textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/incon002.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> THIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT
[Pages 89-130]</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>In a Contract Law Judgment setting, questions sounding in the Tort of
unfairness regarding the interference of a person not a party to a contract in
causing a person who is a party to a contract not to honor his contract is
irrelevant, as I will explain later on; and so when cries of unfairness wallow
up at <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent>, as claims of unfairness will be heard in having had
Lucifer's low key assistants hacking away at us down here, those cries will
then be in vain, as the unfairness in Contract Law of outside interference in
contract administration is irrelevant in measuring contract performance itself.
For example, the fact that an Employer terminated your livelihood, and you
subsequently experienced a cessation of money coming in, and so that now you
are unable to pay your apartment lease payments, is irrelevant in an Tenant
Eviction Proceeding. Either you have paid your rent as the Lease Contract calls
for, or you haven't. Even though the secondary effect of your livelihood being
terminated directly restrained you from honoring your Lease Contract due to a
lack of money, your Employer is not a party to that apartment Lease Contract,
so what your Employer did or did not do is not relevant in a leasehold Eviction
Proceeding. That is Contract Law Jurisprudence; its cold, mean, and it isn't
really very "fair" -- so now addressing that face on, we should start to
negotiate our personal business contracts on terms we can live with, rather
than snicker at Judges when we are in default later on. Remember the reason why
"fairness" is not relevant in a contract grievance: Because if judges allowed
"fairness," so called, to enter into one side of the grievance and benefit one
party, the effect of the entrance of such "fairness" into the evidentiary
setting presented to the Judge for a ruling, will always work a Tort on the
other party. What is the correct solution? Ignore all claims for "fairness" and
just enforce the contract. Cold, brutal, mean, harsh? Yes... but proper. Rather
than snicker at Judges at that late date well after you are in default, you
might want to address the origin of your problem: You entered into a contract
you could not handle under a worst case scenario (worst case meaning loss of
livelihood).</p>

<p>And those are the kinds of very narrow and precise lines that we need to think
in, in understanding Contract Law. You may very well have legitimate mitigating
circumstances to justify why you could not honor a contract -- but is an
ELECTION OF REMEDIES for the <ent type='ORG'>Party</ent> that you are in default to, to decide what
he intends to do with you, and it is not anything for an enforcement judge to
take notice of.</p>

<p>But contrary to the SUB ROSA silence of <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> on the existence of any
Contracts in effect with Father, Father is in fact operating on Contracts and
under Contract Law Jurisprudence with all of us down here, and not on the
principles, fairness, equality, and justice of pure natural moral Tort Law. So
only the content of our Contracts will be of concern to Father at the Last Day.
Under the justice of natural Tort Law, the equality of judgment fairness
requires that a person be adjudged on the basis of how other similar people are
being adjudged; but this is not relevant to Father for our purposes at our
Final Judgment. [118]</p>

<p>[118]============================================================= There are
many people who take the view, seemingly very reasonably that, since they have
accepted Jesus Christ into their lives, and since they are just as good and
moral as anyone else they know (and a lot more moral than many other people),
then it is quite reasonable that they will be going to Heaven. This view is
very widespread today, and it is also quite defective. First, the fact that you
are just as good and moral as anyone else is irrelevant to Father in our
impending <ent type='EVENT'>Judgment Day</ent> to be held under a Contract Law jurisprudential setting.
Father has no interest in any relative or collectively weighed anything. You,
individually and personally, have either progressed under your Contract, or you
haven't; and what some guy down the street does or avoids is not relevant to
you and your Contract. The unfairness of possibly being treated worse than
someone else in a grievance is a Tort Law argument. Second, the fact that you
have accepted Jesus Christ into your life is very significant -- but only as a
point of beginning, and not as a terminating wrap up to anything. The error
made by many <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> folks -- that their acceptance of Jesus Christ completes
their forward motions on <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> matters -- is the same error that many other
folks make by assigning either a terminating or concluding attribute to the
execution of contracts [like walking out of an automobile dealership with a
sigh of relief that since you've the contract and the car is your's, well, that
ends the matter; sorry, but that PURCHASE AND SALE CONTRACT only started the
matter]. Entering into a contract -- whether with <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father or anyone
else -- is always just a point of beginning, a fact that sharp <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s have
taken very astute notice of. While taking about a Diplomatic Treaty that was
just signed (and Treaties between <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>s are contracts):
"It is a fundamental mistake to assume that the treaty ends where it
really begins. The signing of the document on June 28, 1919 at <ent type='GPE'>Versailles</ent> did
not complete its history; it really began it. THE MEASURE OF WORTH LIES IN THE
PROCESS OF ITS EXECUTION AND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT IS CARRIED OUT BY ALL OF
THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Baruch</ent> in THE MAKING OF THE REPARATIONS AND ECONOMIC SECTIONS
OF THE <ent type='ORG'>TREATY</ent>, at page 8 [Harper &amp; Brothers, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1920)]. (The italics
formation of the last sentence was that way in the original, so it represents
an idea <ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Baruch</ent> deemed important). Here is a <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> -- <ent type='PERSON'>Bernard Baruch</ent>
--telling us that when he participated in partially negotiating the Treaty of
<ent type='GPE'>Versailles</ent> in 1919, he knew that many folks commonly view the execution of
Treaties to be the end of the matter; but sharp <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s know that contracts
only start the action in motion; so we too should be cognizant of this
attribute in Nature.
=============================================================[118]</p>

<p>Those Torts that are committed by us and those great things that are done by us
outside of our Contracts are irrelevant to Father (and to ourselves at the
<ent type='EVENT'>Judgment Day</ent>); also irrelevant will be those factors of natural Tort Law, such
as fairness, rights, equality, and justice. So the <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent>, going into the
<ent type='EVENT'>Judgment Day</ent> with their pure natural moral Tort Law excuses all very neatly
lined up to justify, vitiate, and excuse their incredible abominations under
Lucifer's brilliant counselling, will be just like a Constitutionalist, so
called, going into a 7203 prosecution judgment with a bank account contract and
arguing principles of natural and moral Tort Law (want of a MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>, morality,
rights, basic justice, privacy rights, no CORPUS DELECTI damages, unfairness,
excessive Eighth Amendment punishment for a mere omission, Common Law says...,
etc.) and then demanding justice, and all of these elements of Tort Law
pronounced very well through numerous <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> rulings and Constitutional
clauses; but they are not applicable to the merits of a Contract Law Judgment
setting. Both the pseudo-clever <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> and well-meaning
Constitutionalist who still needs intellectual development on Contract Law
Jurisprudence, are both totally convinced that they are absolutely correct --
but the unknown reality is that they are both just plain wrong, and for the
identical same reason: Their arguments, reasoning, and justifications, although
absolutely correct in another judgment setting of pure natural moral Tort Law,
are off-point by a wide variance: Because in both of those <ent type='EVENT'>Judgment Day</ent> and
7203 judgment settings that the <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> and well-meaning
Constitutionalist are being adjudged by, are under invisible Contract
Jurisprudence and Contract Law, not Tort Law. [119]</p>

<p>[119]============================================================= As a
concluding by-line to this digressionary discussion here on Father and
Contracts, if you'll but give it a few moments thought and imagination, it is
interesting to note that this impending <ent type='EVENT'>Judgment Day</ent> arrangement that Father
designed, gives a generous built in structural edge to those persons who are
trying to become the Sons of Eloha, and the procedure itself also creates
obstacles for those who have no interest in such a Celestial Objective (as if
the operation of <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent> mechanical procedure itself assists in
separating embryonic Eloha from their ministrants). So now we need to ask
ourselves a question: Does that structural arrangement sound like it comes from
someone who knows what he is doing? Yes, it sounds like Father knows exactly
what he is doing; and if that is true, then we should listen very carefully to
anything Father has to say and would like us to do. And consistent with
Father's intentions to give his Sons the edge whenever possible, while exposing
them to the same environment and standards as everyone else, comes the
following arrangement: That after we enter into Father's Advanced Contracts
down here there are some other circumstances we can go through down here to
accelerate <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent> to the present time (but that is another Letter). I
am only making the comparative point here that the lack of national collective
interest on the extreme significance of that <ent type='EVENT'>Judgment Day</ent> accelerant statement
replicates the lack of national collective interest on the extreme significance
of bank accounts and other high-powered contracts as those <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> instruments
define our sub-parity relationship with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>. In both cases, this
information is freely floating around the countryside, but one first has to
define objectives, ask questions, and then exert efforts in order to get to and
then understand answers to questions. (And it is the discipline and serious
attitude such a procedure requires which largely explains why there are so few
people around who possess such important knowledge; not that there are few
knowledgeable persons that is an inverse indicia to gauge the importance of the
knowledge). =============================================================[119]</p>

<p>Knowing what you do now about Tort Law rationale and our First Estate Contracts
with Father, let us examine, just for the moment, the Old Testament's account
of <ent type='GPE'>Sodom</ent>. There was a city, we are told, full of licentiousness and
whoremongering, and although that behavior doesn't sound too attractive to most
folks, let us consider the fact that in such behavior there are no damages
being experienced by anyone, there is no MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>, and that all of the persons
who participate in those orgies have consented -- and furthermore, biological
benefits are present. (When criminals are about to work a crime on someone
else, that advance planning in their minds is called the MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>. The reason
why their mind is evil is because they were about to try and damage either
another person, or someone else's property). [120]</p>

<p>[120]============================================================= Furthermore,
just to make things seem psychologically interesting back then, I am sure that
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> blended in some ceremonial flair into those orgies, by conveying the
image that orgies were officially sanctioned, somehow. Like contemporary
Witches emulating their mentors in <ent type='GPE'>Sodom</ent> by performing <ent type='ORG'>Fertility Rites</ent> on the
Witches' Sabbath, an interesting sounding excuse will satisfy most folks. When
Witches are not otherwise busy PULLING DOWN THE <ent type='ORG'>MOON</ent>, almost all of their rites
involving licking down some slice of meat [see <ent type='PERSON'>Raymond Buckland</ent>'s THE <ent type='ORG'>TREE</ent>, THE
COMPLETE BOOK OF SAXON WITCHCRAFT, from Seax-Wica Voys, Box 5149, <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Beach</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> 23455].
=============================================================[120]</p>

<p>So if everyone is consenting, and there are no damages, and there is no MENS
<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>, then there is nothing to remedy, and there is no cause of action to effect
a "retort," and there is no retortional corrective justice to apply, since
nothing went amiss in the first place. General reasoning in this area is very
prevalent today (meaning that many folks today have no concern for the
inappropriate use of those ecstatic circumstances which initiate mammalian
reproduction). <ent type='NORP'>Heathens</ent> don't like to hear this kind of talk, but Father
actually operates in an unchanging straight doctrinal line, without any skew to
accommodate the pleasing intellectual music devils propagate that are sounding
in the justifying Tort of liability mitigation, that now, just somehow,
enhanced relative levels of technical knowledge ["this is the Information Age"]
or that self-perceived aggrandizement of intellectual sophistication, relegates
such anachronistic <ent type='PERSON'>Stone</ent> Age bugaboo standards to a classification status
demeaning to your enlightened standing. [121]</p>

<p>[121]============================================================= "We do not
believe in situation-itis; we do not go with the people who think that there is
a different age, that this is a different time, that these people are more
enlightened, or that [this standard] was for old times. Always the Lord will
hold to his statements that he has given through the ages, and he will expect
men to respect themselves, to respect their wives, and the wives to respect
their husbands."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Spencer</ent> W. Kimball in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["God The Same Today"], page
162 (April, 1975).
=============================================================[121]</p>

<p>What then gives Father the right to expect technical compliance with such
ecstatic extracurricular circumstances that every person knows Father does not
approve the inappropriate use of? What gives Father the right to penalize us
for engaging in circumstances that not only damage no one, but are actually
biologically beneficial -- circumstances which when administered clinically
during the formative years under a therapeutic factual setting will actually
correct impending deviancy inclinations? The answers lies in Contracts, for
where there lies a Contract, a regulatory jurisdiction is in effect and there
doesn't have to be any damages experienced for someone to be penalized for
technical Contract violations; and furthermore, your excuses for non-compliance
are irrelevant should a grievance ever come to pass. That is where Father got
the right to turn <ent type='GPE'>Sodom</ent> upside down and terminate all people living therein,
and Father did so without any nymph in <ent type='GPE'>Sodom</ent> being damaged, everyone consenting
to that behavior, and the residents of <ent type='GPE'>Sodom</ent> never manifesting an evil state of
mind towards other residents, as pure, raw fleshy Hedonism was practiced
without let up. [122]</p>

<p>[122]============================================================= "As a young
man <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> demonstrated a courage and a strength and a power that likely has not
been equaled in all of the great characters of the scriptures. He fought with
wild beasts and overcame them, defeated the giant <ent type='PERSON'>Goliath</ent> virtually with his
hands, and then served through many years as the leader of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent> and
demonstrated in the process tremendous control, tremendous discipline. The
greatest enemy he had, perhaps, through most of these years -- at least the
greatest threat to his existence -- was the man <ent type='PERSON'>Saul</ent>. Yet on several occasions
when <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> could have removed this threat by taking the life of <ent type='PERSON'>Saul</ent>, who was
in his hands, [<ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>] withheld [himself] and controlled those impulses. That
demonstrated tremendous power and control. Then later in life, as a mature man
with all the strength that kind of life had brought him, <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> was unwise. It
was not because <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> was weak that he fell. He was unwise. I suspect that
<ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> had reached the point where he felt he was strong enough to indulge the
entertainment of some enticing possibilities. On the day he stood on his
rooftop and observed the wife of one of his officers, instead of taking himself
by the nape of the neck, so to speak, and saying '<ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, get out of here!'
<ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> remained. <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> thought about the possibilities [of getting involved with
this slice of meat], and those thoughts overcame <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> and eventually
controlled him. One of the saddest entries in all the scriptures, I think, is
that which the Lord gave the Prophet <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph Smith</ent> in Section 132 of the
<ent type='ORG'>DOCTRINES</ent> AND COVENANTS. Speaking of David's situation today, he said, 'For he
hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion.' (D&amp;C 132:39).
"...<ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, one of the greatest and powerful men of the Old
Testament times, could have been today among the Gods if he had controlled his
thoughts."
-Dean L. Larsen in 1976 SPEECHES OF THE YEAR, at 121 [<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>University</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, Provo, <ent type='GPE'>Utah</ent> (1976)]. The chronicles of David's life are
presented in F<ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>T and SECOND SAMUEL. Notice how there was never any unjust
damages created by <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> in his life down here; <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> did not lose his
exaltation because he carefully avoided damaging others, as a lot of folks in
<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>dom incorrectly believe is important, but actually <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> lost his
Celestial Status in the impending <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> realms that lie ahead because of an
infracted Contract under circumstances that created no damages whatsoever
[<ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> mentions that he entered into Father's <ent type='ORG'>EVERLASTING</ent> COVENANT in II SAMUEL
23:5], the content of which prohibits promiscuous masculine excursions into the
interior contours of feminine musculature, under certain circumstances. The
defense argument that such ecstatic circumstances create a wide ranging array
of beneficial biological and psychological side effects (which is factually
correct) is not going to be relevant at the Last Day -- just like Tax
Protesting arguments sounding in the Tort of Constitutional unfairness are not
relevant when <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> are enforcing express Commercial contracts (even
though the Protestor is also factually correct as well in his Constitutional
research). And Protestors continue to lose today on the same grounds and for
the same reasons that good <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> folks will lose the <ent type='GPE'>Celestial Kingdom</ent> and
take an honorable second place as an <ent type='PERSON'>Angel</ent>: Because of failure to identify and
come to grips with a series of invisible Contracts, and for failing to
appreciate the extent to which contracts are elevated in Nature to an
overruling dominate position in settling Judgments. Father's Covenants were
deliberately designed to provide PERSONS operating under its jurisdictional
penumbra with a confluence of contrasting incentives to exercise judgment on,
and it is the outcome of those decisions which Covenant operants make for
themselves -- that is what Father wants to see. Yet <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, while he was still
alive down here, knew that he had blown it but good:
"[Jesus Christ told me that] he that ruleth over men must be just,
ruling in the fear of God [and this is important to Father because impending
Gods will themselves be ruling over angels and the like in the realms to come].
[...These just persons, who are potential Gods], shall be as light in the
morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender
grass springing out of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> by clear shining after rain." After describing
such a potential Celestial person in those terms, <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> admitted that he did
not qualify:
"...although my house be not so with God."
-II SAMUEL 23:3 et seq.
=============================================================[122]</p>

<p>The questions of damages, of the presence of a MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>, and of consent are
Tort Law arguments, and are not relevant when contracts are in effect. But
wait,</p>

<p>"I was never baptized, I never entered me into no Contracts with
Father. My parents never got me involved with no church. I don't have me no
baptism certificate in my closet."</p>

<p>Yes, even you have invisible Contracts now in effect with Father. We all have
Contracts in effect, and we all took out these contracts, all of us without any
exceptions did this, back in the First Estate as Spirits. And it was then and
there that we were on our knees before Father taking out Contracts in the
angelic language we were then speaking, back before our memories were
temporarily abated down here, that's when.</p>

<p>This then is the Grand Key towards understanding why people want contracts out
of you: Because that contract you gave them gives them the right to deal with
you effectively at a later time. In the case of <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father, those previous
existing First Estate Contracts give Father the right to deal effectively with
us at a later time, both individually and collectively down here, should our
degenerate Contract wickedness exceed his patience and threshold level of
tolerance (as the Old Testament documents over and over again), as well as
providing a Contract Law Jurisprudential judgment setting at the Last Day where
Tort Law arguments of EVIL ACCOMPLISHED IN THE GOOD NAME OF JUSTICE are
ignored. In the case of the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, he too wants contracts out of us to
accomplish his revenue raising objectives, and then later enforceable against
us under threat of incarceration otherwise not permissible absent a Commercial
contract. In the case of <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> and certain Mafia Families, they too deal in
contracts to deal effectively at a later time with a dissenter who leaves their
ranks and starts to talk or otherwise creates troubles: By having the dissenter
killed. In a contemporary Commercial setting, merchants, lending institutions,
landlords, etc. all want recourse contracts out of you so they can deal
effectively with you at a later time in Summary Judgment proceedings should
there be a default. And on and on. [123]</p>

<p>[123]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, vipers, <ent type='NORP'>Bolsheviks</ent>, witches and other associated imps who circulate
in that genre are not the only ones to be fooled and taken in on Tort Law
reasoning down here. Certain eremitical monks are another prime example of well
meaning people arranging their acts and behavior down here to take maximum
advantage of the "avoidance of damages" question that haunts so many people. Of
the numerous orders of monks around, such as the <ent type='NORP'>Trappists</ent>, the <ent type='NORP'>Carthusians</ent>,
and the Benedictines, perhaps it is several of the Black <ent type='NORP'>Monk</ent> abbeys in Europe
that are exemplary in their zeal not to damage anything, anyone, or any
property, at any time. These particular Black <ent type='NORP'>Monk</ent>s are doctrinaire Benedictine
<ent type='NORP'>Monk</ent>s. But unique to their own monastery sect, they walk through the air slowly
and lead isolated and inactive lives. On their minds, they are taught not to
influence the direction of anything else (i.e., avoid potential damages there).
In Saint Benedictine's Rules [E.C. Butler, BENEDICTINE MONACHISM (1924)],
chapters 23 to 30 talk about the relationship in effect between fault for
damages and punishments to be expected. The head monk, the <ent type='ORG'>Abbott</ent>, is taught
that he will be held accountable to answer for the souls of all of his monks
before the judgment seat of God (chapters 2, 3, 27 and 64). Both the willful
avoidance of damaging anything, and the doctrine that the <ent type='ORG'>Abbott</ent> is responsible
before Father for the acts of others are Tort Law arguments, and are defective.
<ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father is dealing in Contracts; and expecting yourself to be magnified
in stature before Father at the Last Day due to the mere absence of not having
caused any damages down here or assuming responsibility for what a third person
does or does not do, is absolutely incorrect. The only third party line of
liability down here that we need to be concerned originates with Contracts,
such as one that deems parents to be responsible for the acts of their
offspring, if the child goes off on a negative tangent.
=============================================================[123]</p>

<p>Those who want to go forth and FILL THE MEASURE OF THEIR C<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>TION, just like
Prophets and <ent type='ORG'>Patriarchs</ent>, need to go out and get some replacement Contracts with
Father; [124]</p>

<p>[124]============================================================= Our old
Patriarch <ent type='PERSON'>Jeremiah</ent> once had a few words to say about the Principle of Nature
that provides for a superseding layer of Covenants replacing a previous layer
of Covenants that have fulfilled their purpose. While quoting Jesus Christ,
<ent type='PERSON'>Jeremiah</ent> said that:
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT
with <ent type='ORG'>the House</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>, and with <ent type='ORG'>the House</ent> of Judah; Not according to the
Covenant that I made with their fathers in that day [when] I took them by the
hand to bring them out of <ent type='GPE'>Egypt</ent>; which my Covenant they [broke], although I was
a husbandman to them; but this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the
<ent type='ORG'>House</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent>; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they
shall be my people."
-<ent type='ORG'>JEREMIAH</ent> 31:31 et seq. Here we are being told that the terms of
Covenants that were once structured for folks in another area are going to be
replaced with terms of a NEW COVENANT for us; indirectly referring to the
modifications made in the LAW OF MOSES relating to blood sacrifice rites that
were deemed unnecessary after the Crucifixion perfected that phase of
<ent type='ORG'>ATONEMENT</ent>. This passage in <ent type='ORG'>JEREMIAH</ent> does not talk about our own specific
individual First Estate Contracts being replaced with another layer of NEW
COVENANTS in this Second Estate, but the Principle that is being spoken here,
of an organic growth in Covenants by reason of superseding replacement, applies
to us all individually, just as <ent type='PERSON'>Jeremiah</ent> is telling us that it applies to the
<ent type='ORG'>House</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent> collectively. The operation of this Principle of Nature,
whether applied to us individually COVENANT BY SUCCESSIVE COVENANT or
collectively as a nation by a change in the terms of those COVENANTS EN <ent type='GPE'>MASSE</ent>,
is well known in Law and is called the MERGER DOCTRINE by <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> lawyers,
which I will discuss later. <ent type='PERSON'>Jeremiah</ent> was a marvelous fellow, and I will have
more to say about him personally near the end of this Letter.
=============================================================[124]</p>

<p>the status of a person being a Prophet or <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent> down here does not exalt them
or confer upon them any special entitlement, as everyone is exalted by reason
of their Covenants with Father, and their status as Prophets are actually an
administrative work assignment for them. [125]</p>

<p>[125]============================================================= Your ability
to be exalted is neither diminished nor exalted because you are not a Prophet
or an <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>.
"Here [we <ent type='PERSON'>Apostle</ent>s and Prophets are], who [like common Saints], are
destined to be exalted with the Gods, to become rulers in the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>doms of our
Father, to become equal with the Father and the Son..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the Bowery, Salt Lake
City, June 15, 1856; 3 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 354, at 360 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1856)].
=============================================================[125]</p>

<p>You don't need to be a Prophet, or raise people from the dead, or be endowed
with Celestial magic to snap your fingers and heal people of cancer, in order
to go forth and FILL THE MEASURE OF YOUR C<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>TION, but you do need to fulfill
difficult Contracts. [126]</p>

<p>[126]============================================================= "We are a
Covenant-making and a Covenant-taking people. We have the Gospel, which is the
NEW AND <ent type='ORG'>EVERLASTING</ent> COVENANT: NEW in that the Lord has revealed it anew in our
day; <ent type='ORG'>EVERLASTING</ent> in that its principles are eternal, have existed with God from
all eternity, and are the same unchangeable laws by which all men in all ages
may be Saved. The Gospel is the Covenant which God makes with his children here
on <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> that he will return them to His presence and give them Eternal Life,
if they will walk the paths of truth and righteousness while here. "We are the
children of the Covenant which God made with <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>, or father. To <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>,
God promised Salvation and Exaltation if he would walk as the Lord taught him
to walk. Further, the Lord Covenanted with <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent> that he would restore to
Abraham's seed the same laws and ordinances, in all their beauty and
perfection, which that ancient patriarch had received. 'For as many as receive
that Gospel,' the Lord said to him, 'shall be called after thy name, and shall
be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father.'
(<ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent> 2:10). "Now we have this same <ent type='ORG'>EVERLASTING</ent> COVENANT. We have the
restored Gospel, and every person who belongs to the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, who has passed
through the waters of Baptism, has had the inestimatable privilege of making a
personal Covenant with the Lord that will save him provided he does the things
he agrees to do when he enters into that Covenant with God."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Bruce</ent> R. McConkie in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["A Covenant People"], at
page 13 (October, 1950). "The Latter-day Saints are the people of God, a chosen
people, a royal priesthood, a covenant people, and a covenant-making people.
The greatest and most important blessings our <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father has for his
faithful sons and daughters are received by covenant."
-George F. <ent type='PERSON'>Richards</ent>, in CONFERENCE REPORTS, page 129 (April, 1945).
=============================================================[126]</p>

<p>...Which leads us to the conclusory observation regarding the overall wisdom of
ignoring the terms and conditions of contracts we sometimes improvidently get
ourselves into: That people who are well seasoned experientially realize that
although ignorance may very well be bliss in the dreamy ALICE IN WONDERLAND
emotional aura it psychologically creates, this line on Contract Law
Jurisprudence is exemplary as to why ignorance is also highly self-damaging in
the practical setting. [127]</p>

<p>[127]============================================================= "The first
objective of our existence is to know and understand the principles of life, to
know good from evil, to understand light from darkness, to have the ability to
choose between that which gives and perpetuates life and that which would take
it away. The volition of the creature to choose is free; we have this power
given to us."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, President of the Mormon <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, speaking in the Old
Tabernacle, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>, December 8, 1867; 12 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 111, at
111 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1869)].
=============================================================[127]</p>

<p>Yes, the benefits inuring to persons entering into and honoring Father's New
and Everlasting Covenant are so great that the judgment of folks trying to
search for ways to work around it (by either adapting Tort Law reasoning ["I
don't need me none of that -- it's all the same God"] or by adapting a posture
of avoiding responsibility through claims of factual ignorance), really looks
pathetic by comparison. [128]</p>

<p>[128]============================================================= "We can not
receive, while in the flesh, the keys [of Celestial Jurisdiction] to form and
fashion kingdoms and to organize matter, for they are beyond our [limited]
capacity and calling [down here], [they are] beyond this world. In the
resurrection, men who have been faithful and diligent in all things in the
flesh, [who] have kept their First and Second Estate, [will] be crowned Gods,
even the Sons of God, [and] will be ordained to organize matter [and then go
off and create and people their own planets]."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse delivered in <ent type='GPE'>Farmington</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Utah</ent>, August
24, 1872; 15 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 135, at 137 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1873)].
=============================================================[128]</p>

<p>And speaking of ignorance (and of staying in ignorance by choice): An
interesting secondary element surfaces in the Restraining Order and the
chronologically correlative criminal prosecution of <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent>. Not only did
<ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent> not honor his contracts with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, he did not even know of
their existence. [129]</p>

<p>[129]============================================================= A
necessarily difficult position to be in. However, since ignorance, whether real
or pretended, of the contract's existence does not vitiate one's liability,
then restraining one's self to remain within the contours of such intellectual
containment, in such a state of ignorance is self-damaging, and is to be
discouraged. And as for the Law of Contracts, whether known or unknown:
"A contract is an agreement in which a party undertakes to do, or not
to do, a particular thing. The law binds him to perform his undertaking, and
this is, of course, the obligation of the contract."
-STURGES VS. CROWNINSHIELD, 17 U.S. 122, at 197 (1819).
=============================================================[129]</p>

<p>This state of affairs of throwing criminal prosecutions against people who do
not even know of the evidentiary existence of a contract the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is operating
on, has been under consideration and review by the King's Agents in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>.
Staff members in <ent type='ORG'>the Treasury Department</ent> have been analyzing the possible
benefits and consequences to the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> if, in the justification of the Income
Tax, the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> were to shift over to a correct presentation of the Law, in the
context of proper and natural morality and ethics, based on a voluntary
attachment of <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction, and applicable only to a special class of
people. At the present time, the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> presentation of the Law, in explaining why
an Income Tax is to be paid, continuously shifts attention over to the 16th
Amendment, and kind of winds up by saying that:</p>

<p>"...well, we collect the tax from every one because the 16th Amendment
tells us we need to."</p>

<p>You may be surprised to hear this somewhat pleasant note, but there is internal
disagreement within <ent type='ORG'>the Treasury Department</ent> on the long term wisdom of such an
erroneous presentation of the Law. And both <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Irwin Schiff</ent> are
prime exemplary models to explain this interesting change in viewpoint now in
intellectual gestation within the senior administrative rank and file of the
King's own tax collectors. In <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> staff meetings ever since the early
1970's, there has been concern expressed regarding the growing <ent type='ORG'>Tax Resistance</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Movement</ent>, so called. [130]</p>

<p>[130]============================================================= "A growing
number of taxpayers are developing negative perceptions of the Federal Income
Tax. For example, surveys conducted by the ADVISORY COMMISSION ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS finds that <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s perceive the Federal Income
Tax as the worst tax imposed on them and the least fair. Further, tax evasion
appears on the rise -- paralleling the increase in negative perception."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Steven Kaplan</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Phillip Reckers</ent> in A STUDY OF TAX EVASION <ent type='ORG'>JUDGMENT</ent>S
in 38 <ent type='ORG'>National Tax Journal</ent> 97, at 97 (March, 1985); citing in turn the research
of <ent type='ORG'>Myers</ent> and Shannon in CHANGING PUBLIC ATTITUDES ON GOVERNMENT AND TAXES
[<ent type='ORG'>Advisory Commission</ent> on <ent type='ORG'>Intergovernmental Relations</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, D.C.
(1980-1983)].
=============================================================[130]</p>

<p>Senior staff members have known about this <ent type='ORG'>Movement</ent> well in advance, back to
the early 1950's, and it was very clear to them at that time in the 1950's what
we now are seeing all around us: Open and growing resistance and defiance to
the assertion of tax collection authority by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>. [131]</p>

<p>[131]============================================================= Sharp
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>men themselves knew of this impending state of defiance back in the
1800's, before the original version of our present Income Tax was created:
"The imposition of the [income] tax will corrupt the people. It will
bring in its train the spy and the informer. It will necessitate a swarm of
officials with inquisitorial powers. It will be a step towards
centralization... It breaks another canon of taxation in that it is expensive
in its collection [a condition since remedied by the clever use of
administrative contracts to force people into a taxable status they would not
otherwise be in]..."
-Representative <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Adams</ent>, speaking in opposition to the proposed
Income Tax Act of 1894, on the floor of <ent type='ORG'>the House</ent> of Representatives, January
26, 1894 [as quoted by <ent type='PERSON'>Frank Chodorov</ent> in THE INCOME TAX, page 63 (Devin-Adair,
1954)]. [But as usual in <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, cries and pleas for the continuance of the
quiescent STATUS QUO of the 1800's fell on deaf ears.]
=============================================================[131]</p>

<p>Back in the 1950's, statisticians in <ent type='ORG'>the Treasury Department</ent>, in their long
range (10, 20 and 30 year) revenue/budget projection plots, saw that the
combination of both inflation and the percentage progressive Income Tax would,
in just a few decades, be pushing just the average worker into highly
aggressive tax levels of up to 50%. [132]</p>

<p>[132]============================================================= Throughout
the years, numerous Hearings have been held and <ent type='ORG'>Bills</ent> introduced into the
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> proposing a FLAT RATE TAX, but they have never gotten anywhere. See
such Senate Hearing s in THE FLAT TAX RATE ["Hearings Before <ent type='ORG'>the Committee</ent> on
Finance of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States Senate"], 79th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, 2nd Session (September 28
and 19, 1982) [<ent type='ORG'>GPO</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> (1983)]. Many of the persons presenting evidence
in that Hearing expressed knowledge on the enscrewment orientation of
progressive taxation, through their own words. When such widely held knowledge
jells into something tangible in the corridors of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> is largely a
function of overcoming the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s who now control the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>.
=============================================================[132]</p>

<p>In the 1950's, those workers had then been paying just a small percentage.
[133]</p>

<p>[133]============================================================= As recently
as the early 1930's, a mere 5% was the maximum graduated federal income tax
due, but in time <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s changed that, by escalating taxing
percentage grabs to enscrewment levels more satisfactory to them. The schedule
was, at that time:
1-1/2% on the first $4000
3% on the next $4000
5% on the balance.
-WALL S<ent type='ORG'>TREE</ent>T <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent>, February 8, 1929 ["Income Tax in a Nutshell"],
page 4. =============================================================[133]</p>

<p>It was known at that time that there would be public concern of the growth from
those low taxation rates in practical effect then, to the substantially higher
tax rates expected in the future, and that this public concern would grow
increasingly with each passing year. [134]</p>

<p>[134]============================================================= This idea
has also been a dominate and recurring theme in research and literature in this
area of studying tax revolts. See generally:
-<ent type='PERSON'>Lee Sigelman</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> Lowery in THE TAX REVOLT: A COMPARATIVE STATE
ANALYSIS, 36 <ent type='NORP'>Western</ent> Political Science Quarterly, at 30 (March, 1983); This
paper explains eight different possible explanations of tax revolt success in
the 18 states where such revolts have surfaced as of 1983;
-<ent type='PERSON'>Geoffrey Brennan</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>James Buchanan</ent> in THE LOGIC OF TAX LIMITS:
ALTERNATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE POWER TO TAX, 32 National Tax
Journal, at 11 (1977);
-<ent type='PERSON'>James Buchanan</ent> in WHY DOES GOVERNMENT GROW (an article appearing in
BUDGETS AND BU<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>UCRATS, edited by Thomas Borcherding [<ent type='ORG'>Duke <ent type='ORG'>University</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent></ent>,
Durham, <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> Carolina (1977)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>James Buchanan</ent> in THE POTENTIAL FOR <ent type='ORG'>TAXPAYER</ent> REVOLT IN <ent type='ORG'>AMERICAN</ent>
DEMOCRACY, 59 Social Science Quarterly, at 691 (1979);
-<ent type='PERSON'>James Buchanan</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Richard Wagner</ent> in DEMOCRACY IN DEFICIT: THE
POLITICAL LEGACY OF LORD <ent type='PERSON'>KEYNES</ent> [<ent type='ORG'>Academic Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1977)].
=============================================================[134]</p>

<p>And it was expected that the thrust of the public concern that was out in the
open, would be of the basic legitimacy of the Income Tax itself, and that such
concern would have a strong current under it due to its percentage progressive
nature that would accelerate into such noticeable levels when inflation was
strong for several years in a row; so much so that even ordinarily blind,
disinterested, naive and politically benign people would then perk up and take
interest; and even businessmen would start to slough off, rather than give away
their hard earned income stream to termites. With the annual increment in
Inflation, the public's questioning of the general illegitimacy of the Income
Tax would be incremented with each passing year, as it was expected that the
public would notice that although greater taxes are being paid, no additional
benefits or commensurate services were being experienced or being returned by
the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> in one year to the next. This illegitimacy angle was expected to be a
"center of gravity" in the public's view, since the general public is unaware
of the ethical and moral basis of the Excise Income Tax, and of an attachment
of <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction involved (in other words, the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> can demand and get
anything from 0% to 100% in <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> and be morally correct, because your
participation with him in accepting his benefits in Commercial <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> is purely
voluntary, and so any amount of gain you acquired in King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> is gain
that you would not otherwise have). That attachment of King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent>
Jurisdiction always precedes the liability for the tax. And so it has been
expected for some time that <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States would one day experience the most
extreme and intolerable levels of income confiscation ever known to <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s:
Without any reciprocity by the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, without any apparent QUID PRO QUO [135]</p>

<p>[135]============================================================= The phrase
QUID PRO QUO means that there has been an exchange of "something for
something." It has a <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> origin to it, and is a term that appears in old
medieval <ent type='NORP'>English</ent> Crown cases I have read, and now carries on down to the
present time with <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent>. See IN RE LUEDER'S ESTATE, 164 F.2nd 128, at
135 (1947). =============================================================[135]</p>

<p>of incremental increase in benefits to be experienced from one year to the
next, and without any justification at all for the annual percentage
<ent type='ORG'>incrementation</ent> in tax extraction. These projection plots were not deemed to be
of very high priority at that time back in the 1950's, but the results and
findings were circulated among some administrative personnel and they
eventually made it over to two <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional committees.</p>

<p>Under <ent type='ORG'>the Treasury Department</ent>'s projection models and plots, it was predicted
that open defiance would come some day as such expected aggressive tax levels
are simply not bearable by average folks, previously quiescent, who would then
start to question the legitimacy of the tax itself. [136]</p>

<p>[136]============================================================= And other
top tax bureaucrats have repeated the warnings initially contained in that
<ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> Department report of the 1950's. At the close of the Johnson
Administration in 1969, Secretary of the <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> Joseph W. <ent type='PERSON'>Barr</ent> warned of a
growing resentment against higher taxes. [See the Foreword in THE INCOME TAX:
HOW PROGRESSIVE SHOULD IT BE? by The <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Enterprise Institute, featuring
cross discussions on the question of progressivity with Charles Galvin and
<ent type='PERSON'>Boris Bittker</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>AEI</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, 1969)].
=============================================================[136]</p>

<p>The catalytic effect of such aggressive tax levels would be the deprivation of
the ability of such average folks to provide minimum necessities for
themselves, such as housing and food. [137]</p>

<p>[137]============================================================= This is a
conclusion also reached by <ent type='ORG'>the Fund for Public Policy Research</ent>, in a report
entitled TAX CHANGES AND THE COMPOSITION OF FIXED INVESTMENT: AN AGGREGATE
SIMULATION by <ent type='PERSON'>Aaron</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Russek</ent>, and Singer. The study was conducted to inform the
Joint <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation as to the impact of
the Tax Reform Act of 1969 on investments in housing. [<ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, D.C.
(1969)]. Some of the data used in this report was obtained from the Federal
Reserve Board, who researches its own macro-economic taxation models
isochronously (ISOCHRONOUS means at regularly occurring intervals of time).
=============================================================[137]</p>

<p>One of the questions that was hypothetically addressed in the accompanying
report is the concern the <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> had of the general institutionalized
acceptance of "Tax Protesting" by the public. Like the widespread flaunting of
the assertion of the King's law during Prohibition, a little resistance and a
few flare-ups can be managed well in the early stages with some well publicized
spankings, [138]</p>

<p>[138]============================================================= "...there is
one way by which the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> could avoid almost all resource costs in
enforcing the tax code: <ent type='ORG'>Penalize</ent> only a few taxpayers, but with inordinately
high fines or other punishments. Given that taxpayers are risk adverse, such a
strategy has a minimal resource cost while serving as an effective deterrent to
tax evasion."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Jonathan Skinner</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Joel Slemrod</ent> in ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES ON TAX
EVASION, 38 <ent type='ORG'>National Tax Journal</ent> 345, at 346 (September, 1985). Notice why this
IN <ent type='ORG'>TERROREM</ent> method of collecting taxes would succeed: Because the <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s are
deemed to be milktoast RISK ADVERSE persons [meaning that unlike <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent>,
<ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s would rather pay than put up a good fight]. The authors then discuss
and cite in turn two books that discuss ways on how the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> can magnify
the important image of such tax spankings administered to potential tax evaders
in the public's eye; see:
-Thomas McCaleb in TAX EVASION AND THE DIFFERENTIAL TAXATION OF LABOR
AND CAPITAL INCOME, 31 Public Finance Magazine 287 (1976);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Nicholas Stern</ent> in ON THE ECONOMIC THEORY OF POLICY TOWARDS CRIME,
appearing in "Economic Models of Criminal Behavior" by <ent type='ORG'>Heineke</ent>, Editor [<ent type='PERSON'>North</ent>
<ent type='GPE'>Holland</ent> Publishing, <ent type='GPE'>Amsterdam</ent> (1978)].
=============================================================[138]</p>

<p>but a lot of resistance later on produces Jury Nullification, widespread
administrative non-cooperation, secondary disrespect for the Law in general, a
growing underground economy, as well as numerous other technical problems. In
the present discussions that are now going on in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, there is a
minority viewpoint being developed that suggests the possibility that it might
be worthwhile for <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States to consider exploring the feasibility of
heading off the impending blossoming Resistance by preventative means, and one
possible way to do that would be by having the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> justify the tax along
ethically specific and morally correct reasons, and on grounds harmonious with
Natural Law, involving citing just the <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> Clause, equity benefits and
contracts (bank accounts, direct beneficial interest, adhesion, equity,
employment, political, and state <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Personalities</ent>), and to emphasize that
only special individuals in these classes who want these special juristic
benefits have any liability at all for the King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> participation tax on
incomes. Such an officially sanctioned justification would strip away the veil
of illegitimacy that now permeates the Income Tax among many people, and would
show to all the immoral position of <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Irwin Schiff</ent>, as those two
were caught defiling themselves by dishonoring contracts they had with the
<ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>. The consequences of this reversal of <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> public justification would be
manifold:</p>

<p>1.First, it would discredit people like <ent type='PERSON'>Irwin Schiff</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent>,
who have propagated legally defective tax related information around the
countryside. Appearing on television and selling large numbers of books, these
people develop a cult following [if <ent type='ORG'>CULT</ent> is the word] and contribute to the
institutionalization of public acceptance of defying the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, and their cult
continues to grow even though the information they propagate is misleading and
technically defective, and will collapse in front of a Federal Judge.</p>

<p>2.Tax revenues would decrease a bit in the near term as some people
shift their Status around to avoid being a <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>; [139]</p>

<p>[139]============================================================= An
adjustment in status from <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> to non-<ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> is a behavioral modification
designed to experience relief from a taxation load; if invisible juristic
taxation contracts remain in effect after the transition in status adjustment
was believed to have been completed, then what could be the provident saving of
resources then degenerates into TAX EVASION. Tax evaders have been thoroughly
studied, examined, and restudied over and over again [for the fabulous amount
of money at stake in this <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> enrichment game, we really do not need
collaborating documentation on what is merely COMMON SENSE, but termites do].
For the behavioral aspects of tax evasion, see:
-M.W. Spicer in A BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF INCOME TAX EVASION [Doctorial
Dissertation, <ent type='GPE'>Ohio</ent> State <ent type='ORG'>University</ent> (1974)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Michael Allingham</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Agnew Sandow</ent> in INCOME TAX EVASION: A
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS, 1 Journal of Public Economics 323 (1972) [discusses the
utility maximizing behavior of <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s who are subject to detection and
penalties, as viewed this way, these twin researchers modelled the tax evader
as persons who thus DEMAND the level of evasion given the PRICES for evasion as
set by the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. In the context of constructing a supply and demand
model, these two authors concluded that the evading <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> takes in factual
information (like the structure, enforcement effect, and punishments specified
in the tax code) as GIVEN criteria the <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> cannot control, an then the
<ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> makes an assessment as to the most preferred dollar level that the tax
evasion is worth to him.]
-<ent type='PERSON'>Charles Clotfelter</ent> in TAX EVASION AND TAX RATES: AN ANALYSIS OF
INDIVIDUAL RETURNS in 65 Review of Economic and Statistics 363 (1983)
[discusses direct measure of tax compliance based on 1969 <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> data called TCMP
(<ent type='ORG'>Tax Compliance Measurement</ent> Program), to examine the sensitivity of tax
compliance to the marginal tax rate (that mouthful means that Charles
Clotfelter did some statistical work and determined on his own that the lower
tax rate a <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> is in, then the more compliance a <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> would give back
to the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> [which is only common sense]).];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Nathan Boidman</ent> in A SUMMARY OF WHAT CAN BE LEARNED FROM THE
EXPERIENCE OF OTHER COUNTRIES WITH INCOME TAX PROBLEMS, an article contained in
a publication called "Income Tax Compliance: A Report of the ABA Section of
Taxation Invitational Conference on Income Tax Compliance," at page 149
[<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Bar Association, <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> (1983)];
-Age, income, moral beliefs and other economic factors have been found
to influence the tax evasion question. see A. Lewis in AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT
OF TAX MENTALITY in Public Forum Magazine, page 245 (1979); and Y.D. Song and
T.E. Yarbough in TAX <ent type='ORG'>ETHICS</ent> AND TAXPAYER'S ATTITUDES in Public Administration
Review Magazine, page 442 (1978);
-Based on sample data containing these five main demographic variables
suggestive of tax evaders: Age, Income by Category, Belief that tax evasion is
morally wrong, belief that <ent type='ORG'>the Federal Income Tax</ent> is fair, and economic
factors, researcher A. Lewis generates a pretty accurate larger estimate of the
percentage of non-complying <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s who exhibit tax evasion behavior, by
multiplying his sample data to the known entire national population that
conforms to each variable classification [see A. Lewis in THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
TAXATION [<ent type='ORG'>Saint Martin</ent>'s <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1982)].
=============================================================[139]</p>

<p>3.Tax revenues would increase a bit as the immoral and unethical
position of Tax Protestors is frowned on, rather than cheered on by courtroom
supporters; and the resentment against paying a high percentage tax would
cease; [140]</p>

<p>[140]============================================================= When Tax
Protestors are parties to invisible juristic contracts, they are in fact tax
evaders, because they do in fact owe the tax, regardless of their political
philosophy justification sounding in the Tort of unfairness [even though many
Protestors do not want to admit it]. In Nature, whenever contracts are in
effect when a grievance is up for settlement, then the contract comes first,
and Tort arguments of unfairness come second; and nothing will change at the
Last Day. The economic perspective on tax evasion [meaning the effect of tax
evasion on tax receipts] has been frequently commented upon. For recent
technical examples see:
-Vidar <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent>son in TWO COMMENTS ON TAX EVASION, 13 Journal of
Public Economics 389 (1980);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Jonathan Skinner</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Joel Slemrod</ent> in ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES ON TAX
EVASION, 38 <ent type='ORG'>National Tax Journal</ent> 345 (September, 1985); discusses horizontal
fairness [HORIZONTAL means analyzed among <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s of equal income] with
vertical fairness [VERTICAL means analyzed among <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s of different
income], in an on-going practice of tax evasion:
"Public Policy towards tax evasion reflects complex and often competing
goals of collecting taxes efficiently and treating <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s equitably. Since
<ent type='PERSON'>Adam Smith</ent>, economists have been aware of the conflict between the
comprehensive collection of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> revenue and the costly and unfair or
"odious" method necessary to enforce these comprehensive collection rules."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Skinner</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Slemrod</ent>, id., at 345
That reference to <ent type='PERSON'>Adam Smith</ent> is:
"A major source of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> revenue in <ent type='PERSON'>Adam Smith</ent>'s day was duties,
which 'by subjecting at least the dealers in the taxed commodities to the
frequent visits and odious examination of the tax gatherers, expose them
sometimes, no doubt to some degree of oppression; and always to trouble and
vexation; and although vexation... is not strictly speaking expense, it is
certainly equivalent to the experience at which every man would be willing to
redeem from it'."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Adam Smith</ent> in II WEALTH OF NATIONS, at 430 [<ent type='ORG'>University</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> (1976)]. As can been seen from the days of <ent type='PERSON'>Adam Smith</ent>, tax
collection is very much a continuing source of frictional confrontation between
the Crown and the Countryside, and under such an inherently tortional factual
setting, tax evasion will remain alive. Even though there is nothing immoral or
improper about the use of implied invisible contracts by <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent>
to raise revenue, tax evasion will so remain on the scene until such time as
<ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent> are barred from raising revenue under these implied
contracts [as I will discuss later] (IMPLIED meaning invisible mass contracts
that are not individually negotiated with each Person); so Juristic
Institutions would then be required to rely on either express negotiated
contracts (meaning contracts negotiated with every Person individually), or
restricting the manipulative use of implied contracts to only those factual
settings where special optional benefits are being offered. In both instances,
you can forget about either of these contractual restrainments ever surfacing
in Constitutions.
=============================================================[140]</p>

<p>4.The underground economy, so called, would partially disappear, as
black markets in any commodity can only exist to escape the forced intervention
of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> that creates unnatural pricing. [141]</p>

<p>[141]============================================================= Concern for
the so called UNDERGROUND ECONOMY has been a recurring theme within the
corridors of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. By calling it the UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, the King's
Agents are trying to color an illicit and tainted image in such activities; but
the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is in no position to do so.
[Later I will talk about the use of guns, literally, by <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> agents
in the 1800's, to seal up a national monopoly on circulating Currency; in the
old days, private mints and businesses freely issued out their own circulating
coins and script, and so back then there was a real question as to whether or
not common folks were involved with what is called <ent type='ORG'>INTERSTATE COMMERCE</ent>; but
today everyone is automatically "in" this invisible <ent type='ORG'>INTERSTATE COMMERCE</ent> by the
use and recirculation of <ent type='ORG'>Federal Reserve</ent> Notes, because the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> once used his
guns and bouncers to accomplish by hard physical duress what natural
competitive economic attraction and good common sense could not bring about: A
tight national <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> monopoly on circulating Currency instruments,
enforced by penal statutes. Should we be surprised that today, the King's
Agents are now trying to twist things around enough so that those same common
folks who simply do not want to use the King's money are now colored as being
illicit participants in that vile, illegitimate "Underground Economy" -- but in
fact the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> should be the VERY LAST ONE to talk about what is illicit, vile,
tainted, and unsavory[]. For recent recurring <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> concerns echoed on
that heinous and obscene UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, see:
1.The <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional testimony of <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> Commissioner <ent type='PERSON'>Jerome Kurtz</ent>, and
two <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> termites <ent type='PERSON'>Richard Fogel</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Mason</ent> in Hearings entitled
SUBTERRANEAN OR UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, held by <ent type='ORG'>the Subcommittee</ent> on <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>,
Consumers, and <ent type='ORG'>Monetary Affairs</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the Committee</ent> on <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>al Operation;
<ent type='ORG'>House</ent> of Representatives, 96th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, First Session (September, 1979).
2.The <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional testimony of Commissioner <ent type='PERSON'>Roscoe Egger</ent> and termite
<ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> Glickman (Deputy Assistant <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> Secretary for Tax Policy) in
DISCLOSURE OF <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> INFORMATION TO ASSIST WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW,
Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>, Senate Finance Committee, 97th
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, First Session (November, 1981); Committee Serial No. 97-58.
Commission <ent type='PERSON'>Egger</ent> starts letting the UNDERGROUND ECONOMY have it at page 63.
3.See also <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional Hearings entitled THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY,
held by <ent type='ORG'>the Subcommittee</ent> on Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> of
Representatives, 96th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, First Session, Serial No. 96-70 (July,
September, October, 1979). Various different mathematical models have been
developed on the UNDERGROUND ECONOMY. One method developed initially in the
<ent type='GPE'>United</ent> States involves the use of making inferences about the underground
economy on the basis of changes in money holdings over a period of time; see:
-P.M. Guttman in THE SUBTERRANEAN ECONOMY, 33 Financial Analysts
Journal 26 (November/December, 1979);
-E.L. Feige in HOW BIG IS THE IRREGULAR ECONOMY?, 5 CHALLENGE 22
MAGAZINE, at page 5 (1979);
-B.S. Frey and W.W. Pommerehne in an article entitled MEASURING THE
HIDDEN ECONOMY: THOUGH THIS IS MADNESS, THERE IS METHOD IN IT, appears in a
book called THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD, edited by
<ent type='PERSON'>Vito Tanzi</ent> [<ent type='ORG'>Lexington Books</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Toronto</ent> (1983)]. A <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> researcher developed an
UNDERGROUND ECONOMY model using differences between estimates of reported
income on tax returns and other estimates of income based on household and
industrial surveys of spending as an indicator of the percentage slice of the
economy going underground [see K. MacAfee in A GLIMPSE OF THE HIDDEN ECONOMY,
316 Economic Trends Magazine, at 81 (February, 1980)]. Another researcher based
in <ent type='GPE'>Italy</ent> used data from the relative level of public participation in what is
called the OFFICIAL LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE to arrive at his conclusions as to
the number and magnitude of which <ent type='NORP'>Italians</ent> are declining their Government's
invitation to deprive themselves of daily necessities so their <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> can
engage in conquests [see B. Contini in an article entitled THE SECOND ECONOMY
OF ITALY, in <ent type='PERSON'>Vito Tanzi</ent>'s UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, id. Here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> Stats,
one of the ways <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> researchers probe for areas of "illicit"
subterranean activity is to examine what each <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> spends per year for food
and other retail purchases, and then figure up a national per person average.
Based on that information, a reasonable figure can be estimated that each
typical <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> would spend each year on, for example, food. Then checking
each city in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States against that national average, they look for
food stores that are selling food to a known population area at a rate far in
excess of the national per person average -- then obviously there are more
people in that city than official census tracts are reporting. One such
representative metropolitan area of a city swirling in such an illicit vortex
of unreported income and officially nonexistent people, not surprisingly, is
<ent type='GPE'>Las Vegas</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Nevada</ent>.
=============================================================[141]</p>

<p>(<ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> planners who have reasoned that the underground economy will
disappear altogether with their planned cashless society, with all financial
transactions reported to the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>, are in error);</p>

<p>5.Tax revenues would increase in the long run, as most of those folks
who suddenly got rid of their bank accounts and other attachments of King's
<ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> to save money found out that the loss of income, benefits, cutoff from
<ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, deprivation of mortgage and loan availability, and other adverse
secondary effects just wasn't worth it. This is now happening on a small scale
with some commercially oriented enterprising type <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> [142]</p>

<p>[142]============================================================= I feel
uncomfortable with the use of the word <ent type='ORG'>PATRIOT</ent>, but it does describe a
characteristic worthy of admiration, even though the majority of <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> I
will be referring to in this letter have been engaged in highly immoral
activity, by dishonoring invisible contracts they have no knowledge of.
=============================================================[142]</p>

<p>who are re-entering the highways of <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> and signing up with the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> again
(but this time under careful circumstances). [143]</p>

<p>[143]============================================================= A <ent type='NORP'>British</ent>
researcher argues that the hard suppression of tax evasion by the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is
actually self-defeating, since such a characteristically GESTAPO suppression of
evaders produces the secondary effect of reducing aggregate tax receipts by
having discouraged economic activity; which if, in contrast, would have
surpassed those taxes that were evaded [see B. Bracewell-Milnes in THE FISC AND
THE FUGITIVE: EXPLOITING THE QUARRY appearing in "The State of Taxation," The
Institute of Economic Affairs, <ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1977)]. Many other parallels exist all
throughout the very wide ranging field of interpersonal relations that suggest
that the relaxed quiescent atmosphere generated by nice guys always yields the
most fruit; but <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s believe that they are on an important
mission and that terror is an important accessory instrument available to help
them accomplish their objectives, and so nice guys are in their way, and
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s have no room for people that are in their way.
=============================================================[143]</p>

<p>6.Near term revenues would increase as <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s who now view the tax
as either wrong, immoral, or illegitimate and then claim excessive deductions
would be hesitant to do so when the moral position is shifted around and now
it's their failure to pay their full share that is a serious act of
self-defilement on their part. [144]</p>

<p>[144]============================================================= But the
realization will never be universal:
"The problem [of both tax avoidance and evasion] is an ancient one. The
natural desire of the <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> to pay as small a tax as possible is doubtless as
old as taxation. It would be difficult, indeed, to devise a system of taxation
under which it would not rear its head. In this day of manifold <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>al
activities with the consequent need for constant and fixed revenues, it is of
paramount importance that the revenue laws be so drawn and so administered that
the taxes imposed do not depend for their collection upon the whim, caprice, or
astuteness of <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s and their counsels. An added consideration is the
equitable rights of <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s themselves. It is of abiding importance to
<ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s as a class that each <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent> pay his proportion of the tax burden,
that each <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent> share the cost of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> in accordance with his ability
to pay. Hence, in combating both evasion and avoidance, the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is
protecting itself and the equitable rights of all <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s. The problem is one
in which small <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s, in particular, have a very definite interest. John
Doe has a taxable net income of one thousand dollars. Generally, <ent type='PERSON'>John Doe</ent> pays
his tax thereon. If he tries to avoid he usually evades, because he is unable
to employ skilled advisors, and many of the methods by which he might avoid are
not available to him. On the other hand, <ent type='PERSON'>Henry Doe</ent> has a taxable net income of
three thousand dollars. He has skilled accountants and advisors to reduce this
net income and thereby minimize his tax liability. His business and investments
are, generally, of such a nature as to render available to him many tax saving
schemes. Hence, the ability to pay frequently carries with it the ability to
avoid. After all, tax avoidance cannot be had at the dollar book counter."
-Lucious <ent type='PERSON'>Buck</ent> in INCOME TAX EVASION AND AVOIDANCE: SOME GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS, 26 Georgetown Law Review 863, at 863 (1937).
=============================================================[144]</p>

<p>It is the opinion of staff members that although this is an interesting model
to consider, its revenue generating strength for the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> lies in the
correction of wholesale public perception of the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> being wrong and working
immoral acts on the countryside. Since a majority of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s still do not
perceive of things being this way at the present time, this revenue enhancement
and <ent type='ORG'>Tax Resistance</ent> termination model is best kept on the back shelf, for a
while. [145]</p>

<p>[145]============================================================= At the
present time, while a majority of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s still do not perceive of things as
being structurally wrong, however, there are many other folks who do possess
inclinations of irritation:
"In an era of heavy taxation, many taxpayers, not merely "tax
protestors," feel intense irritation at the federal tax authorities..."
-CAMERON VS. I.R.S., 773 F.2nd 126, at 129 (1985).
=============================================================[145]</p>

<p>The value in this story is the knowledge that the King's <ent type='ORG'>Tax Collectors</ent> in
<ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> are not the intellectually lethargic and dim-witted bureaucrats some
people make them out to be. [146]</p>

<p>[146]============================================================= Tax
bureaucrats conduct extensive continuous statistical research on various
different methodologies of conducting the best CRACKING that can be had for the
tax collection dollar spent. Based on technical information derived from
sources within the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>, researcher <ent type='PERSON'>Ann Witte</ent>, et al., developed an economic
model of tax compliance by <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s. She came to the same conclusions that <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>
statistical termites had already arrived at long ago:
1.That the decline in tax audit rates during the 1970's may have
accounted for a substantial portion of the decline in compliance during that
period.
2.That increases in probability of tax audit and such things as
information reporting and tax withholding are likely devices to increase tax
code compliance [not very difficult to figure out, but bureaucrats need to have
it all handed to them].
3.That increases in moral ambivalence towards tax compliance will
increase tax non-compliance [not very difficult to figure out]. The <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> divides
<ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s into different strata of audit classes since it believes that
compliance behavior differs significantly on the basis of level and type of
income. <ent type='PERSON'>Ann Witte</ent> constructed a statistical analysis for homogeneity of
coefficients across the seven audit classes that her sources in the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> would
admit existed; she used LEAST SQUARES and a generalization of the CHOW TEST as
statistical tools to come to a conclusion. That yes, <ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s situated within
the seven different strata of audit classes developed by professional termites
in the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> do in fact exhibit an amazingly similar <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> VIVENDI to other
<ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s in the same class [<ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> VIVENDI means mode of living in the sense
that it is a temporary arrangement pending settlement of some grievance]. Yes,
those termites are quite proficient unknowing <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> instrumentalities at
their juristic tasks of eating out our substance [see <ent type='PERSON'>Ann Witte</ent> in THE EFFECT
OF TAX LAW AND TAX ADMINISTRATION ON TAX COMPLIANCE; THE CASE OF THE UNITED
STATES INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX, 38 <ent type='ORG'>National Tax Journal</ent> 1 (March, 1985)].
=============================================================[146]</p>

<p>They are constantly polling public opinion and testing for factual knowledge,
to see what they can get away with. [147]</p>

<p>[147]============================================================= The
assessments and <ent type='ORG'>JUDGMENT</ent> CALLS that our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> goes through in determining how
much money should stay on the farm, what minimum amount is needed by the farmer
for survival, and then how much should be turned over to the State for his own
Royal purposes, is the same <ent type='ORG'>JUDGMENT</ent> CALL that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s nestled in Juristic
Institutions made world wide:
"We were back to food requisitioning, only now it was called a tax.
Then there was something called 'overfilling the quota.' What did that mean?
It meant that a <ent type='ORG'>Party</ent> secretary would go to a collective farm and determine how
much grain the collective farmers would need for their own purposes and how
much [grain] they had to turn over the State. Often, not even the local <ent type='ORG'>Party</ent>
committee would determine procurements; the State itself would set a quota for
the whole district. As a result, all too frequently, the peasants would have to
turn everything over they produced -- literally everything! Naturally, since
they received no compensation whatsoever for their work, they lost interest in
the collective farm and concentrated instead on their private plots to feed
their families."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Nikita Khrushchev</ent> in his memoirs KHRUSHCHEV REMEMBERS: THE LAST
TESTAMENT, page 108 [Little Brown, <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> (1974); translated by Strobe
Talbott]. The reason why <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s world wide are continually confronted with
the same nagging taxation question over and over again, is because they are
dealing with DIRECT taxes operating largely on <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>ship Contracts, and so
there is inherently always going to be tension, friction, and confrontations,
as DIRECT TAXES by their nature require strict administrative compliance, which
is fundamentally out of harmony with the HAPPY GO LUCKY nonchalant ambivalence
many folks manifest. And there will also be correlative factual assessments
being made by <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> as to just what the permissible levels of tolerable
enscrewment are, that can be sustained by the peasantry before EN <ent type='GPE'>MASSE</ent>
rejection gets out of hand. By the nature of DIRECT taxes, for the reciprocal
compensation demanded, there never is any relationship to juristic benefits
offered, nor any relationship between income extracted from people and
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>al needs -- and so what we are left with is just an extraction
formula designed to maximize Crown enrichment.
=============================================================[147]</p>

<p>They are brilliant and they know exactly what they are doing at all times.
[148]</p>

<p>[148]============================================================= And they
also know exactly what they are doing when the go around the countryside
looking for some Tax Protesting giblets to crack:
"SENATOR SMOOTHERS: I have been concerned, Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Alexander</ent>, [Director of
the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> in the mid 1970's], and the committee has received information
regarding how the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> deals with its enemies, if you will, particularly the tax
protestor groups. We have information indicating that there has been an effort
made to infiltrate these groups, if you will, primarily based on their anti-<ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>
activities, including such things as [their] efforts at physical destruction
[in] your [<ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> offices and the filing of reams of blank returns. Is it your
view that <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> investigators should be used in this capacity, or is this a
matter better handled by other investigative agencies, like the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>?
"MR. <ent type='ORG'>ALEXANDER</ent>: Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Smoothers</ent>, there have been instances where the use
of the techniques that you described would be necessary. Those instances are
few indeed. I think that the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> has a responsibility to see to it that those
who attempt to defeat tax administration and tax enforcement do not succeed.
And, accordingly, as to tax resisters, we have an interest, and shall, I think,
maintain an interest in making their efforts fail. But we also have a duty in
the fulfillment of this limited goal to live up to constitutional principles
and the law, because we cannot enforce the law properly by violating the law [a
lie, but a CRACKER is not about to tell the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> anything else]. ...Tax
protestors are indirectly related to tax administration, in that those who
preach resistance to tax laws are likely to practice resistance as well."
-HEARINGS TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION, 94th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, First Session, Volume 3 ["Internal
Revenue Service"], page 7; <ent type='GPE'>United</ent> States Senate (October 2, 1975). A <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>
once had a few words to say about EXECUTIVE POWER, such as that power wielded
by Presidents and his administrative assistants:
"Executive power combines policy-making with the direction of policy
execution. It is this combination that endows the executive organ in the
governmental structure with its crucial functional importance and vests it, or
rather the persons who symbolize or control it, with the mystique normally
surrounding a head of State or a monarch. In the minds of the people, a
president, a king, or even a premier... plays the role of leader, much in the
tradition of the family head, the village elder, or the tribal chief.
"Through the ages, society has depended on the chief executives for a
sense of direction, and they have stood at the apex of the social and political
hierarchy whenever necessity has forced men to band together. Executive power
may, in fact, be the oldest and the most necessary social institution in the
world. It has taken many forms, has been established through diverse channels
ranging from birth to purposely perpetrated death, and has been invested with
different ranges of authority at various places and times and in response to
varying requirements...
"The [bureaucratic] executive... is relatively unhindered in the
exercise of [this] power... Formal restraints, such as legal injunctions, are
also either absent or circumvented, while informal restraints [such as the
press] are somewhat more elastic in the assertion of their claims against the
executive."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Zbigniew Brzezinski</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>IDEOLOGY</ent> AND POWER IN <ent type='NORP'>SOVIET</ent> POLITICS, at 13
[<ent type='PERSON'>Fredrick Praeger</ent> Publisher, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1962)]. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s know that folks will go
right ahead and improvidently place an aura of mystique about the nominees they
sponsor into visible executive positions in <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent>, such as
Presidents and Members of his <ent type='ORG'>Cabinet</ent> -- while the real action [the level where
the bureaucracy is interfacing with the public, the level where damages are
being created), is taking place at a lower level -- an invisible bureaucratic
level. And <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s are also cognizant of the fact that formal legal
restraints, such as those residing in the Constitution, are in fact
circumvented, as Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Alexander</ent> admitted; and third parties the public seems to
trust, like the <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, are noted for their acquiescence of mischief through
their silence. Always remember that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s merely take advantage of what is
handed to them, and will back off when the knife encounters a bone instead of
more flesh; this is a Principle pronounced over and over again in
ecclesiastical settings, as <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> is identified as a clever adversary
specializing in taking prime advantages of weaknesses. <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> assigning a
degree of trust in the Constitutional compliance inclinations of lower strata
bureaucratic underlings, by virtue of the stature possessed by a President
sponsored by <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, are in error; as <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> Brzezinski pointed out, when
the house is under <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> management, such as <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States is today, the
policy maker is largely aloof from the administrative termite.
=============================================================[148]</p>

<p>So too, the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent> knows exactly what it is doing, just like the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>. And its
present policy of justifying the tax based on a phony hybrid composite blend of
top-down universal Civil Law and 16th Amendment grounds is in place for just
one reason: Because at the present time it is to the King's financial advantage
to do so, due to baneful public <ent type='ORG'>IGNORANTIA</ent> JURIS. (But remember the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>
propagates this erroneous justification because of the institutionalized
political banality of most <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s. Reverse the banality and the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> will
very likely reverse himself). I have a hunch that the King's reversal will be
virtually automatic when the time is right. He closely monitors public opinion,
and he is careful in his public pronouncements. [149]</p>

<p>[149]============================================================= It is my
hunch that a contributing inducement element to the King's deceptive deflection
of the justification for the Income Tax, away from our Father's Common Law on
Contracts and towards the phony 16th Amendment, is likely to also indicate the
presence of a morbid intellectual disorder within the King's Senior Tax
Collectors in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>: A disorder of deception. Consider the composite
conclusions that the psychological fantasy lie, of which Senior <ent type='ORG'>Tax Collectors</ent>
manifest with the deception, is a sign of intellectual morbidity when strongly
developed, and additionally, is a symptom of severe pathology [see Helene
Deustch and <ent type='PERSON'>Paul Roazen</ent>, ON THE PATHOLOGICAL LIE, in <ent type='ORG'>the Journal</ent> of the
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Academy of Psychoanalysis, July, 1982, pages 369 to 386]. Another
article which explores the clinical need for the operant reconditioning of lie
therapies to correct structural deception disorders in the <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI of
people is by <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Langs</ent>, [writing in the INTERNATIONAL <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF
<ent type='ORG'>PSYCHOANALYTIC</ent> <ent type='ORG'>PSYCHOTHERAPY</ent>, at pages 3 to 341 (1980-1981)], where he
discusses psychotherapeutic treatment modalities on the treatment of deception
disorders, especially psychoanalysis and psychoanalytically oriented
psychotherapy. Boy, that sounds like just the right medicine for the King's
Senior <ent type='ORG'>Tax Collectors</ent>.
=============================================================[149]</p>

<p>So all factors considered, it is unlikely that the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> would not switch public
tax justification positions where it is to his own self-enrichment financial
advantage to do so. [150]</p>

<p>[150]============================================================= <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
Jurisprudence, like Nature and society, is stratified into different statuses.
And people and objects situated within those different strata (statuses) have
different rights, motivations, and objectives. I am not convinced that there
are not other secondary elements coming into focus when coming to grips with
this psychological analysis of the King's <ent type='ORG'>Tax Collectors</ent> and their deception
regarding the legal validity and general tax relevancy of the 16th Amendment.
For an interesting discussion on the intricacies of deviant behavior manifested
in people by virtue of the elevated status they hold, see SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR by <ent type='PERSON'>John Hewitt</ent> [published by <ent type='ORG'>Random House</ent> (1970)]. Mr.
<ent type='PERSON'>Hewitt</ent> talks about the empirical connections between deviancy in <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI
and self-perceived elevated status, when he discusses the "<ent type='ORG'>Analytical Models</ent> of
Social Stratification and Deviant Behavior."
=============================================================[150]</p>

<p>Just as there is deception and lies in the conveyance justification being
offered to <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s for an unreasonably sized chunk of their wealth, month in
and month out, year in and year out without any let up in sight, so too was the
Income Tax justified on fraudulent terms by <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>men who, just like the
King's Senior <ent type='ORG'>Tax Collectors</ent> today, had a pure and perfect picture of their
MAGNUM Torts of deception and lies. Yes, if you were to believe <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>men
trying to push the 1913 INCOME TAX ACT through <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, the world was simply
crying out, insisting, and even strongly demanding that they be taxed, fleeced,
and thoroughly looted. [151]</p>

<p>[151]============================================================= "During
recent years there has been a general agitation and demand in almost every
state in the union and in almost every country in the world for intelligent,
fair, and practical reforms and readjustments of their tax systems to the end
that every citizen may be required to contribute to the wants of the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>
in proportion to the revenue he enjoys under its protection. To this end the
doctrine of equality of sacrifice or ability to pay is being universally
invoked."
-Representative <ent type='PERSON'>George Hull</ent>, on the floor of <ent type='ORG'>the House</ent> of
Representatives in 1913; as quoted by <ent type='PERSON'>Thomas Lyons</ent> in INCOME TAXES ["Modern
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Law Lecture"], page 14 (<ent type='ORG'>The Blackstone Institute</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent>, 1920).
=============================================================[151]</p>

<p>But if that statement from <ent type='PERSON'>George Hull</ent> is not enough to turn your stomach, then
perhaps some other previous statements, emanating from the floor of the
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in support of <ent type='ORG'>the WILSON TARIFF ACT</ent> OF 1894 [which contained an Income
Tax rider (the Income Tax bill would not pass the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> by itself)], which
present a flowery wonderland promised to us all, if only we were just taxed
more heavily, just damaged more intensely, and deprived of just more wealth
through one more turn of the screws, is just strong enough to make someone
choke. [152]</p>

<p>[152]============================================================= Speaking of
the Income Tax provision of <ent type='ORG'>the WILSON TARIFF</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>BILL</ent>, a <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>man once had a
few flowery words to say:
"The passage of the [<ent type='PERSON'>Wilson</ent>] bill will mark the dawn of a brighter day,
with more sunshine, more of the songs of birds, more of that sweetest music,
the laughter of children, well fed, well clothed, well housed. Can we doubt
that in the bright, happier days to come, good, even-handed Democracy shall be
triumphant? God hasten the era of equality in taxation and in opportunity. And
God prosper the <ent type='PERSON'>Wilson</ent> bill, first leaf in the book of reform in taxation, the
promise of a brightening future for those whose genius and labor create the
wealth of the land, and whose courage and patriotism are the only sure bulwark
and defense of the Republic."
-Representative <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> DeArmond, of <ent type='GPE'>Missouri</ent> (1894); [as quoted by
<ent type='PERSON'>Frank Chodorov</ent> in THE INCOME TAX, page 41 (Devin-Adair, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> 1954)]. Always
remember that <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> DeArmond was sent to <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> from country folks in
<ent type='GPE'>Missouri</ent> -- ordinary <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>s just like us all, so to a large extent, he merely
replicated the indifferent will of his Constituents who actually admired a man
of his pathetic calibre; so before snickering at the clever <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent>, we
need to realize that we did this to ourselves. Although it is popular to
snicker at <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>men, <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>men reflect somewhat fairly the judgment
calibre of their Constituents, and so now the correct remedy lies not by
slothing off responsibility by pointing to someone else and blaming them, and
not by the selective political criticism of the world's <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s (exemplary of
<ent type='ORG'>Birchers</ent> and LaRouchies), but rather by a national internal self-examination
that originates, like everything else, individually:
"When politicians discover that the people will turn out in mass to the
primaries, their hope of controlling delegates in their own interest will
disappear; and whenever political conventions discover that the people will
carefully discriminate in the selection of officers, choosing only those who
live within the Law and who are pledged to support it -- those whose lives and
characters are above reproach -- then will political parties fear to put up for
election men who are unworthy. If the people will only exercise their
privileges as <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>s, they will find in their own hands the power to
correct our present evils."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Melvin</ent> J. Ballard in IMPROVEMENT ERA ["<ent type='ORG'>The Political Responsibility</ent>
of Latter-day Saints"], at 464 [Desert Book, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent> (1954)].
=============================================================[152]</p>

<p>The King's policy of keeping the ratio between the Income Tax bracket and the
percentage tax demanded where it is, is because it lies just below the
threshold toleration level, although not precisely so. The King's Agents are
constantly surveying us folks out here in the countryside to see how many of us
are in what tax bracket, so the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> can reassess how much more tax
confiscation can be extracted from us without an unmanageable revolt. [153]</p>

<p>[153]============================================================= A <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>
once made a Statement that is a good representation as to how <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s think in
taxation areas:
"The problem of the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is to fix rates which will bring in a
maximum amount of revenue to the <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> and at the same time bear not too
heavily on the taxpayer or on business enterprises. A sound tax policy must
take into consideration three factors. It must produce sufficient revenue for
the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>; it must lessen, so far as possible, the burden of taxation on
those least able to bear it; and it must also remove those influences which
might retard the continued steady development of business and industry on
which, in the last analysis, so much of our prosperity depends."
-<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> Andrew Mellon in TAXATION: <ent type='ORG'>THE PEOPLE</ent>'S BUSINESS, at 9
[MacMillian Company, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1924)]. Notice what is important to <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s:
Maximum revenue generation for the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>; and maximum taxation from the
public that can be tolerated, individually and commercially. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s do not
concern themselves with such pesky little nuisance questions as to whether the
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> really has any good cause to spend the money on in the first place;
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s do not concern themselves with the correlative damages experienced by
folks as important resources are preemptively grabbed from them resulting in a
deprivation of minimal material needs to support a family. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s do not want
you and I to have prosperity, they want the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> to have the prosperity,
so that once <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> has got the money, then they can spend it.
=============================================================[153]</p>

<p>It is the possible likelihood that this threshold toleration level would be
overpassed and broken that concerns certain senior bureaucrats in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>,
who are wise to the practical secondary consequences such a passing of the
threshold limit would create. The meaning of this concern is perhaps best
understood by the 1979 analogy of the oil pricing decisions made by Saudi
Arabia's Oil Minister, <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Sheik</ent> Admed <ent type='PERSON'>Yamani</ent></ent>. The Sheik's adamant refusal to raise
Saudi crude oil prices above the $40 per barrel limit in the face of such rare
and unusually strong world wide petroleum demand puzzled many observers. [154]</p>

<p>[154]============================================================= Saudi Arabia
accomplished its objective of restraining other oil producers by increasing
their oil production to maximum capacity, while refusing to raise its own
price. See numerous articles in the WALL S<ent type='ORG'>TREE</ent>T <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> discussing the Saudi
<ent type='NORP'>Arabian</ent> crude oil pricing freeze while maximizing their own oil production to
physical limits:
-July 3, 1979 ["Saudi Arabia Is Said To Plan An Increase In Its Oil
Production"], page 3;
-July 10, 1979 ["President Confirms Saudi Move To Boost Oil Output
Sharply"], page 2 ("...Saudi production should have a moderating influence on
world oil prices...", id., at page 2);
-September 27, 1979 ["Saudis Allowing Higher Oil Level To Remain In
'79"], page 3;
-November 29, 1979 ["Collection of Confusions" poorly written
Editorial], page 2 (Saudi perspective on oil pricing);
-December 6, 1979 ["Saudi Arabia Probably Couldn't Bail Out Oil
Consumers If Output In <ent type='GPE'>Iran</ent> Collapsed"], page 2 (Saudi at maximum oil
capacity);
-December 13, 1979 ["Saudi Arabia Oil-Producing Capacity Is Up To
Almost 11 Million <ent type='PERSON'>Barr</ent>els a Day"], page 3;
-October 27, 1980 ["How Energy Boss Met Secretly With <ent type='PERSON'>Yamani</ent> On
Untimely Oil Deal"], page 1 (Saudi oil output raised, id., at page 23).
=============================================================[154]</p>

<p>From the viewpoint of some folks, the <ent type='PERSON'>Sheik</ent> was passing up on a golden
opportunity to cream in some extra bucks while the oil boom lasted across those
several months. To other observers of the passing scene, the <ent type='PERSON'>Sheik</ent> was a friend
of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, and was just a good, kind, caring, public welfare
oriented person who simply had the world's best interests in his heart as he
refused to raise prices any higher. But the real reason why <ent type='PERSON'>Sheik</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Yamani</ent> was
trying to keep the oil prices artificially low is the same reason why the
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> has fixed the Income Bracket/Percentage Tax ratios for the Income Tax
at their present levels: Because raising oil prices to levels above a threshold
toleration level then equal to higher priced alcohol would cause the universal
shift to alcohol and other non-crude oil based substitutes, and so oil would
then not be purchased at all in the future; just like more aggressive Income
Tax levels would cause folks to simply abandon taxes altogether, thus leaving
the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> with nothing from these folks (as I mentioned that some <ent type='ORG'>Tax Collectors</ent>
have been concerned about since the 1950's). And that is the great art of
pricing in business: Keeping prices competitively high, but just below the
threshold level of rejection. [155]</p>

<p>[155]============================================================= For recent
commentary of this idea expressing similar conclusions in different words, and
based on different reasoning, see:
1.<ent type='PERSON'>Jon Harkness</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent>, RATIONALITY AND THE MACROECONOMY, 7 Journal of
Macroeconomics at 567 (Fall, 1985); the author discusses a simple two nation
macromodel with <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> exploiting the vertical total supply curve of an open
economy. Has interesting theories intellectuals would like.
2.<ent type='PERSON'>Marie Paule Donsimoni</ent> in STABLE HETEROGENEOUS CARTELS, 3
<ent type='ORG'>International Journal</ent> of Industrial Organizations, at 451 (December, 1985);
originates from the <ent type='GPE'>Netherlands</ent>. The author discusses how cartels constrict and
enlarge their supply of product as demand changes, in order to maintain high
prices and prevent cartel members from having an incentive to leave the cartel.
Under this model assumption, cartels composed of multiple types of firms can
prosper and enhance revenue with greater efficiency than firms can individually
outside of the cartel. Once established, cartels act like price leaders in an
industry, with the uniqueness, size, and composition of cartels changing
according to market demand.
3.M.A. <ent type='PERSON'>Adelman</ent> in WESTERN HEMISPHERE PERSPECTIVES: OIL AND NATURAL
GAS, 3 Contemporary Policy Issues, at 3 (Summer, 1985). The author discusses
several competing and conflicting incentives to change pricing on oil, as they
continuously seek to shift that elusive equilibrium to favor themselves. The
individual market roles and shared concerns of <ent type='GPE'>Argentina</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Canada</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Ecuador</ent> and
<ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> are discussed.
4.Claudio Loderer in A TEST OF THE <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> CARTEL HYPOTHESIS: 1974-1983
in 40 Journal of Finance, at 991 (July, 1985). Discusses oil pricing over the
last ten years, and addresses the hypothetical question as to whether or not
the collusive policies of <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> really had that much of an effect on oil prices.
Very scholarly, with daily spot oil prices from 1973 to 1983, equations, tables
and other instruments for intellectuals to exercise with.
5.<ent type='PERSON'>Frank Bass</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Ram Rao</ent> in COMPETITION, STRATEGY, AND PRICE DYNAMICS;
A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION, 22 Journal of Marketing Research, at
283 (August, 1985). Discusses the pricing impacts of new competition on
industries dominated not by cartels, but by oligopolies. The authors develop a
model reflecting some sensitivity resulting from demand diffusion, saturation,
and cost reductions through growth in market share and accumulated experience.
Price and market share dynamics are examined for the presence of a possibly
competitive oligopoly; the authors analyze the pricing geometries of
semiconductor manufacturing companies and conclude that the growth rate of the
demand pricing elasticity in integrated circuits and correlated semiconductor
products contributes significantly to pricing geometries (called PATHS by the
authors) across different products. With graphs and equations, this is an
intellectual's delight.
6.K. Sridhar Moorthy in USING GAME THEORY TO MODEL COMPETITION, 22
Journal of Marketing Research, at 262 (August, 1985). The author presents the
idea that competition springs from interdependence in effect between
competitors, such that actions taken by one firm will have impact and create
both opportunities and impediments on its competitors. The author creates a
GAME THEORY, whereby decision makers can model prospective reactions by
competitors on what it does. Applications are made into:
(a)Product and price competition;
(b)Price wars;
(c)The product quality/price relationship
(d)Competitive bidding competition.
7.<ent type='PERSON'>Jehoshua Eliasberg</ent> in ANALYTICAL MODELS OF COMPETITION WITH
IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETING: ISSUES, FINDINGS, AND OUTLOOK, 22 Journal of
Marketing Research, at 237 (August, 1985). The author uses oligopolies to
discuss how marketing managers are increasingly realizing the need to analyze
competition in formulating strategic marketing plans. New market entrants and
product line/distribution decisions are discussed in this fellow's pricing
models.
8.Robert T. <ent type='ORG'>Mason</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> Easley in <ent type='ORG'>PREYING</ent> FOR TIME, 33 Journal of
Industrial Economics, at 445 (June, 1985). In an interesting article, the
authors discuss the use of predatory pricing models as a common everyday tool
of business conquest. The authors state that contrary to common view, such
predatory practices do not necessarily require the elimination of new
competitors [something that John <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> would have accomplished back in
the 1800's out of the barrel of a gun and with the assistance of some
dynamite]; but that other business behavior often largely accomplishes the same
thing. With charts and equations.
9.P.A. <ent type='ORG'>Geroski</ent> et al in <ent type='ORG'>OLIGOPOLY</ent>, COMPETITION AND WELFARE: SOME
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, 33 Journal of Industrial Economics, at page 369 (June,
1985); journal originates out of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>dom. The authors review recent
literature on oligopolies; they err slightly when trying to define just what
creates monopolies, but are correct when they take the obvious position that
some monopolies have a protracted life about them over long periods of time.
10.<ent type='PERSON'>Daniel Seligman</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> DISCOVERS THE PERILS OF PRICE FIXING, 112
Fortune Magazine, at 51 (July 22, 1985). The author views <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> as collapsing in
ways predicted by classical theorems of the cartel theory of economics, for
many different reasons. Factually defective in some aspects, but it is
interesting light reading.
11.<ent type='PERSON'>John Picinich</ent> in WHY <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> IS STILL THE KEY TO LONG TERM OIL PRICES,
14 Futures; The Magazine of Commodities &amp; Options, at 52 (May, 1985). This
author argues that <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> is not on the threshold of collapse, and that with time
and huge oil reserves on its side, <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> will likely dominate oil markets again
within a decade. Presents a good summary history of <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> pricing in general,
and of the reduction in crude oil demand that gained momentum in 1983; here in
1985 <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> is alive but has lost the standing ability to call the shots like
they used to.
12.<ent type='PERSON'>William</ent> H. Miller in NO DEATHWATCH FOR <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent>, 225 Industry Week, at
40 (May 27, 1985). <ent type='ORG'>Openly</ent> discusses the view of others that <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> will collapse,
and then offers his own views that <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> is likely to get stronger in the
future, due to a combination of listed reasons. He cites the opinions of oil
analysts that <ent type='GPE'>United</ent> States oil production will fall synchronous with a rise in
demand, and the result will be that <ent type='ORG'>OPEC</ent> will hold the upper hand once again.
Those 12 articles are a representative profiling sample of the multiplicity of
recently appearing divergent views floating around on just one subject matter
(business cartels and their functional similitudes, and pricing), that are the
opinions of INTELLECTUALS -- as they go about their work reading,
contemplating, writing their own opinions, putting in an honest day's work
generating new theorems like they do. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes
they are in error, but the one denominator threading its way through all 12
articles was an omission of some additional factual information here and there
-- the effect of which would have been to both support and to countermand and
negate the theorems presented. And as we change settings over to where the imps
in the major media make their statements on television and in newspapers, they
too are in error as frequently as INTELLECTUALS are, as a composite blend of
lack of factual knowledge commingled with recurring overtones of philosophical
bias and <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> sponsored malice.
=============================================================[155]</p>

<p>No relationship to cost, no relationship to benefits received, no relationship
to hard intrinsic value. Just pricing based on Enscrewment (a similar
conclusion reached by others just cited in the footnote, but they use their own
proprietary language that removes identification of the moral orientation (for
good or evil) in the actors. As for pricing within the interior of shared
monopoly cartels -- this is why sophisticated pricing strategists know that
charging the highest momentary price the market will support is not necessarily
the best thing to do for yourself: You may win that battle under unusual
circumstances, but loose the long term war for several different secondary
reasons. And our <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>, with his monopoly, is no different in either motivation
or strategy. And that concern about likely rejection by ex-<ent type='ORG'>Taxpayer</ent>s is also
the same reason why sophisticated attorneys who work for the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> know that it
is often best to drop a prosecution, SANS GENE, in a low level Administrative
or Trial setting, rather than raise the presentation threshold level of the
grievance to senior judicial appellate forums and risk an adverse appellate
opinion on appeal that might benefit others, even if unreported. [156]</p>

<p>[156]============================================================= The decision
on whether or not to continue a prosecution at the appellate level is the same
exercise of discretion that prosecutors exercise when the criminal defendant is
initially charged with his crimes:
"The discretionary power... in determining whether a prosecution shall
be commenced or maintained [on Appeal] may well depend upon matters of policy
wholly apart from any question of PROBABLE CAUSE."
-UNITED STATES VS. COX, 342 F.2nd 167, at 171 (1965). Private
commentators as well have written on the discretion given to prosecuting
attorneys on the decision when to drop a case in whole or in part, although
they do not have the judgment to see what a marvelous administrative toll
PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION is to keep potentially irritating cases out of
appellate forums, where even unreported Opinions might spell trouble for the
<ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> in the future:
"Many persons who are in fact guilty of a crime and who could be
convicted are either not charged at all, are charged with a less serious
offense or a smaller number of offenses than the evidence would support, or are
subjected to informal control processes which do not require formal accusation.
Although some decisions not to charge or not to charge fully for reasons
unconnected with probability of guilt are made by the police, the primary
concern here is with those [decisions that are] made by the prosecutor. With
rare exceptions, legislatures and appellate judges officially approve of this
allocation of power to prosecutors, but the precise issue is infrequently
confronted in appellate litigation and is only occasionally dealt with
specifically in statutes."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Frank Miller</ent> in THE DECISION TO CHARGE A SUSPECT WITH A CRIME
["Charging Discretion"], page 154 [Little Brown, <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> (1969)]. For commentary
on <ent type='ORG'>the DOCTRINE</ent> OF PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION, see:
-<ent type='PERSON'>Klein</ent> in THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION NOT TO PROSECUTE, 32 Los
<ent type='PERSON'>Angel</ent>es Bar Bulletin 323, at 327 (1957);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Kaplan</ent> in THE PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION -- A COMMENT, 60 <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent>western
<ent type='ORG'>University</ent> Law Review 174 (1965);
-Baker in THE PROSECUTOR -- INITIATION OF PROSECUTION, 23 Journal of
Criminal Law 770 (1933);
-Jackson in THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, 24 Journal of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
Judicature Society 18 (1940);
-Cates in CAN WE IGNORE LAWS? -- DISCRETION NOT TO PROSECUTE, 14
Alabama Law Review 1, at 7 (1962);
-Silbert in THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR IN THE PROCESS OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, 63 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Bar Association Journal 1717 (1977).
=============================================================[156]</p>

<p>Like the Sub-Threshold Pricing Enscrewment Model in <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, there is also a
Sub-Threshold Prosecution Enscrewment Model in effect in the corridors of
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> as well, as the Judiciary is used latently by prosecutors in ways to
help enrich the <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent>. [157]</p>

<p>[157]============================================================= Even
something as seemingly removed from the fine art of sequestering common public
knowledge of taxation by contract away from people, a field of law enforcement
seemingly aloof from the high stakes game of tax collection -- Federal
Anti-Trust Enforcement -- is actually swirling in the same vortex of
manipulative selective prosecution by use of strategy sessions held by <ent type='GPE'>United</ent>
States Deputy Attorneys General in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, as they go about their work
trying to make sure that only those cases conforming to a certain profile of
criteria within their classification are eventually sent to the Judiciary for
CRACKING, and one of those criteria is trying to identify, before prosecution
is initiated, which cases the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> is likely to prevail on during appeal
(see <ent type='PERSON'>Suzanne Weaver</ent> in DECISION TO PROSECUTE: ORGANIZATION AND PUBLIC POLICY IN
THE ANTI-TRUST DIVISION, [MIT <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent> (1978); 2nd Edition]). So never
assume what the Law is by the mere silence of Judges, as a clever <ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> has
selectively withheld cases potentially adverse to his position.
=============================================================[157]</p>

<p>[Incidentally, the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> and their ideological mentor, <ent type='PERSON'>Karl Marx</ent>, have
planned this impending state of affairs since <ent type='ORG'>the Paris Communes</ent> of the 1800's,
but their SUB ROSA political involvement and quiet intellectual sponsorship
required our national consent through acts of own <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> legislatures, which
they got. (So we really did this to ourselves). And so I am only interested in
now addressing things as presently fabricated under <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Law; and since the
<ent type='PERSON'>King</ent> is now collecting Income Taxes exclusively by contract [numerous layers of
invisible contracts difficult to see], only the content of the contract is
relevant to discuss, when a grievance under the contract later comes up for
judicial review and enforcement. And so questions, sounding in the Tort of
unfairness, as to just who ultimately sponsored this grand scenario become
largely irrelevant, when contracts are in effect. The facts are that the Income
Tax has been around in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States for a long time. The <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
colonists had such a tax imposed on them, [158]</p>

<p>[158]============================================================= "[Income
Taxes] were imposed by several of the states at or shortly after the adoption
of the Federal Constitution, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> Laws 1778, chap. 17; Report of Oliver
Wolcott, Jr., Secretary of the <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent>, to the 4th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, 2nd Session
(1796), concerning direct taxes; <ent type='ORG'>AMERICAN</ent> STATE PAPERS, 1 Finance 423, 427,
429, 437, 439."
-<ent type='PERSON'>SHAFFER</ent> VS. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 51 (1919).
=============================================================[158]</p>

<p>and there was also one imposed during <ent type='EVENT'>the Civil War</ent> under <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent> Lincoln.
[159]</p>

<p>[159]============================================================= Acts of
August 5, 1861 (Chapter 45, Section 49, 12 UNITED STATES STATUTES AT LARGE 292,
309) -- confined the Income Tax then to PERSONS residing within <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States (meaning PERSONS accepting the benefits of the protection of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States) and <ent type='GPE'>United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>s residing abroad (meaning PERSONS operating
under the invisible <ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>ship Contract). Yes, well before the 14th or 16th
Amendments, before <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> EXTRAORDINAIRE <ent type='PERSON'>Karl Marx</ent> made his appearance on the
scene, Income Taxes were both laid on and successfully collected from, <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Citizen</ent>s. I will discuss both the 14th and 16th Amendments later on, but you
should be aware that numerous people are arguing that you are not liable for
the present Income Tax of Title 26, based on infirmities and defenses centered
around the 14th or 16th Amendments; the information being disseminated by these
people is both erroneous at Law and factually defective (defective by
omission). =============================================================[159]</p>

<p>But the distinction between those prior belief and transient AD HOC taxing
occurrences and the present permanent Income Tax is that our contemporary
Income Tax has an underlying political objective as its primary goal: It was
originally designed and is now intended to forcibly screw, harm and damage
people, first, and then to raise revenue as a wealth transfer instrument,
second. [160]</p>

<p>[160]============================================================= I once had a
conversation with a <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> who works for <ent type='ORG'>the Brookings Institution</ent>
in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>. There was an aura permeating the atmosphere around him that was
different, as if there was a demon chill in the air. Sensing this introduction
to Hell, I almost felt as if I was in <ent type='ORG'>Tubingen University</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Germany</ent>, swirling
in the midst of the ghostly political tempest of devilish intrigue that has
been going on there since the days of <ent type='PERSON'>Fredrich Schiller</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>George Hegel</ent>
institutionalized the kinky intellectual which that <ent type='ORG'>University</ent> generates, and
which ideological flotsam and doctrinal mischief continues on without abatement
down to the present day with <ent type='PERSON'>Hans Kung</ent> and the Green <ent type='ORG'>Party</ent>. But when this
conversation drifted over towards the Income Tax, all of a sudden he sparkled
up a bit, and with a devilishly sneaky cackle and a crooked grin that stretched
fully from one ear over to the other, this little <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> then
immediately blurted out his high approval of the Income Tax by saying that
"...Oh, we don't want to enrich them too quickly." He seemed excessively
concerned, even fixated, on their objective that the countryside be allowed
only minimum subsistence income levels. I really got the message from him, loud
and clear, that they deem our deprivation of wealth to be of maximum importance
to them and their damages enscrewment objectives.
=============================================================[160]</p>

<p>Creating damages through such devices as a national Tax on Incomes, as a tool
for conquest, is very important to international <ent type='NORP'>Bolsheviks</ent>, particularly since
they thrive in an atmosphere where the true seminal point of beginning of
national destruction is obscure and difficult to see; and very few folks see
the Income Tax as the great tool of destruction that it is. [161]</p>

<p>[161]============================================================= For a highly
detailed, thorough, and technical discussion on the damaging relationship in
effect between Income Taxation and economic growth, see <ent type='PERSON'>Vito Tanzi</ent> in THE
INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON [John
Hopkins <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> (1969); revised and redated in 1980]. There is also a damages
relationship in effect between inflation and the Income Tax -- see <ent type='PERSON'>Vito Tanzi</ent>
in his book entitled INFLATION AND PERSONAL INCOME TAX: AN INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVE, written for <ent type='ORG'>the International Monetary Fund</ent> [<ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent> <ent type='ORG'>University</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> (1981)]. Yes, progressive taxation on net profits is the very element
itself that causes civilizations to fall -- a fact that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s do not want us
to take cognizance of, or otherwise give much thought to. ...When acquiring new
information (or enlarging the factual basis one has to exercise judgment on),
one sometimes looks back and realizes that the behavior once deemed acceptable
in another era is now unacceptable; so too will Tax Protestors take upon
themselves knowledge of invisible juristic contracts and then when looking back
realize the possibility, however remote, that the actual tax protestings once
exhibited in another era may have been technically improvident for any one of
several reasons unknown at an earlier time. This practice of acquiring more
knowledge, and then discarding some outmoded behavior of a previous era, is a
recognized sign of organic intellectual enlightenment by the Judiciary. In
1970, the Alaska <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> once ruled that regardless of past thinking and
past expectations surrounding criminal proceedings, things were now going to
different:
"We reach a point when the crudities of an earlier age must be
abandoned."
-<ent type='PERSON'>BAKER</ent> VS. CITY OF FAIRBANKS, 471 P.2nd 386, at 403 (1970). And that
therefore, TRIAL BY JURY is now required in all <ent type='NORP'>Alaskan</ent> State criminal
prosecutions [overruling the previous common practice of making Trial by Jury
requisite only when the prospective duration of incarceration exceeded six
months.] Just as Judges publicly express regrets over their previous judgment
-- exercised in an era when they thought they were doing the right thing by
coming down hard on criminals clear across the board, so too should Tax
Protestors take qualified cognizance of the possibility that latent error might
also be present in their judgments as well.
=============================================================[161]</p>

<p>For example, <ent type='ORG'>The World Bank</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> will not make a loan to any political
jurisdiction in the world, unless that country has enacted a national income
tax at rates high enough to satisfy the <ent type='NORP'>Bolsheviks</ent>. Nations rise and fall on
Income Taxes. [162]</p>

<p>[162]============================================================= For a
discussion of decline in <ent type='GPE'>Holland</ent> from 1583 to 1674, for reasons relating to the
enactment of an income tax, as a war measure, to finance a war against <ent type='GPE'>Spain</ent>
and then continued after the war, on justification grounds to suppress domestic
<ent type='NORP'>Dutch</ent> insurrections, see LA RICHESSE DE LA <ent type='ORG'>HOLLANDE</ent>, by Monsieur A. de
Serionne, published in <ent type='GPE'>London</ent> in 1778 [cited by Sir <ent type='PERSON'>Inglis Palgrave</ent>, in a
speech at <ent type='EVENT'>the Inaugural Meeting</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>the Institute</ent> of Bankers in <ent type='GPE'>Ireland</ent> on
November 4, 1909]; as reprinted in the <ent type='NORP'>English</ent> periodical entitled BANKER'S
MAGAZINE for December, 1909 and February, 1910 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent>: <ent type='PERSON'>Waterton</ent> and Sons
(1910)]. =============================================================[162]</p>

<p>And here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, the State of <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, under the evil genius of
<ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>, enacted the highest corporate and personal income taxes in
effect, of any state, during the 1960's and 1970's, driving a large number of
businesses and literally millions of people, to emigrate from <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>. [163]</p>

<p>[163]============================================================= When
discussing corporate departures from <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, starting in the mid 60's and
continuing on into the 70's, <ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent> <ent type='ORG'>TIMES</ent></ent> would always talk about the
allure of "the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> Belt," and of the temperature in <ent type='GPE'>Houston</ent>, and of other
environmental inducements, but never at any time was there any discussion as to
the incredible State Income Taxes that <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> was demanding, and
getting, out of the <ent type='ORG'>Legislature</ent>. But the <ent type='ORG'>TIMES</ent> was lying, as it is very good
at, as the Editors knew then that the attraction of <ent type='ORG'>the Southern</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> Belt did
not explain why a large volume of the corporate exodus out of <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> City
went north into states like Connecticut (which had no state personal or
corporate taxes in the 1960's), <ent type='GPE'>New Hampshire</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Vermont</ent>. Business managers
were also lying in their public explanations of corporate exodus, as I
mentioned earlier in the context of deception in Commercial dynasties, as they
deflected attention away from Nelson's State Income Tax, into such nice soft
areas of "employee preferences" and the like. The closest point the <ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>TIMES</ent> came to in hitting the nail right on the head (in this area of corporate
geographical exodus to avoid unreasonable taxation), came during the reign of
Governor <ent type='PERSON'>Hugh Carey</ent> in 1977, when the <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> State Senate Labor Committee
under Chairman <ent type='PERSON'>Norman Levy</ent>, out from underneath the thumb of <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>, held Hearings on this question, and found that of 111 corporate
executives interviewed in <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> City, 76 reluctantly admitted that State
income taxes were the propulsion force driving their relocation plans [see the
<ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent> <ent type='ORG'>TIMES</ent> ["Corporations Fret About <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> Tax"], Section 1, page 28
(April 3, 1977)]. So much for the nice temperature of <ent type='GPE'>Houston</ent>.
=============================================================[163]</p>

<p>Income Taxes have a history of being used to accomplish special objectives
which, by their nature, require the creation of some incidental damages, and so
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s trying hard to run a country into the ground, need generally look no
farther than simply initiating a Taxing grab on Incomes. [164]</p>

<p>[164]============================================================= Although the
income tax on profits is the true source of economic stagnation, as <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s
strive to run one civilization into the ground after another -- here their
<ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI of deception surfaces again, because when <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s and their
<ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent> imps try to explain away the true source of a long term
declension in national economic prosperity, they will invariably turn around
and point attention over to their irritant: <ent type='GPE'>INDIVIDUALS</ent>:
"The nineteenth century had accepted as one of its basic faiths the
theory of 'the harmony of interests.' This held that what was good for the
individual was good for the society as a whole and that the general advancement
of society could be achieved best if individuals were left free to seek their
own individual advantages. This harmony was assumed to exist between one
individual and another, between the individual and the group, and between the
short run and the long run. In the nineteenth century, such a theory was
perfectly tenable, but in the twentieth century it could only be accepted with
considerable modification [that's right -- remember, folks, this is the <ent type='ORG'>MODERN</ent>
era, and you just don't need to concern yourself with the past]. As a result of
persons seeking their individual advantages, the economic organization of
society was so modified that the actions of one such person were very likely to
injure his fellows, the society as a whole, and his own long-range advantage
[just somehow]. This situation led to such a conflict between theory and
practice, between aims and accomplishments, between individuals and groups,
that a return to fundamentals in economics became necessary [meaning total
top-down <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> control of the economy]."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Imp Carroll</ent> Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at page 497 [MacMillian
Company, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1966)]. Notice what really irritates <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s and the imps
they hire: <ent type='GPE'>INDIVIDUALS</ent>, and everything else Noble and Great their impending
Celestial Status represents. Here we have a sponsored Professor Carroll
Quigley, trying to pass himself off as a history professor, and while using an
opportunity to come down on free competitive enterprise, he starts throwing
invectives interstitially at those annoying <ent type='GPE'>INDIVIDUALS</ent>. And <ent type='GPE'>INDIVIDUALS</ent>,
exercising their own judgment, managing their own affairs, and trying to be
responsible for themselves as the embryo <ent type='PERSON'>Eloheim</ent> that they are, have long been
a recurring source of irritation to <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s [see <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUALISM</ent> AND <ent type='ORG'>SOCIALISM</ent>
by <ent type='PERSON'>Kirby</ent> Page [Farrar &amp; Rhinehart, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1933)]; Socialist <ent type='PERSON'>Kirby</ent> Page
equates that heinous cult of <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUALISM</ent> with so called Capitalism, and
predicts that both will soon be crushed by National Socialism. <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> has a
few surprises to throw at both Carroll Quigley and <ent type='PERSON'>Kirby</ent> Page at the Last Day,
synchronous with Page and Quigley momentarily OPENING THEIR EYES once again,
too late, to realize that they had repeated the same doctrinal error here in
the Second Estate over a protracted period of time that they previously
committed once before in the First Estate, and also over a protracted period of
time. And there are several very good reasons why <ent type='GPE'>INDIVIDUALS</ent> are so irritating
to <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, one of which is:
"The most basic, fundamental Principle of truth, that upon which the
entire plan of God is founded, is free agency. As an Individual, you have the
right to govern yourself. It is divinely given to you to think and act as you
wish. It is your decision.
"It must be pointed out, however, that although you have the free
agency to choose for yourself, you do not have the right to choose what will be
the result of your decision. The results of what you think and do are governed
by law. Good returns good. Evil returns evil [throughout this Letter, I will
cite examples on how the violation of Principles will always generate latent
secondary adverse circumstances out in the future, with the seminal point of
origin of those secondary adverse circumstances being latent [invisible] and
difficult to see]. You govern yourself by subjecting yourself to the discipline
of the law. If you are obedient to God's law, you remain free. You progress and
are perfected. If you are disobedient to God's law, you bind yourself to that
which restricts your progress. You become defiled and unworthy to be an
associate with those who are more clean and pure."
-<ent type='PERSON'>William</ent> R. <ent type='GPE'>Bradford</ent> in CONFERENCE REPORTS, at 53 (October, 1979).
=============================================================[164]</p>

<p>Although making life difficult for <ent type='GPE'>INDIVIDUALS</ent> is important for <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s as a
source of damages, creating military engagements and wars can be another such
source of damages, [165]</p>

<p>[165]============================================================= For a
discussion on the relationship in effect between the enactment of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
Income Taxes and war, going back to the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Civil War; and of the second
administration of President <ent type='PERSON'>Cleveland</ent> who wanted to reinstate the Income Tax to
give away massive financial aid and quash an impending rebellion by <ent type='NORP'>Western</ent>
farmers, see a chapter entitled "What Rip Van Winkle Woke Up To" in a book
entitled THE COLD WAR AND THE INCOME TAX by Edward <ent type='PERSON'>Wilson</ent> [Farrar, Strauss &amp;
Company, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, 1963].
=============================================================[165]</p>

<p>and quiet national economic enscrewment still another. [166]</p>

<p>[166]============================================================= "The real
effect of a tax on profits is to make the country possess at any given period,
a smaller capital and smaller aggregate production, and to make the stationary
state be attained earlier, and with a smaller sum of national wealth [yes, the
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s know exactly what they are doing]. It is possible that a tax on
profits might even diminish the existing capital of the country. If the rate of
profit is already at the practical minimum, that is, at the point at which all
that portion of the annual increment which would tend to reduce profits is
carried off either by exportation or by speculation; then if a tax is imposed
which reduces profits still lower, the same causes which previously carried off
the increase would probably carry off a portion of the existing capital. A tax
on profits is thus, in a state of capital and accumulation like that in
<ent type='GPE'>England</ent>, extremely detrimental to the national wealth. And this effect is not
confined to the case of a peculiar, and therefore intrinsically unjust, tax on
profits. The mere fact that profits have to bear their share of a heavy general
taxation, tends, in the same manner as a peculiar tax, to drive capital abroad,
to stimulate imprudent speculations by diminishing safe gains, to discourage
further accumulation, and to accelerate the attainment of the stationary state
[this STATIONARY STATE is the great <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> objective where trade atrophies,
business dies from strangulation, and commerce stops altogether, as they run
one civilization into the ground after another]. This is thought to have been
the principal cause of the decline of <ent type='GPE'>Holland</ent>, or rather of her having ceased
to make progress [and until <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States gets rid of the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s that are
now running the show, then we are next]."
-John S. Mill, III, PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, Book V, Chapter
3, Section 3 ["Of Direct Taxes"], at page 827 [<ent type='ORG'>University</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Toronto</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>,
<ent type='GPE'>Toronto</ent> (1965)]. Born in <ent type='GPE'>London</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>John Stuart Mill</ent> lived from 1806 to 1873; once
elected to the <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> Parliament, he wrote a considerable volume of books and
articles on economics and philosophy. PRINCIPLES ON POLITICAL ECONOMY was
written in the 1850's, and grew in size as it appeared in several versions. His
philosophical orientation was that of statist and socialist.
=============================================================[166]</p>

<p>Today, in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, law school students are taught the <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> line
that Income Taxes are good for the country because of the social engineering
that can then be performed with the confiscated money. [167]</p>

<p>[167]============================================================= "Progressive
taxation is now regarded as one of the central ideas of modern democratic
capitalism and is widely accepted as a secure policy commitment which does not
require serious examination."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Blum</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Kalven</ent> in THE UNEASY CASE FOR PROGRESSIVE TAXATION [19
<ent type='ORG'>University</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> Law Review 417, at 417 (1952)]. See also INCOME
REDISTRIBUTION THEORIES AND PROGRAMS: CASES-COMMENTARY-ANALYSIS by Professor
<ent type='PERSON'>Barbara Brudno</ent> [<ent type='ORG'>West Publishing</ent>, Saint Paul, <ent type='GPE'>Minnesota</ent> (1977)]; as she talks
about Guaranteed Annual Income, Income Maintenance Programs, and the Negative
Income Tax Proposals.
=============================================================[167]</p>

<p>Having been contaminated with clever lies originating from a devilish source
far beyond their minimal factual level of comprehension to understand, and also
requiring a level of judgment operating on a repository of knowledge in excess
of their limited capacity, some sympathetic little <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> lawyers are now
trying to twist basic property rights around to have the mere omission of an
Income Tax be construed as a Tort on impoverished people, arguing that poor
folks now have some type of a social right to your money. [168]</p>

<p>[168]============================================================= "...today,
we see poverty as the consequence of large impersonal forces in a complex
industrial society -- forces like automation, lack of jobs and changing
technologies that are beyond the control of the individual."
-<ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL WELFARE</ent>: THE EMERGING LEGAL ISSUES, 74
Yale Law Journal 1245, at 1255 (1965).
=============================================================[168]</p>

<p>The bottom line is that the Income Tax continues to roll on; opposition is
minimal; Tax Protestors are being frowned upon by the general public at large,
viewed as cheaters making <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> only more expensive for themselves; and so
the Income Tax is now accomplishing its <ent type='NORP'>Bolshevik</ent> political mission in the
philosophically divided <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, with flying colors. [169]</p>

<p>[169]=============================================================
Accomplishing countermanding objectives in this area is the art of constructing
cogent arguments -- arguments in legal briefs in your tax cases; arguments to
others to catalytically trigger another supporting view; and arguments to
taxing legislative jurisdictions. As it pertains to the presentation of
arguments to legislative (as they largely freely pick and choose the
reciprocity demands of contracts they have folks locked into by having first
thrown an array of benefits at them), argument making itself is an art:
"The purpose of arguments is to persuade the policy maker that the
public interest would be promoted by the adoption of a tax proposal which would
financially benefit its advocates. Regarding some proposals, the direct
financial interest of a great majority of people may be quiet clear. Such
proposals rarely create active tax issues. Regarding other proposals, the
public interest may be difficult to ascertain. The amount of direct cost or
benefit involved to each member of the public may be so small and uncertain
that other tests of the public interest takes on great importance. It is to
these indirect and somewhat subtle interest objectives that arguments are
commonly addressed. The nature of the arguments will appear from an example.
When the witness for a taxpayer interest group appears at hearings before the
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>ional taxing committee, he does not merely say, and often does not say
at all: "Please adopt our proposal because it would benefit us." It is always
assumed that each witness thinks his group would be benefited by the action he
proposes. The argument [presented] is usually on a high plane of public
welfare. The witness may indeed point out that his industry is subject to an
unusual hardship, but even in this case the testimony usually goes beyond the
private benefit to consider the public interest."
[A rare exception to this rule happened when, for example, a
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>man once snorted a statement to a representative of the NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF SALESMAN'S ORGANIZATIONS, who was in <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> lobbying for a repeal
of some excise taxes they didn't feel like paying]:
"Why don't they get together and tell us how repeal would
benefit the country, instead of each trying to tell us how it would benefit his
own industry?"
-<ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent> <ent type='ORG'>TIMES</ent>, Section 3, page 4 (June 19, 1949)."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Roy Blough</ent> in THE ARGUMENT PHASE OF <ent type='ORG'>TAXPAYER</ent> POLITICS, 17 <ent type='ORG'>University</ent>
of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> Law Review 604, at 605 (1950). Other than for that lone wolf
exception, witnesses do not normally argue that their proposals would benefit
themselves, but generally deflect attention of to some high and noble national
welfare objective. This is an idea <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> might take time to think about
because one of the reasons <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> come down so hard on Tax Protestors
is because the judge views the Protestor as being a self-centered cheap person
immorally pursuing his own self-enrichment; the background factual information
possessed by the Protestor (of his knowledge of that tax, if surrendered over
to the <ent type='NORP'>Bolsheviks</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, would only accelerate the destruction of his
own Country) is factual knowledge on conspiracy and <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> intrigue largely
unknown, unappreciated, and unseen by Judges. The presentation of these
historical background arguments to the Judge are arguments that are sounding in
the Tort of unfairness, and cannot be considered on their merits whenever
contracts are in effect; only the Patriot's total and thorough decontamination
of himself, away from the adhesive juristic environment that characterizes the
King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction, has any hope of allowing the DE MINIMIS entrance
into your arguments of evidence countermanding the Judge's quiet assumption of
your cheapness as a person, by talking about the illicit legislative motives
that were very much present when those taxation statutes were either enacted
(or alleged to have been enacted). But important for the moment is the general
lack of concern by <ent type='ORG'>Patriots</ent> in the quality of the arguments and the flow of the
logical continuity presented therein, but in order to see our own error, we
must develop the ability to see and evaluate these arguments from the Judge's
perspective; not an easy thing to do, as Judges are approaching the issue
totally different from us. For an abstract theoretical model in how to do so,
see <ent type='PERSON'>Wayne Grennan</ent> in ARGUMENT EVALUATION [<ent type='ORG'>University</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> of America, <ent type='GPE'>Lanham</ent>,
<ent type='GPE'>Maryland</ent> (1984)].</p>

</xml>