carries no retroactive force or effect with it back into preceding years. [594]</p>

<p>[594]============================================================= Variations
on this RATIFICATION DOCTRINE surface all throughout the Law. It surfaces in
criminal prosecutions as an evidentiary law requiring that circumstances be
awarded priority over verbal communication or non-communication in proving
conspiracies (meaning that what you say or don't say is not important as what
you do). In Commercial contracts, PAROLE EVIDENCE is oral or verbal evidence,
and the PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE restrains a party to a contract from using
expectations and declarations from toning down the meat of a contract. (See <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent>
2-202), since the lesser oral expectations were MERGED into the greater written
expectations. In the Uniform Commercial Code, the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE appears
in Section 2-610, which states that the repudiation of a contract must be
positive and unequivocal; and it appears again in 2-606(b), which states that
failure to make an effective (strong) rejection constitutes acceptance.
=============================================================[594]</p>

<p>It is a Principle of Law mentioned over and over again in Contract Law books
that silence can effect ratification in the context of a benefit assertion.
[595].</p>

<p>[595]============================================================= The
underlying Principles associated with the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE surface in
criminal prosecutions, as it is often very reasonable for Juries, too, to take
special <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> and freely draw inferences and conclusions from the Defendant's
silence. In some Trials, Judges have characterized that the effect of the
<ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent> remaining silent would be like:
"... the sun... shining with full blaze on the open eye."
-STATE VS. CLEAVES, 59 Main 298, at 301 (1871).
=============================================================[595]</p>

<p>Remember that to really understand a doctrine, we need to examine it from
manifold trajectories; and in so viewing, from a Judge's perspective, what the
RATIFICATION DOCTRINE is trying to avoid, we find that to allow the annulment
of a contract on repudiation grounds on anything less than a firm and positive
"no," has the direct effect of working a Tort on the other party, since
benefits were transferred from one party to the next. [596]</p>

<p>[596]============================================================= For a recent
discussion on the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE in operation, see <ent type='ORG'>COMMONWEALTH EDISON</ent>
VS. DECKER COAL, 612 F.Supp. 978 (1985).
=============================================================[596]</p>

<p>The application of this RATIFICATION DOCTRINE is not restricted to favor the
Government in the evidentiary presumptions of consent that it creates, as the
Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> holds this Doctrine to be binding on all persons dragged into its
machinery. [597]</p>

<p>[597]============================================================= I have seen
lower State <ent type='ORG'>Courts</ent> apply the Principle of RATIFICATION under Tort Law factual
settings. See PAGE VS. KEEVES [199 N.E. 131 (1935)], which held that a person
assisting another in the commission of a wrongful Tort act against another, or
with knowledge approving of such act after it is done, is liable in some manner
as if he had committed the same wrongful act, if done for his benefit [that's
right BENEFITS ACCEPTED] and he avails himself of its fruits. The word
RATIFICATION does not appear anywhere in the Case Opinion, but the Principle
does at page 135.
"The doctrine of liability by RATIFICATION in Tort Cases is abundantly
established. Indeed, this seems to have been the earliest form of it. By
whatever methods the act be adopted and approved, the principal becomes liable
for the Tort as though he had previously directed it. And it is not always
necessary that the approval shall look to the particular act. In the case of
master and servant, for example, if the approval establishes the relation, the
master becomes responsible for any Torts committed within its scope or which he
would have been responsible had the relation been regularly created...
"RATIFICATION in Tort Cases is a distinct gain to the other party,
giving him a remedy against the principal while not depriving him of its remedy
against the wrong-doer himself."
-THE EFFECT OF RATIFICATION AS BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLE AND THE OTHER
PARTY by <ent type='PERSON'>Floyd Mechem</ent> in 4 <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> Law Review 269, at 270 (1905).
=============================================================[597]</p>

<p>The application of this RATIFICATION DOCTRINE in the area of the <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>
Contract does create an invisible contract, as the burden to prove that the
contract does not exist then falls on the individual, with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> not
required to prove or adduce anything. This Doctrine is held operational against
everyone indiscriminately as the Principle that it is, when the factual
circumstances warrant its provident application; this even includes drawing
inferences against the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> itself. [598]</p>

<p>[598]============================================================= "The fact
that <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> has remained silent..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>JAMES</ent> VS. <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>, 366 U.S. 213, at 220 (1961). The Supreme
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> has ruled that when the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> remains silent on something, then the
Judiciary sets the limits -- as silence by the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> is very significant and
presumptuous. Speaking about the INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAXATION IMMUNITY DOCTRINE
binding on both <ent type='ORG'>Federal and</ent> State <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent> [that I mentioned at
the end of <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent>]:
"<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> may curtail an immunity which might otherwise be implied...
or enlarge it beyond the point where, <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> being silent, the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> would
set its limits."
-HELVERING VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 [footnote #1] (1937).
Yes, even the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States is held to be accountable for its
silence. In footnote number 1 to GRAVES VS. <ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent> [306 U.S. 466 (1939)], the
Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> holds the silence of the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in areas of regulating <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>
as determinative of federal policy. In WESTERN LIVE STOCK VS. BUREAU OF REVENUE
[303 U.S. 250 (1937)], the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> discusses the implications of
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional silence in the field of state taxation of Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> and
its instrumentalities. Yes, SILENCE is suggestive of intentions in some
instances, and everyone without exception (even the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States) is held accountable and responsible, at one time or another, for
inferences drawn from their silence. ... Even Heavenly Father uses this
PRINCIPLE OF NATURE in the continuation of benefits and duties originating
under Celestial Covenants by Saints, as silence by Saints individually is
deemed to be an automatic extension of the Covenant (only the explicit
disavowal of the Covenant can terminate the Covenant, while silencer retains
the operation of the Covenant in effect).
=============================================================[598]</p>

<p>There is an old <ent type='PERSON'>Roman</ent> saying that "... He who remains silent certainly does not
speak, but nevertheless it is true that he does not deny." [599]</p>

<p>[599]============================================================= See Roscoe
Pound in READINGS IN ROMAN LAW, Second Edition, at pages 25 to 26.
=============================================================[599]</p>

<p>The situation expressed by that legal truism has been the source of some blurry
confusion in our Law of Contracts. Though acceptance of an Offer is usually
made by spoken or written words, quite often the Offer may call for act or
authorization requiring some other mode of acceptance. As the <ent type='ORG'>Offeror</ent> is the
"Czar of his Offer," such acts, when induced by the <ent type='GPE'>Offeree</ent>, constitute the
acceptance. [600]</p>

<p>[600]============================================================= "The
orthodox doctrine of the law of contracts, particularly the OFFER and
ACCEPTANCE machinery, could not be more familiar to most lawyers. We are long
indebted to Professor <ent type='PERSON'>Hohfeld</ent>, who has enabled us to express the legal effect
of an Offer as creating a power of acceptance [see W. <ent type='PERSON'>Hohfeld</ent> in FUNDAMENTAL
LEGAL CONCEPTIONS (1923); and also <ent type='ORG'>Corbin</ent> in LEGAL ANALYSIS AND <ent type='ORG'>TERMINOLOGY</ent>, 29
Yale Law Journal 163 (1919)]. Where an Offer is extended by an <ent type='ORG'>Offeror</ent>, he
permits the <ent type='GPE'>Offeree</ent> to exercise a power of acceptance that subjects the <ent type='ORG'>Offeror</ent>
to the legal relation called contract. The <ent type='ORG'>Offeror</ent> is said to be under a
correlative liability, because exercise of the power of acceptance by the
<ent type='GPE'>Offeree</ent> creates a right-duty relationship. "After discussing the anatomy of
Offers, the first year law student is concerned with the exercise of the power
of acceptance. At once he is confronted with learning how the power may be
exercised:
"... almost the first question to ask about an offer is: What
particular kind of acceptance did this Offer call for; and especially: Was it
for a promise or was it for an act."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Llewellyn</ent> in OUR CASE LAW OF CONTRACT: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE - PART
II, in 48 Yale Law Journal 779, at 780 (1939). "Understanding his exploration
in this fundamental area is the principle that the <ent type='ORG'>Offeror</ent> is master of his
Offer. He creates the Offer and may require the power of acceptance to be
exercised in any manner he deems necessary or desirable. To emphasize this
principle, students are typically confronted with a hypothetical Offer that
requires the <ent type='GPE'>Offeree</ent> to don an UNCLE SAM costume, climb a greased flagpole,
and, upon reaching the gold dome at the top, whistle Yankee Doodle twice. The
effect on the impressionable first year student is significant. He will never
forget that the <ent type='ORG'>Offeror</ent> is master of his Offer, and he will often justify his
position through the use of even more outlandish hypotheticals. Of course, he
is obliged to use hypotheticals, just as his teacher was, since no recorded
case makes the point so clearly."
-<ent type='PERSON'>John Murray</ent> in CONTRACTS: NEW DESIGN FOR THE AGREEMENT PROCESS, 53
Cornell Law Review 785, at 785 (1968). Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Murray</ent> is correct, there is no
RECORDED CASE that makes the point so clearly, but by the time you have
finished this Letter, you will see numerous UNRECORDED CASES of contract Offers
by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> that are very structurally similar to climbing a greased flagpole
by the magnitude of the King's leverage involved, since the game starts out
with the cards being so heavily stacked against us, as our own ignorance and
silence work against us greatly.
=============================================================[600]</p>

<p>In such cases of negotiated commercial contracts, now there is something here
explicit by which to judge the intention of the parties; but as we shift over
to invisible juristic contracts, where the mere passive conduct of the <ent type='GPE'>Offeree</ent>
(you and me) is claimed to be an acceptance of benefits by Government, now the
question is more difficult -- as some of the requisite indicia applicable to
Laws governing commercial contracts has to be laid aside; like <ent type='ORG'>Mutual Assent</ent>.
[601]</p>

<p>[601]============================================================= The problems
associated with RATIFICATION have been the subject of controversy by
commentators.
"If a person whom I have not authorized to act as my agent has made in
my name with a third person a contract composed of mutual promises, and if the
third person, who originally believed in the authority of the assumed agent,
has withdrawn from the transaction and has communicated his withdrawal to the
assumed agent or to me, can I, nevertheless, thereafter, promptly upon learning
of the contract, ratify the contract and hold the third person? In short, by
ratifying an unauthorized bilateral contract can I hold the adverse party,
although he has already withdrawn from the contract? ...The questions
underlying the problem go to the very foundation of the DOCTRINE OF
RATIFICATION."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Eugene Wambaugh</ent> in A PROBLEM AS TO RATIFICATION in 9 Harvard Law
Review 60, at 60 (1895).
=============================================================[601]</p>

<p>However, rather than <ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent>s fighting an area of grey where there is some DE
MINIMIS merit to the Government's position, it might be best to simply accept
the application of the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, accept the fact that invisible
contracts are in effect by your silent passive benefit acceptance and refusal
to explicitly disavow and reject benefits, as generally held by Judges - but
then turn around and walk away from the contract for other reasons, like
FAILURE OF <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>. [602]</p>

<p>[602]============================================================= For
commentary, see Notes, SILENCE AS ACCEPTANCE IN THE FORMATION OF CONTRACTS, 33
Harvard Law Review 595 (1919). The many commercial contract cases cited and
quoted therein should be distinguished from juristic contracts.
=============================================================[602]</p>

<p>So the assertion by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> of his Status as a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE (and
therefore normally protected from any defense that you may throw at him via a
Federal Judge in an Income Tax grievance) then becomes meaningless: If you
first <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> out and Object with a Rejection of Benefits, and have so
<ent type='ORG'>Objected</ent> timely. Failure to serve a <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of Defect on the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is fatal, as
without that Objection by you, the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> retains his protective <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE
COURSE Status, and with that Status you have absolutely no substantive defense
to assert against him.</p>

<p>Question: How do you Object?</p>

<p>In Objecting to <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, we need to be mindful of the fact that
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> normally do not take Judicial <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Note
equity attachment question. By the end of this Letter, you will see the larger
and more important invisible contracts to be dealt with, if a pure and correct
severance of yourself away from the adhesive siphon of <ent type='ORG'>the Bolshevik Income Tax</ent>
is to be perfected. Primarily, they search the record for the political
contract of <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, and when <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> is found, generally they stop
right there and then. However, if dealing with a <ent type='PERSON'>Denizen</ent> or some type of
non-resident alien, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> then shift their attention over to finding
some Commercial benefits that were accepted, in order to justify the extraction
of Income Taxes out of the poor fellow's pockets, acting Ministerially as
enforcement agents the way they do. So although <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> find it
unnecessary to take <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of your acceptance of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes at the
present time, when all other political and Commercial contracts have been
correctly severed, this one remaining Commercial contract is going to be an
item that needs to be wrestled with, in advance of its apparent necessity.</p>

<p>So if three years from now the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> throws a prosecution at you, and you argue
non-attachment of liability to Title 26, so called, based on a pure severance
of <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent>, then how will you prove what your STATE OF MIND was in 1986, as it
pertains to the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Note use and recirculation question? Remember
that the claimed STATE OF MIND of a <ent type='ORG'>Party</ent> is an affirmative defense. The person
asserting the defense has the burden to prove its merit, and reasonably so. The
<ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> does not have to prove that you entered into the acceptance and beneficial
use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes with profitable expectations in your mind. Such a
positive, beneficial, and Commercial <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Note use assumption is
automatically inferred by the Commercial nature of those Notes and the "Public
<ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent>" Status of the King's Title 26 statutes, and so you have to prove the
opposite. How are you going to prove what your STATE OF MIND was in 1986? Are
you going to subpoena your wife into the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room and ask her to tell the
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> what you said three years earlier in 1986?</p>

<p>"Oh, yes. I remember. <ent type='PERSON'>Hank</ent> said that he didn't like using them things."</p>

<p>Well that is not much, and that is not the kind of an Objection, <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of
Protest, and document STATE OF MIND that the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> will respect. So
what we need to do in order to Object timely, is to file a specific Objection
with the Secretary of the <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent>, and simply tell him what your STATE OF MIND
is at the present time; and synchronously record that document in a Public
Place. Documents written by individuals are often very strong pieces of
evidence to prove a person's STATE OF MIND, and will, under some circumstances,
directly overrule another person's first-person oral testimony on grounds
relating to the PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE (most often such circumstances surface in
Probate proceedings in Surrogate's <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> when a Will or its Codicil is being
contested). If the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> has a prosecution in gestation against you at the
present time here in 1985, and the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> is moving against you in some manner for
the years, say, 1982 and 1983, then filing this <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of Protest and Objection
will have no retroactive effect. Filing this Objection at the present time
merely documents your STATE OF MIND at the present time, and so if the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>
moves against you in three years, this preventative step you take at the
present time is interesting prosecution annulment material. [603]</p>

<p>[603]============================================================= One should
not necessarily feel too depressed over having failed to perform a positive act
at some point in the past; a correct understanding of handling factual settings
is acquired experientially, and so although knowledge frequently does come too
late...
"Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely
because it comes too late."
-<ent type='GPE'>ROSE</ent> VS. MITCHELL, 443 U.S. 545, at 575 (1978).
=============================================================[603]</p>

<p>Since the King's Attorney will present some old bank account that you had
gotten rid of years earlier, and will conveniently not show your recessions to
the Judge at the time the Summons is signed, none of this Status correction
material will likely deflect the original initiation of a prosecution itself.</p>

<p>In your Objection and <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of Protest, we might want to mention that you are
using <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes for minimum survival purposes only, and that even
this use is reluctant, because in a previous day and in a previous era, the
<ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> used his police powers to seal a monopoly on currency instruments, and so
now you have no choice in selecting between different currency instruments to
use -- and the involuntary adhesive attachment of Title 26 civil liability that
occurs while you are being backed into such a corner, occurs against your will
and over your objection. Your STATE OF MIND is not one of beneficial acceptance
and enjoyment of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, but one of a forced DE MINIMIS
coercion. You are not using <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes for Commercial profit or
gain, but such use is out of practical necessity since the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has physically
removed all currency competitors from the marketplace under his penal statutes
and literally by physical duress; and so now your use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes
is by lack of alternatives to select from, not freedom of choice. By such
monopoly tactics, the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is engaging in unfair Trade Practices, which if you
or I did the identical same thing, we would be incarcerated for it under
numerous Racketeering and Sherman Anti-Trust criminal statutes. Yet the FORCED
monopoly of a currency serves no beneficial public interest, [604]</p>

<p>[604]============================================================= Mere
declarations by the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> that their creation of a uniform national benefit
constitutes a benefit, does not in fact reverse facts that the damages
associated with <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ionally originated money exceed the benefits. The
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> once declared their attitude that their currency monopoly is a benefit
for us out here in the <ent type='LOC'>Countryside</ent>:
"In order to provide for the safer and more effective operation of a
<ent type='ORG'>National Banking System</ent> and the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> System, to preserve for the
people the full benefits of the currency provided for by the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> through
the <ent type='ORG'>National Banking System</ent> and the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> System..."
-Title 12, Section 95 (March, 19833). <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> are cognizant of
the declaration of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> that the issuance of a currency by the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> is
considered to be a benefit; but declarations do not change previous factual
experiences. =============================================================[604]</p>

<p>and is actually an instrumentality to work MAGNUM damages on us all after the
<ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> replaces his initial hard currency later on with a paper currency (which
has now happened). Remember that <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> see important benefits in
everything the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> does, and there are legitimate benefits in having a uniform
national currency to pursue Commercial enrichment with -- when those benefits
were sought after voluntarily. [605]</p>

<p>[605]============================================================= In VEAZIE
BANK VS. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533 (1869), the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> ruled that it was the
Constitutional right of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> to provide a currency for the whole Country;
that this might be done by coin, United States notes, or notes of national
banks; and that it cannot be questioned that <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> may Constitutionally
secure the BENEFIT of such a currency to the people by appropriate legislation.
=============================================================[605]</p>

<p>Judges perceive of those benefits as being related to the Legal Tender status
of the King's Currency, among other things. What <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> do not see
collectively is that those FRN's possess only those benefits that any widely
accepted circulating currency would also offer, and are the same benefits that
privately circulating notes and coins did in fact offer here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States prior to <ent type='EVENT'>the Civil War</ent>. The <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is not entitled to demand taxation
reciprocity by merely replacing benefits originating from private mints with
benefits originating from the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> under the cloak, cover, and duress of
penal statutes. So by enacting that succession of penal monopoly statutes that
shut down competitors, the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has transferred the origin of currency benefits
away from private mints and banks, over to himself. A forced uniform national
currency serves only the private financial enrichment objectives of the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> by
getting everyone into Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, among other things, and also serves
the objectives of Special Interest Groups who very much want to see the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
circulate paper currency expressly for the purpose of perfecting our
enscrewment -- if it were not so, the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> would not have had to use penal
statutes and armed stormtroopers in the 1800's to enforce the acceptance of his
currency monopoly <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent>. If a single national currency medium did in fact serve
everyone's best interest, if everyone wanted to use the King's paper money,
then why did the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> have to resort to the display of physical force when
initiating such a currency monopoly by police powers intervention in the
1800's, and now unilaterally use that monopoly to administratively coerce
people into contractual situations they did not otherwise want or enter into?</p>

<p>Therefore, you do not accept any <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is handing you when
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes circulate into your possession (and remember that the
King's Legal Tender Statutes have very much enhanced the market value of
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes). And that such use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes is occurring
against your will and over your objection and Protest, for, INTER ALIA, want of
alternatives, and with the reason why there are no alternatives is due to
Federal monopoly penal statutes forbidding such alternatives, and that such a
monopoly is an unfair restraint of trade (unfair because it is unnecessary)
anyone else gets incarcerated for.</p>

<p>Remember that in dealing with <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>, you need to "hit the nail right
on the head," and by rejecting Federal benefits, and then explaining your
rejection through chronologically sequential presentations of facts and of
reasoned legal arguments; when that has been done, then where once there was a
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room hurricane of unbridled retortional ensnortment by <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>,
designed to rub in, in no uncertain terms, their strong philosophical
disapproval of Tax Protestors -- now suddenly in contrast, everything changes
over to a quiescent environment. [606]</p>

<p>[606]============================================================= "Quiescent"
means that the environment is at rest, but only for a certain amount of time.
=============================================================[606]</p>

<p>Additional objections along the lines that <ent type='GPE'>Warburg</ent> and his <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> brothers in
crime, the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent>, through their ownership of the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> System,
are third party beneficial interest holders, and that use of the police powers
for the private enrichment of a Special Interest Group is unlawful, since under
Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> rulings, when the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> enters into Commercial activity, his
Status descends to the same level as other merchants, [607]</p>

<p>[607]============================================================= "Governments
descent to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character
of a mere private citizen [where commercial instruments are concerned]." - BANK
OF U.S. VS. PLANTERS BANK, 22 U.S. 904 (1829). "When governments enter the
world of commerce, it is subject to the same burdens as any private firm." -
<ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> VS. BURR, 309 U.S. 242 (1939). And the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is very much into
<ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> when his Legal Tender Statutes and equity co-endorser statutes [Title
12, Section 411] enhance the value of those negotiable <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes.
=============================================================[607]</p>

<p>and that any other <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> merchant who pulled off such a gun barrel monopoly
grab would be incarcerated for doing so. Numerous Contract Law books provide a
rich abundance of defenses to assert against Negotiable Instruments. [608]</p>

<p>[608]============================================================= Exemplary
would be, perhaps, the three volume set of TREATISE ON RECESSION OF CONTRACTS
AND CANCELLATION OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS by <ent type='PERSON'>Henry Black</ent> (Vernon Law Book
Company, <ent type='GPE'>Kansas City</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Missouri</ent>); And the huge voluminous set of CORBIN ON
CONTRACTS by Arthur <ent type='ORG'>Corbin</ent>, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, <ent type='GPE'>Minnesota</ent>;
Another is the 18 volume set of writings of <ent type='PERSON'>Sam Williston</ent> entitled A TREATISE
ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS, published by <ent type='PERSON'>Baker</ent>, Voorhis &amp; Company, Mount Kisco,
<ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1961).
=============================================================[608]</p>

<p>Numerous defenses to assert in your Objection and <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of Protest against the
use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes attaching liability to Title 26 due to their
Status as circulating Commercial Negotiable Instruments involve both Real [609]</p>

<p>[609]============================================================= Real
defenses include those defenses that arise out of the fact that no liability
was created in the first place by your involuntary use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent>
Notes. =============================================================[609]</p>

<p>and Personal Defenses. [610]</p>

<p>[610]============================================================= Personal
defenses are those defenses which arise out of the relationship of the parties
to each other.
=============================================================[610]</p>

<p>Some of the defenses you could claim include undue influence, [611]</p>

<p>[611]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>Undue</ent>
influence is generally understood to be the power which one person wrongfully
exercises over another in attempting to control and influence the action of
such other person. Both CIRCUMSTANTIAL as well as DIRECT EVIDENCE is acceptable
for proving undue influence (which, like all other defenses are affirmative
defenses, and the burden falls on you to assert your position well).
=============================================================[611]</p>

<p>absence or failure of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>, [612]</p>

<p>[612]============================================================= Remember
that <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> is a benefit, and mere issuance of the Note itself has
always been PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> (a benefit) was accepted by
the <ent type='ORG'>Holder</ent> (you). Your placing the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> on "Prior <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent>" that benefits are
being declined and waived, and that infirmities are present, is your attack on
<ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>.
=============================================================[612]</p>

<p>moral fraud, [613]</p>

<p>[613]============================================================= Either fraud
PER SE or in the alternative, FRAUD IN THE FACTUM can be either Personal or a
Real Defense, depending upon the factual setting (which we will now alter to
favor ourselves). Law books are generally reluctant to define the contours of
just what fraud is, since no sooner do the contours of fraud get settled, then
some scheming crook stretches those contours by figuring out new ways to pull
something off. But if you can get a recognizance of fraud, then what is
absolutely certain is the consequence of such fraud: As it vitiates anything
and everything that it enters into. But fraud is an affirmative defense, and
properly so, and the burden is on you to prove that such fraud exists.
=============================================================[613]</p>

<p>necessity, unilateral adhesion contract made in restraint of trade, [614]</p>

<p>[614]============================================================= Commercial
bargains made by people are generally deemed to be null and void if made in
conflict of Public Policy, i.e., prostitution, gambling, usury, etc. The King's
monopoly grab on a single national currency is very much contemporary national
Public Policy, so arguing this line in a Contract Law Jurisprudential setting
is going to be difficult, unless the correct pleading of the Money Issue is
presented. =============================================================[614]</p>

<p>economic duress, [615]</p>

<p>[615]============================================================= Duress does
not need to be directly experienced by the party claiming it as a defense, as
duress used by one of the <ent type='ORG'>Holder</ent>s, with the secondary effect of the duress
operating only indirectly against you, is quite sufficient as a defense.
=============================================================[615]</p>

<p>and the like.</p>

<p>Some of those Objections and statements are milktoast, and will later fall
apart and collapse under attack by the King's Attorneys in adversary
proceedings, and properly so. Reason: The Use and recirculation of Commercial
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes necessarily involves a Contract Law factual setting, and
so our arguments along the lines of the King's basic unfairness in sealing up
his national currency monopoly, etc., are only peripheral arguments; only
direct coercion in the use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes is strong enough to strip
the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> of his Status of a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE. And unfairness arguments
sounding in the Tort of third party Special Interest Group penal statute
sponsorship and of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional intrigue in 1913, even though very accurate
factually, are way off base, if we are going into the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> under a
factual setting calling for Contractual Law settlement reasoning.</p>

<p>But for us right now, which Objection reason that we stated, either stands or
falls when under attack later, is not important. And what is important is
denying the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> his protective Status as a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE against you
(if the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is a <ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent> IN DUE COURSE, the Principle is that we have no
defenses to assert against him), by filing your NOTICE OF PROTEST and related
corrigendum (meaning filed in an interlocutory state in contemplation of
secondary enhancement or error correction at a later time). But some of those
arguments we listed will survive, as the naked facts surrounding the forceful
acquisition of the King's monopoly on national currency are quite authentic,
and elements can be raised to take the factual setting out of Contract Law and
into Tort Law where, at least as a point of beginning, those arguments then
become relevant [however, those arguments probably won't even be addressed for
other reasons]. So we are exactly on line in some areas (assuming the Case was
properly plead by referring to the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> rulings on the declension in
Status the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> experiences when the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> engages in Commercial activity).
[616]</p>

<p>[616]============================================================= "When
governments enter the world of commerce, it is subject to the same burdens as
any private firm."
-<ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> VS. BURR, 309 U.S. 242 (1939).
=============================================================[616]</p>

<p>So the final analysis is not important right now. Getting a general <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of
Protest documenting the situational infirmities to the other party; invoking
Tort Law to govern the factual setting surrounding your involuntary use of
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes; and stating that there has been a FAILURE OF
<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>; as your STATE OF MIND is what is important, and the detailed
judicial affirmation or rejection of your specific Protest reasons can occur
later in adversary proceedings. Failure to object is fatal, and failure to
object timely is equally as fatal, as you have no right to ask the Judiciary to
help you weasel out of the terms of contracts you originally intended to
benefit from (which is necessarily inferred when no timely Objection was filed
on your part). If we have corrected our Status, we filed our Objections timely,
and we still lose, and the reasons why we lose on this issue have their seminal
point of origin in the King's police power tactics in the 1800's, then it would
then be time to consider dealing with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> on the same terms the King's
<ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> Agents dealt with the two remaining die-hard <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> Coin Mints:
Out of the barrel of a gun. [617]</p>

<p>[617]============================================================= "And honest
Men would be expos'd a ready Prey to Villains, if they were never allow'd to
make use of Violence in Resisting their Attacks."
-THE LAW OF NATURE AND OF NATIONS, by Samuel de Puffendorf [Translated
from the <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>Basil Kennett</ent> (1729)].
=============================================================[617]</p>

<p>With the prosecution of Individuals, whose status is near lily white, being
sandbagged at low administrative and judicial levels, then such an aggressive
retortional atmosphere of confrontation is quite unlikely to occur. But until
those circumstances do happen, then let's not badmouth the Judiciary, because
as for the past and present, PRINCIPLES OF NATURE rule in the corridors of the
United States Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>, to the extent that they are able to apply such
majestic Principles to such pathetic factual settings they are frequently
presented with -- with petitioners and criminal <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent>s who are not entitled
to prevail under any circumstances, as contracts are in effect.</p>

<p>Subject to these following qualifications, the filing of this Objection on the
involuntary use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes will arrest the movement of the King's
Agents in a civil prosecution against you on this particular adhesive
attachment of King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction. But the most interesting reason why
you now reluctantly use <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes is yet to come; and it is the one
reason the King's Attorneys will never be able to tear apart and get judicially
annulled [it will be sandbagged before it gets annulled]. And it is the one
reason why even an otherwise reluctant Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> might just respect this
Objection, regardless of how irritating it may be for some imps nestled in the
Judiciary, since the effect of this one last Objection automatically vitiates
the most solemn written contracts ever sealed.</p>

<p>Your Objection might want to contain the following:</p>

<p>1.An historical overview of the gun barrel and penal statute factual
setting surrounding the acquisition of a national currency monopoly by the
<ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, with the authorities for your statements being cited;
2.Stating in all of your Objections and <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent>s of Defects, that your
occasional use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes is involuntary, and transpires because
you are seeking to avoid being incarcerated as an accessory to the criminal
circulation of illegal currency under Federal statutes.</p>

<p>That's right. That is the real reason why you now reluctantly use Federal
Reserve Notes: Not because you want to, and not necessarily because of what
some <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> Agents did in <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> in the 1800's, but because if you now
started using your own currency instruments here today in 1985, then the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
will incarcerate you for doing so; and therefore we have no choice but to use
the King's designated currency against our Will and over our Objection. [618]</p>

<p>[618]============================================================= Is the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
really interested in using penal statutes to enforce a currency monopoly, down
to the present day? Yes, he very much is, and those who deal in that currency
which the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has seen fit to declare illegal in his kingdom will find
themselves dealing with the King's Agents at gun point. ...Being in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States felt good to the <ent type='ORG'>Braselton Family</ent>, who came over here from <ent type='GPE'>Manchester</ent>,
<ent type='GPE'>England</ent> in the 1880's. They settled down in rural <ent type='GPE'>Georgia</ent>, a remote 52 miles
northeast of <ent type='GPE'>Atlanta</ent>. This was 52 miles from nowhere, in the middle of nowhere.
This was an enterprising family with commercial enrichment being a natural
family attribute. The elder Mr. <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent> borrowed $2000 and started in
business with his brother at the age of 8 [a great deal of money for those days
when SILVER DOLLARS circulated and $1500 bought a nice house]. Soon, a farming
supply store opened up, followed by a succession of other stores and business
interests. What was first a single building was now a row of buildings lining
both sides of a street, and surrounded by neighborhoods of residents. <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> of
<ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent> essentially grew into a town unto itself. Today, among the visible
merchant establishments, there are the BRASELTON BANKING COMPANY, the BRASELTON
SUPER MARKET, the BRASELTON FLEA MARKET, the BRASELTON FURNITURE AND APPLIANCE
STORE, the BRASELTON MONUMENT COMPANY, and the BRASELTON SERVICE STATION. The
State of <ent type='GPE'>Georgia</ent> granted their hamlet political status as a town, and named it
the TOWN OF BRASELTON. After building up a bank and virtually all of the supply
stores in town, the <ent type='ORG'>Braselton Family</ent> then built a high school for the town's
residents. There is no police department in <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>, there is no fire
department and no social services -- and, not surprisingly, being no benefits,
there are no taxes to be concerned with. No, looters and <ent type='NORP'>Tory</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Aristocrats</ent> never
did succeed in gaining a foothold in <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>. Over the years from 1880 down
to the present day, the <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent> stores have had their trials and reversals:
They have had an intermittent fire, and in 1920 a tornado leveled many
buildings, but the family always rebuilt. The Mayor of <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent> has always
been a <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>, and the family enterprises are managed by a family
triumvirate, affectionately called THE 3-B's [see the ATLANTA CONSTITUTION
("Three <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>s of <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent> Business Partners Over 50 Years"), (May 31,
1939)]. Today, when I visited <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>, only a handful of coins and coupons
["Coupon Check"] mounted on a picture frame remain as reminiscent icons of the
grand days of the 1800's, when anyone could issue their own currency without
fear of being incarcerated. The history and lore of <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Georgia</ent> is
written and mounted on several walls in the BRASELTON BROTHERS HARDWARE STORE.
Walking into that store, one gets a feeling of power relationships, as
photographs from Presidents, Governors, and Senators, and other <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>
Family Members hang in open view. With such a display of high powered
acquaintances, I almost felt as if I was in David Rockefeller's office in the
<ent type='ORG'>Chase Manhattan Bank</ent> -- but there the feeling of similarity stops. In the
BRASELTON HARDWARE STORE, one feels a sweet and pleasant spirit permeating the
store, as if one great <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> family resides here. In David Rockefeller's
office, also adorned with photographs of powerful acquaintances, the spirit in
the air is one of an icy demon chill. Once while travelling up in an elevator
in <ent type='ORG'>the Chase Manhattan Bank</ent>, my knees started to rattle when passing the 17th
Floor, where His Excellency used to maintain his nest. The idea came to me, as
I tried to stop the shivers, that <ent type='ORG'>the Astral High</ent> Command was holding an
important conference, and that the demons were planning to pull off something
grand. Being primarily in the farming supply business, the <ent type='ORG'>Braselton Family</ent>
developed a Credit System based on TRADE CERTIFICATES to handle the seasonal
nature of surrounding farmers coming in to trade crops for supplies. For store
employees and local residents, the <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>s had their own coins minted, and
dollar equivalency coupons printed to be used as currency. Copper and nickel
based coins were minted in numerous equivalency denominations under $1.00; the
paper coupons ["Coupon Checks"] were similar to those coupon issued by movie
theaters and carnivals, and were available in coupon books. The issuance and
circulation of coins and currency by THE 3-B's was not only illegal, it was
criminal, but in a friendly small town in <ent type='GPE'>Georgia</ent> composed of class people, who
concerned themselves with technical banking statutes in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>? Over the
years since the 1880's, while foreign wars came and went, the <ent type='ORG'>Braselton Family</ent>
enterprises prospered and grew independent of the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> -- but eventually the
party would be over. As is always the case, one little goof messes up the soup
for everyone else, and the Braselton's turn came in the early 1950's. ...One
day in the early 1950's, a <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent> minted coin found its way into a gas
station in <ent type='GPE'>Atlanta</ent>. In turn it was passed on to a bank, who could not redeem it
into currency they are comfortable with. So the bank called <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States
Secret Service to report this heinous criminal outrage being commercially
orchestrated right up State Highway 53 in <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>. From out of their offices
in the <ent type='GPE'>Atlanta</ent> Federal Building descended a troop of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Agents</ent> on
<ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent> [they always like to put on a big show], and THE 3-B's surrendered
immediately. THE 3-B's would have surrendered on a phone call, but agents for
the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> earn their pay IN <ent type='ORG'>TERROREM</ent>, and like to use a show force to make a
STATEMENT. The King's Agents brought with them guns and a slice of <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> from
Title 18 ["Crimes"], so now the private minting of <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent> coins and currency
coupons was over with. In time, the <ent type='GPE'>Braselton</ent>s also disbanded the farmer's
TRADE CERTIFICATES for other reasons. QUESTION: Will the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> use his guns to
prevent you from circulating your own currency? Yes, he will.
=============================================================[618]</p>

<p>Your entrance into that closed, private domain of Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, by the
use and recirculation of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes (the King's Money), is
involuntary by reason of pure physical coercion. Remember that the character of
every act you do, and every prospective act you avoid doing, depends upon the
documented background circumstances behind which the act is either done or
avoided, [619]</p>

<p>[619]============================================================= "The
character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."
-<ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> VS. SCHENCK, 249 U.S. 47, at 52 (1918).
=============================================================[619]</p>

<p>and your ability to document and prove your STATE OF MIND is absolutely
mandatory as a point of beginning: So let's not snicker at Judges as they toss
out arguments based merely upon some recollected memory reconstructions from
out of the past. If you claim that your involvement with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> in his closed
private domain of Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> occurred by reason of physical coercion,
then the first question a Federal Judge will be asking himself is:</p>

<p>Who coerced you, when did this coercion take place, and what were the
background circumstances surrounding the coercion?</p>

<p>What the Judge will then do is to make an assessment of the overall legitimacy
of your claims. Talking about the naked aggression of <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> Agents in
<ent type='GPE'>California</ent> in the 1800's is one interesting story out of the past, but talking
about a direct operation of coercion on you today in the 1980's is even better.
Remember that lightly claiming duress and coercion is one easy thing to do, but
proving such coercion is another. Absent a presentation of the King's monopoly
acquisition tactics, of his snuffing out currency (coins, bank notes, and
private paper) competitors in the 1800's, and of his contemporary eagerness to
incarcerate competitors and private currency lone wolves, absent such factual
background material your claims of duress and coercion to invalidate the
Contract Law jurisprudential setting of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, as it applies to
you, are possible candidates to fall apart and collapse before the Judiciary.
So tell the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> about the currency history of the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, and his acquisition
of a currency monopoly out of a barrel of a gun, and then cite exactly, and
then quite directly, the verbatim wording of the Federal statutes that
criminalizes your acquisition and recirculation of any other Currency
Instrument other than the King's specified Legal Tender for the extinguishment
of your private debts, in order to prove your STATE OF MIND. [620]</p>

<p>[620]============================================================= One of the
statutory devices used by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> to grab for himself the currency circulating
around <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States was to make it a criminal act for someone to
countersign or deliver to any association, company, or person, any circulating
notes not expressly allowed by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>:
"...That it shall be unlawful for any officer acting under the
provisions of this act to countersign or deliver to any association, or to any
other company or person, any circulating notes contemplated by this act, except
as herein before provided, and in accordance with the true intent and meaning
of this act. Any officer who shall violate the provisions of this section shall
be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be
punished by fine not exceeding double the amount so countersigned and
delivered, and imprisonment not less than one year and not exceeding fifteen
years, at the discretion of this court in which he shall be tried."
-13 <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent> STATUTES AT LARGE 107, Chapter 106, Section 27
["National Banking Act"], 38th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, First Session (1864). Introduced into
the Senate by <ent type='PERSON'>John Sherman</ent> and the <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>Samuel Hooper</ent>, the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s had done their payoffs very well, as both <ent type='ORG'>this NATIONAL BANKING ACT</ent>
and <ent type='ORG'>the COINAGE ACT</ent> OF 1873 were the products of intrigue by <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s that
originated in Europe. By the time the 1940's came around, 13 U.S. STATUTES AT
LARGE had been changed slightly and placed into Title 12, Section 581
["Unauthorized Issue of Circulating Notes"], with the threatened incarceration
retained. In June of 1948, the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> repealed Title 12, Section 581, and so
today the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> retains his monopoly on circulating instruments by a combination
of administrative <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> prohibiting banking associations from issuing currency,
and also by prohibiting anyone anywhere from circulating their own coins:
"Whoever makes, issues, circulates, or pays out any note, check,
memorandum, token, or other obligation for a less sum than $1.00, intended to
circulate as money or be received or used in lieu of lawful money of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States, shall be fined not more than $10000 or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both."
-Title 18, Section 336 ["Issuance of Circulating Obligations
of less than $1".] Since all transactions subject to sales taxes in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States are denominated in cents (even the purchase of jet aircraft),
restraining a discharge in part prevents the discharge in whole. A person
precluded from discharging his debts, except by overpayment, is a person
experiencing a hard juristic Tort created by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>.
=============================================================[620]</p>

<p>The reason why it is to your advantage to talk about these historical aspects
and give a Federal Judge a long chronicled history of the King's gun barrel
muscle tactics you are objecting to, is because their Federal Benchbook is
silent on it (except for numerous 1800's Case quotations), and so very few
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> actually know anything about the currency history of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States, and when Judges have been confronted with accurate presentations of
historical facts, they can and will rule against Government and reverse
themselves publicly in Opinions, [621]</p>

<p>[621]============================================================= Such as
happened with <ent type='ORG'>OWEN</ent> VS. THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE [445 U.S. 622 (1979)], which
correctly reversed 500 years of Common Law policy that favored municipal Tort
immunization.
=============================================================[621]</p>

<p>and also quietly in post-Opinion regrets. [622]</p>

<p>[622]============================================================= When the
manuscript to <ent type='PERSON'>Paul Blakewell</ent>'s book entitled WHAT ARE WE USING FOR MONEY? [New
York: <ent type='PERSON'>Van Nostrand</ent>, 1952] was sent to retired Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> Justice <ent type='PERSON'>Owen</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Roberts</ent> (who had voted with the majority in the Gold Clause Cases [NORMAN VS.
<ent type='ORG'>BALTIMORE</ent> and three other Cases starting at 294 U.S. 240 (1934)]), Judge
<ent type='PERSON'>Roberts</ent> sent a letter back to <ent type='PERSON'>Paul Blakewell</ent> stating:
"Of course, I ought not to be quoted concerning a decision of the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>
when I was a member of it, but I am inclined to think that had I known the
history you describe, I would have been of a different opinion than the one
expressed."
-Quoted from <ent type='PERSON'>David Fargo</ent> in WILL GOLD CLAUSES RETURN?, in 8
Reason Magazine 72, at 103 (June, 1976).
=============================================================[622]</p>

<p>So giving <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> a more factually detailed presentation of history,
than is carefully given to them in those <ent type='ORG'>Government Seminars</ent> of theirs,
operates to your advantage. Your use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, under objection
to avoid incarceration, is the kind of a documented coercion factual setting
that is going to give the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> something to think about, if the
grievance ever gets to them. This involuntary entrance into King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> by
reason of threat of incarceration severs this civil attachment of <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent>
Jurisdiction that is otherwise airtight for those folks not Objecting
substantively and timely [because benefits were rejected and there is now a
FAILURE OF <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>], and completes our efforts to convert the basic
Contract Law factual setting that the use of Commercial <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes
necessarily mandates, somewhat over into Tort Law (so our unfairness arguments
then can become relevant). [623]</p>

<p>[623]============================================================= Even though
Judges may deal with tax enforcement proceedings whose only evidence is the
acceptance and recirculation of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes on the civil side of
their courtroom, you are not free of incarceration by merely getting rid of
your <ent type='ORG'>Enfranchisements</ent>, licenses, and bank accounts that evidences the
acceptance of Federal benefits -- benefit acceptance that creates invisible
contracts. The <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> specializes in 2039 Summons and <ent type='NORP'>DISCOVERY</ent> enforcement moves
to perfect incarceration through civil contempt proceedings, and the mere
absence of a bank account will not protect you from being cited for Contempt of
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> and the encagement that follows.
=============================================================[623]</p>

<p>That documented involuntary behavior to avoid incarceration is the one magic
liability--vitiating line that Judges never deviate from, and that
incarceration threat is the kind of an Objection that Judges want to hear, and
that is the kind of an Objection that the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> will respect. But as
always, it is the waiver and rejection of <ent type='ORG'>Royal</ent> benefits that is the most
important item to address; and the King's Legal Tender Statutes have very much
enhanced the market value and general Commercial attractiveness of those
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, so as viewed from the perspective of a Federal Judge,
when you accepted and then recirculated <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, you have
accepted a Federal benefit. [624]</p>

<p>[624]============================================================= Yes,
benefits accepted are also the invisible contract into state tax courts:
"The simple but controlling question is whether the state has given
anything [some type of a juristic benefit] for which it can ask return."
-STATE OF <ent type='GPE'>WISCONSIN</ent> VS. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, 311 U.S. 435, at 444
(1940). =============================================================[624]</p>

<p>So the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has the requisite standing jurisdiction to use his police powers to
seal up monopolies on currency and postal services: But when he threatens to
cause those penal statutes to operate against you, the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> can then forget
about the assertion of any adhesive revenue enhancement <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction on
us, if you will but so much as Object substantively and timely so as to trigger
<ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> Failure.</p>

<p>You should remember that filing such an Objection, say next year in 1986, will
only assist you in a future prosecution. If the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> is going after you today
for 1981 to 1985, then your failure to Object timely was fatal on your part, as
this <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Note Objection carries no retroactive force with it.
Remember that the King's throwing a prosecution against you is an adversary
proceeding. If the King's Attorneys make the assertion that you had accepted
and use <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes (with the long history of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> Law to
support the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> in this area going back into English history and the Medieval
Ages), and you retort by saying that you didn't want to use <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent>
Notes without being able to explain exactly how and why your use was
involuntary, then the Federal Judge has no choice but to rule against you, as
in that setting the preponderance of the evidence favors the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>. So the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
wins by your own half-baked minimum efforts and default in proving your
assertion. But if you do cite authorities, quote the King's criminal statutes
verbatim, and prove everything, then there is not a Federal Judge in the entire
United States who could rightfully hold that your use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes
is voluntary for Commercial gain, and that an adhesive attachment of revenue
<ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction attaches for this reason (and that specifically includes
the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>). The <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> may have numerous other <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> hooks into you
depending on your individual circumstances, but he will be restrained from
using this one hook against you.</p>

<p>[As I said in the <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent> Letter, in a criminal prosecution
setting, it is a general policy custom that the Judiciary requires a much
higher evidentiary standard of knowledge of wrongdoing and of Commercial
enrichment experienced in the closed private domain of King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>; but as
you should see by now, through a strict technical reading of Title 26, no bank
accounts are ever needed to perfect a 7203 prosecution. By its own statutory
wording, either your documented involvement in Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, over the
minimum liability threshold level, or your <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent> Contract, attaches all
civil and criminal liability the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> thinks he needs. But <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> do
not necessarily think like the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> thinks, and in a criminal prosecution for
Title 26 infractions, the Judiciary, by custom, would like to see a higher
level of administrative and merchant status than the mere use and recirculation
of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes infers. That higher evidentiary standard that Federal
Judges hold was all that I meant in the <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent> Letter. And since the
Federal Judge had <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent>'s bank account contracts in front of him, the
Constitution then became irrelevant in Armen's RESTRAINING ORDER defense. So,
generally, what <ent type='ORG'>the Federal Bench</ent> wants to see is some type of a contract
before they will consent to a criminal prosecution for Title 26 penal
infractions. There are exceptions where such instruments of CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
like bank accounts are not pursued that much, but those exceptions do not apply
to you or me. To my knowledge, no one in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States has ever been
incarcerated at any time for any penal infraction of Title 26, with the only
evidence being acceptance and beneficial use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes in
Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>. Evidence of the acceptance and beneficial use of Federal
Reserve Notes is quite frequently adduced into criminal prosecutions by the
King's Attorneys in the Public Show Trial, but only a collaborating secondary
evidence behind serious contracts the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> quietly gave the Judge in his
<ent type='ORG'>Chambers</ent> before the prosecution even started. This <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> hook the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has up
his <ent type='ORG'>Royal</ent> sleeve (use of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes) is generally applicable against
you as PRIMA FACIE primary evidence only in the lower evidentiary standards of
a free wheeling civil arena.]</p>

<p>So important for us is the filing of the Objection and <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of Protest, and
filing the objections timely. And each of these Objections should be separate
and distinct from each other (Admiralty/Birth Certificate, <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent>/Social
Security, Commercial/<ent type='ORG'>HOLDER</ent>S IN DUE COURSE, etc.). What happens if the Supreme
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> rules some day of in the future that King's Revenue <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction
still attaches to involuntary users of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes? We will then have
to acquire our rights from our contemporary <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> the same way <ent type='PERSON'>Ben Franklin</ent> and
George <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> acquired their rights: Out of the barrel of a gun. [625]</p>

<p>[625]============================================================= Writing to
the <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> inhabitants of <ent type='GPE'>Louisiana</ent>, after the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> War of Independence was
over with, <ent type='PERSON'>Thomas Paine</ent> made the following observation on the sometimes
necessary use of aggression to obtain rights:
"We obtained our rights by calmly understanding principles, and by the
successful event of a long, obstinate, and expensive war. But it is not
incumbent on us to fight the battles of the world for the world's profit."
-<ent type='ORG'>THE LIFE</ent> AND WRITINGS OF THOMAS <ent type='ORG'>PAINE</ent>, by <ent type='PERSON'>David Wheeler</ent>, Page 173
[<ent type='PERSON'>Vincent Parke</ent> &amp; Company, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> City (1908)]
=============================================================[625]</p>

<p>We always want to take a moment and examine ourselves in known impending
grievances from the viewpoint of our adversary, in order to see things like a
judge; and when dealing with an attack on the acceptance and recirculation of
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, an argument will likely be advanced to try and discredit
your objection:</p>

<p>Your adversary will argue that Federal Law, not State Law of the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent> governs
your attack on <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes. Their arguments are based on numerous
federal court rulings -- one of which is when the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> once ruled
[626]</p>

<p>[626]============================================================= CLEARFIELD
TRUST VS. <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>, 318 U.S. 363 (1942).
=============================================================[626]</p>

<p>that the rights, duties, and liabilities of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States on Commercial
paper are issues that are to be governed exclusively by federal law, and not
governed by state law. Therefore, your adversaries will argue that your
reliance on the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent>, which are a collection of state statutes, as a source of
authority, is ill-founded and that you are not entitled to prevail. This
argument does not concern us at all, since in reading CLEARFIELD TRUST, the
reason why the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> wants federal Commercial paper to be governed by
Federal Law and not State Law is because they do not want the Federal
Government subject to 50 different rules and restrictions proprietary to each
state:</p>

<p>"But reasons which may make state law at times the appropriate federal
rule are singularly inappropriate here. The issuance of Commercial paper by the
United States is on a vast scale and transactions in that paper from issuance
to payout will commonly occur in several states. The application of state law,
even without the conflict of laws rules of forum, would subject the rights and
duties of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States to exceptional uncertainty. It would lead to great
diversity in results by making identical transactions subject to the vagaries
of the laws of the several states." [627]</p>

<p>[627]============================================================= CLEARFIELD
TRUST, id., 318 U.S. at 367.
=============================================================[627]</p>

<p>Since the Uniform Commercial Code is just that, i.e., UNIFORM throughout all of
the states except one (<ent type='GPE'>Louisiana</ent>), having the issuance and Commercial use of
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes subject to this uniform code, in the absence of any
federal law to the contrary, is most appropriate. Subjecting the rights and
duties of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States and it's pet corporation, the <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent>, to
the uniform rules of the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent> to fill in missing gaps in Federal Commercial
Laws, offers to expose <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States to no exception uncertainty. Although
there very much is a Federal Law Merchant, [628]</p>

<p>[628]============================================================= "... the
federal law merchant, developed for about a century under the regime of SWIFT
VS. TYSON, 16 <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> 1, represented general commercial law rather than a choice
of a federal rule designed to protect a federal right..."
-CLEARFIELD TRUST, id., 318 U.S. at 367.
=============================================================[628]</p>

<p>State Law is silent on the matter; [629]</p>

<p>[629]============================================================= In
explaining why state law governed a federal commercial paper question:
"While [the] <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> statute... is not controlling... [there is] no
conflict with any state or federal policy..."
-<ent type='ORG'>ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY</ent> VS. <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>, 313 U.S. 289, at 297
(1940). =============================================================[629]</p>

<p>and so now that leaves <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> making the law. [630]</p>

<p>[630]============================================================= "In the
absence of an applicable Act of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, it is for the federal courts to
fashion the governing rule of law, according to their own standards..."
-CLEARFIELD TRUST, id., 318 U.S. at 367.
=============================================================[630]</p>

<p>Remember that the PRINCIPLES OF NATURE the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent> codifies into sequential
statutes is merely the old Law Merchant of our Fathers, and that our Fathers
merely codified reason, logic, and common sense; and the Uniform Commercial
Code, even though it is state law, is merely cited to both fill pronouncement
voids in the Federal Law Merchant, and as simply the best pronouncement of
PRINCIPLES OF NATURE denominated to apply to Commercial factual settings.</p>

<p>The Principle we invoke when coming to grips with these <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes
is merely common sense: That a person we are trying to avoid doing business
with (the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>) loses his expectation of our conformance to his statutes, when
we place him on our PRIOR NOTICE that Defects are present in the paper he is
circulating, and that we are not accepting the benefits otherwise inuring to
the <ent type='ORG'>Holder</ent>s and Recirculators of his <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, by reason of
involuntary use. Everything in this Letter is all inter-related to some extent;
earlier, I discussed the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, by which Judges hold that
silence on your part, in the context of an assertion being made against you,
constitutes your acceptance of the proposition that you are silent on (and for
good reasons: Because benefits are being accepted by you). This <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of
Defect reverses that state of silence, and the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is forced to experience a
declension in his coveted status of expecting a perfect non-defense case
against you, based on your terminating the acceptance of the benefits of the
use and recirculation of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes. The <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent> largely codified all of
this since merchants have it out with each other all the time on this very
question with Negotiable Instruments, and as such the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent> gave every possible
thing and every party nice proprietary names and labels so that attorneys and
judges can all deal with these factual settings with everyone speaking the same
vocabulary. So, if the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent> is technically non-applicable to <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent>
Notes, then we don't really care, as the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent> is no more than codifying Nature,
as Principles operate transparent to changes in factual settings. If we are
Objecting to a thing, like a Note, then the <ent type='ORG'>Maker</ent> has lost his expectation of
not having any grievances to deal with on that thing (Note); and that is only
common sense. And we cite the <ent type='ORG'>UCC</ent> as the best codified pronouncement of that
Doctrine, and we encourage our adversaries to find any federal statute
inconsistent with the UCC's pronouncements. [631]</p>

<p>[631]============================================================= Nowhere in
Federal statutes does there exist specific language to the effect that
<ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUALS</ent> using <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes are PERSONS attached to the
administrative mandates of Title 26. The reason why we concern ourselves with
this state of affairs is largely of a judicial origin, as <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> are
free to take Judicial <ent type='EVENT'>Notice</ent> of such Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> Cases like EMILY DE GANAY
VS. LEDERER, [250 U.S. 376 (1919)], which held that <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> Citizens and
residents are liable to pay <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Income Taxes by reason of their Commercial
activities taking place over here. However, when we probe for the real bottom
line at a deeper level, the real reason liability exists lies in an operation
of contract. In 1925, the Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> declared that there are two different
types of invisible contracts ("implied contracts"). [The Supreme <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> did not
CREATE something new here, as they merely declared in writing what had always
been the structure of Nature in this area of contracts.] One type of contract
recognized exists because of the practical factual elements that arise between
two parties, and there is a structure in the factual background where there has
been an exchange of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>. Another type are implied contracts that
exist as a matter of express declared Law [see <ent type='PERSON'>HENRY MERRITT</ent> VS. <ent type='GPE'>UNITED STATES</ent>,
267 U.S. 338, at 341 (1925)].
"It is important to remain aware of the distinctions between contracts
implied in fact and contracts implied in law. In the former, the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>
determines from the circumstances that the parties have indicated their assent
to the contract. In the latter, however, the law creates an obligation "for
reasons of justice, without any expression of assent and sometimes even against
a clear expression of dissent."
-FREEDMAN VS. BENEFICIAL CORPORATION, 406 F.Supp. 917, at 923
[Footnote #10] (1975); quoting from 1 CORBIN ON CONTRACTS, Section 18 and 19
(1963). Since no explicit statutes exist to adhesively bind recirculators of
<ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes to Title 26, this USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES contract
is a contract arising from the factual elements of a commercial relational
nature existing between the two parties (as Federal benefits were accepted in
the context of some Judicially declared Commercial reciprocity being expected
back in return). Contracts to pay Federal Income Taxes as a matter of
pronounced Law are contracts like <ent type='ORG'>Citizenship</ent>, where some junior <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> statutes
do exist that explicitly spell out Title 26 liability to such identified
PERSONS in no uncertain terms.
=============================================================[631]

As you well know, Mr. May, it is a PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that an ounce of
prevention is worth ten tons of labor exerted later on in patching up. And
merely preparing your multiple objections now, in writing, will spare a person
from substantial expenses in depositions and the like later, as the collection
of evidence, is, generally speaking, an expensive and time-consuming process.
With rare exception, all of the <ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent> lawsuits I have examined never involved
any form of Depositions or Interrogatories being take on the <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent> (and the
<ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent> wonders why he loses). All of that is neatly avoided by a few
preventative steps.
</p></xml>