textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/incon001.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> INTRODUCTION
[Pages 1-88]</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>[COMMENTARY FOR THIS FILE: There is some real heavy-duty data in this one. Lots
of food for thought. Some of it is buried in the religious oriented passages,
so don't avoid or ignore those, lest you miss out on some real gems. There is
also some extremely interesting passages regarding the impending (and planned)
<ent type='EVENT'>Great Depression</ent> II of the 1990's, even more interesting when one considers
these passages were written over 7 years ago, and yet they are so accurate and
hit the nail on the head as to current unfolding events regarding the economy.]</p>

<p> GEORGE MERCIER
December 31, 1985</p>

<p>DEAR MR. MAY:</p>

<p>I was intrigued to see that you have retained an interest in my Letter to Armen
<ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent>, even if that Letter was intended to be the isolated private
correspondence between two people. After receiving numerous inquiries about
that Letter, I have been quite surprised at the extent to which that Letter has
been so widely disseminated. At the time I wrote it, I was under the assumption
that most folks already knew of the underlying evidentiary Commercial contract
factual settings that Title 26, Section 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE
prosecutions are built on top of.</p>

<p>In your Letter you state that you have some questions about the bank account
contract as being the exclusive <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> instrument that initiates the attachment
of liability for the positive administrative mandates of Title 26.</p>

<p>Please be advised that your reservations are well founded and quite accurate,
that is, if you did read such an element of exclusivity out of the Letter. The
reason why your reservations are accurate is because I did not mean to state or
infer any such thing; however, that is not the problem here. <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent>'s bank
accounts were sitting in front of the Judge during his arraignment and all
pre-Trial hearings, and those Commercial contracts are more than strong enough
to warrant incarceration on mere default therein. Since the nature of bank
accounts involves the evidentiary presence of written admissions, together with
the acceptance of <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Commercial benefits therefrom, the presence of
reciprocity expectations contained therein, [001]</p>

<p>[001]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>RECIPROCITY</ent>
is defined as a relational state where two or more parties, enjoying each
other's benefits and each possessing various expectations from each other, are
being reciprocal to each other, a kind of "give and take" going on back and
forth; and so in this relational setting, there are some kinds of
interdependence, mutuality, and cooperation expectations in effect between the
parties. But the key elements that will be repeated over and over again in this
Letter, is that where the initial benefits were not first exchanged, then the
secondary obligation to reciprocate does not exist, either. For example, the
word <ent type='ORG'>RECIPROCITY</ent> surfaces frequently when <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>s discuss exchanging
favorable trade benefits with each other; each <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> controls a source of
benefits the other wants, and so now the reciprocating mutuality and exchange
of benefits between the jurisdictions is called <ent type='ORG'>RECIPROCITY</ent>, but its meaning
has been elusive for some:
"The term <ent type='ORG'>RECIPROCITY</ent> as now currently used in most cases with only a
vague or very general notion of its meaning... [An] attempt is made to define
reciprocity when it is specified that the PRIVILEGES granted must be
equivalent. Thus one writer, basing his definition upon a study of the public
papers of the Presidents of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, remarks:
"<ent type='ORG'>Reciprocity</ent> is the granting by one nation of certain
commercial privileges to another, whereby the citizens of both are placed upon
an equal basis in certain branches of commerce."
-MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS, Page 562." Whenever there is
an exchange of benefits and there remains some lingering expectations of some
duty between two parties, then an actual INVISIBLE CONTRACT is in effect [as I
will discuss later], as it is said that the duty owed back to the party
initially transferring the benefits is <ent type='ORG'>RECIPROCAL</ent> in nature. Hence, the steam
engine is said to be a <ent type='ORG'>RECIPROCAL</ent> ENGINE: Steam is forced into a chamber
pushing a piston out, and the piston pushes in turn a lever attached to a
wheel; now the wheel revolves because the steam initially pushed out a piston.
So when the revolving wheel comes back fully around, it is now the force of the
wheel that pushes back the lever, which pushes in turn the piston back into the
chamber, that clears the chamber for a second and successive injection of
steam. [See the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ["Reciprocating Engines"] (<ent type='GPE'>London</ent>,
1929)]. Question: What happens when the wheel (having gotten what it wanted by
being turned by the lever and having initially accepted the benefits of the
steam pushing the piston), freezes up for some reason and does not reciprocate
as expected and now refuses to push the piston back into the chamber? What
happens is that the engine stops; everything grinds to a halt; and damages are
created. ...Well, as we turn from a tangible setting where machinery is in
motion, over to legal reasoning handed down from the Judiciary of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States, no Principles ever change -- because when we turn to the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent>
rulings in hot political areas of so-called DRAFT PROTESTING and TAX
PROTESTING, by the end of this Letter you will see the true meaning of
<ent type='ORG'>RECIPROCITY</ent>, and of the damages created by refusing to reciprocate when
expected. Yes, often there are contracts invisible to the <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent> that
actually control grievances in a <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room, and there is to be learned a true
natural origin of contracts and of reciprocity; the origin lies not with
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> judges trying to create seemingly fictional legal justifications, but
in NATURE, and actually in the mind of <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father who, as we will see,
created what is now called NATURE.
=============================================================[001]</p>

<p>and other factors, bank account instruments are CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of Taxpayer
Status by virtue of participation in the closed private domain of INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. And by these CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE fellows entering into the Armen
<ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> factual setting the way they did, those bank accounts were the only
evidentiary items that I talked about. [002]</p>

<p>[002]============================================================= CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE is deemed incontrovertible: Because either the Law does not allow
contradiction for some reason, or in the alternative, because the inherent
nature of the <ent type='ORG'>Evidence</ent> is so strong and so convincing that it automatically
overrules any other mitigating or vitiating <ent type='ORG'>Evidence</ent> that could possibly be
presented. Therefore it is deemed provident that CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, all by
itself, establishes the proposition that is sought at hand, beyond any
reasonable or possibly legitimate doubt; this CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE RULE is very
reasonable in many situations.
=============================================================[002]</p>

<p>The other "evidence" the local situ United States Attorney presented to the
Jury was distraction evidence for public and Jury consumption purposes only,
and means absolutely nothing to appellate forums (for purposes of ascertaining
Taxpayer Status). Bank accounts are the highest and best evidence "Cards" the
King has to deal with, even better than old 1040's, and so that bank account
evidence should be the very first slice of evidence to go when an Individual
has concluded within himself that a change in Status is now desired. [003]</p>

<p>[003]============================================================= I am aware
that the linguistic use of the word "King", as a moniker to characterize the
combined <ent type='ORG'>Executive and Legislative</ent> branches of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States is a bit
novel, and I know that most folks would feel uncomfortable with it at first.
Yet, despite the differential in comfort levels in the use of such semantics, I
go right ahead and use this characterization anyway because its use, all by
itself, enhances the important distinction between Common Law Jurisdiction and
King's <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisdiction (which distinction is still very much in effect
today), and makes this distinction much easier to understand; and additionally
underscores the fact that <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States is stratified at Law into multiple
jurisdictions to more tightly replicate the contours of Nature, and that the
United States is not a single monolithic SLIPPERY SLOPE slab of equity Civil
Law (hybridized old <ent type='ORG'>Roman Civil</ent> Law). As the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> colonies severed
relations at Law with the Mother Crown, the jurisdiction conferred upon the
United States by our Fathers was largely similar, in a structural sense, to
that jurisdiction <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>England</ent> already had. But the idea of
characterizing the combined <ent type='ORG'>Executive and Legislative</ent> Branches of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States as a "King" may not even be mine. Imagine fictionally in your mind
having lunch with your Dad and a <ent type='ORG'>Federal Appellate</ent> Judge in <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent>.
During this imaginary and purely fictional conversation, while the non-existent
Judge is speaking on a criminal doctrine, he mentions the existence of a
contemporary "King" here today in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, as if it were a very
natural idea to him. A year later, you realize that relating the jurisdictional
contours of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States to those contours which a King should have and
not have, makes everything seem easy to understand. This is particularly so
when relating a factual question of police powers limitation, or of a taxing
limitation, to something tangible and natural like a King's expected
jurisdictional contours. Additionally, a "King" also accurately reflects
lingering English Jurisprudence here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, and also reflects
the present KING TO <ent type='PERSON'>PRINCE satropic</ent> relational status of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> to the several States, following the enactment of the AFTER TEN
Amendments that shifted the RATIO DECIDENDI of power to <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>.
=============================================================[003]</p>

<p>Like <ent type='PERSON'>Irwin Schiff</ent> here in late 1985, <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent>'s reluctance in 1984 to get
rid of his bank accounts forecloses a teachable state of mind one must have to
understand multiple other invisible contracts that our King is dealing with,
and that are more difficult to discern and appreciate the significance of. So
if a PERSON, seeking a shift in relational Status to <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent>, is unwilling
to first get rid of his bank accounts, then talking to him about anything else
is an improvident waste of time. [004]</p>

<p>[004]============================================================= The word
PERSON is of particular legal significance in <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Jurisprudence; it is
distinguished from the word <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent>, with the semantic differential in
effect between the two being inherently Status oriented. Although sounding
innocent under common English semantic rules, on the floor of a <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room these
semantic rules take upon themselves deeper significance, as it is quietly known
by all Judges that PERSONS are clothed with multiple layers of juristic
accoutrements giving that PERSON'S presence in that <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room a special and
suggestive flavoring to it. On the one hand, PERSONS have special legal rights,
benefits, and privileges originating from a juristic source; and on the other
hand, PERSONS also carry upon themselves various obligatory duties (some of
which, if not handled properly, can be very self-damaging at times) -- but both
rights and duties are often invisible. In contrast to that layered state of
juristic accoutrement encapsulation, <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent>S walk around without any such
accoutrements [they would be "liberated" as the contemporary vernacular would
characterize it]. As a point of beginning, PERSONS can be either natural human
beings like you and me, or artificial juristic entities (such as foreign
governments, Corporations, Agencies, or Instrumentalities) and the like -- at
least, here in 1985, those are the only two existing divisions of PERSONS
presently recognized by the Judiciary (i.e., human beings and paper juristic
entities).
"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be
defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good etymological
grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The <ent type='NORP'>Latin</ent> "PERSONA"
originally referred to <ent type='ORG'>DRAMATIS</ent> PERSONAE, and in <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> Law the term was adapted
to refer to anything that could act on either side of a legal dispute... In
effect, in <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> legal tradition, PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law
itself, i.e., of the legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to
have, or only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal
sphere. The law, on the <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> interpretation, is systematically ignorant of the
biological status of its subjects."
-<ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> <ent type='NORP'>French</ent></ent> in <ent type='ORG'>THE CORPORATION</ent> AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
Philosophical Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979). But some time off in the future,
the world will come to grips with the deeper meanings of <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent> <ent type='NORP'>French</ent></ent>'s
comments about how PERSONS ARE C<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>TIONS and how the law is ignorant OF THE
BIOLOGICAL STATUS OF ITS SUBJECTS, because common knowledge will be changing
one day as the recombinant DNA cellular cultivation technology perfected in the
late 1970s in special basement laboratories designed into the CIA's <ent type='ORG'>Langley</ent>
offices by <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> blossoms out one day into the Commercial Sector,
and genetic replicas of humans are brought forth into the public domain. It is
my legal Prophesy that it is only a matter of time before a <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> ruling or
some slice of <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> makes its appearance somewhere, saying that the original
natural born human being takes upon themselves full civil and criminal
liability for all acts performed by their genetic replicas as soon as they
emerge from the chemical tank, under the ALTER EGO ["second self"] DOCTRINE;
and that those biological replicas (or <ent type='ORG'>SYNTHETIC</ent> ALTOMETONS, as the <ent type='NORP'>Bolsheviks</ent>
would say) will also be deemed at that time to be PERSONS, fully layered with
all of the same juristic accoutrements that their natural born human sponsor
possesses [or would have possessed under similar circumstances]. The use of
look alikes, or DOUBLES, has a very long history to them, particularly in
dynastic settings where tremendous wealth is available for some looting; here
in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States of 1985, <ent type='ORG'>Bolshevik</ent> <ent type='ORG'>SYNTHETIC</ent> ALTOMETONS have already
produced marvelous results for their sponsors, in both family dynasty and
political settings involving important positions held in <ent type='ORG'>Juristic Institutions</ent>.
When common public knowledge of this technology actually will blossom out into
the open, I do not know. When the Apostle <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> was exiled to the Isle of
<ent type='GPE'>Patmos</ent>, he once wrote a story on events he had seen in a vision; <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> talks
about how someday the world's <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, continuing to incorporate deception
into their <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI like they do, will make a big deal out of a man they
will one day raise up for their purposes. Like the inflated, dramatic, and
overzealous presentation of <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent></ent>'s intellectual credentials, this
man will be shown on a much grander scale working great wonders going about the
world ending one tough crisis after another, as the imp goes about his mischief
trying to get folks to place trust and confidence in him (just like with
<ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent>); and great political power and authority will be given to this imp. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>
describes a fellow who will bring down fire from Heaven, perform other great
wonders, and then be fatally wounded. As part of the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> deception show,
this little imp will heal his own wounds and bring himself back from the dead.
This little <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> won't actually heal his own wounds, as the world's news
media will then want you to believe in furtherance of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> conquests, but
actually a DOUBLE will be brought forth that will have been previously
manufactured, while the body of the mortally wounded and double-crossed imp
will be quietly disposed of out the back door; and at the present time,
excellent genetic DOUBLES are very feasible to manufacture. At the time the
world's <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s pull off their impending <ent type='ORG'>MAGNUM OPUS</ent> theatrics [meaning "great
act" theatrics], <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> tells us that they will succeed in deceiving many people.
Few people have in-depth factual knowledge on <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> movements, and so few
folks have trained themselves to be able to think in terms that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s think
in: Terms that involve deception, intrigue, and the use of doubles, murder, and
whatever other CRACKING is necessary to get the job done. Like Tax Protestors
never bothering to try and see things from the Judge's and <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent>'s position,
by folks never bothering to try and see things from the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> perspective,
the result is going to be exactly what <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> tells us: That many people will be
held in awe of this little <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>, just like many people have already held
<ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent></ent> in awe when they should have thrown him in the trash can, as
the little Hitler the real <ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> once was. As for bringing down fire from
heaven and other <ent type='ORG'>MAGNUM OPUS</ent> appearances that <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> talks about, the holographic
technology to create multiple colored images is now also highly developed.
Using a confluence of monochromatic radiation sources (lasers), impressive
visual images can now be created in an air reception media (just like in STAR
WARS). The technically impressive show that the world's <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s will one day
sponsor to try and impress people world wide -- THAT THEIR LITTLE IMP IS WORTH
ADMIRING -- will actually have been rehearsed in a studio first, before being
brought for on some world exhibition stage the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s will create. [See the
13th chapter of REVELATION]. One of the dominate themes of this Letter is
<ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent> RESPONSIBILITY, and correlative to that, it is my proposition that
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s can actually never succeed in forcing deception on others. The reason
why is because deception has to be first created, then conveyed, and then
accepted by others -- then only can deception succeed. Deception can only find
fertility in a human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it;
similarly, in a sense, it actually takes two people to manufacture a successful
lie: The first to utter the lie, and the second to accept it as such.
=============================================================[004]</p>

<p>That Letter was intended to be the private correspondence between two persons,
or so I thought. Since no further dissemination of the Letter was expected, no
detailed explanation of the factual setting otherwise relevant to the subject
matter content of the Letter was made, nor was any detailed discussion of other
limiting factors or peripheral elements of jural influence made. Both parties
already knew key elements of the factual setting that gave rise to the Letter,
and the subject matter I addressed was intended to be a narrow one, talking
about bank accounts only as a point of beginning. For that reason, now the
expansive factual application of that Letter to mean that a Person's
contractual relationship with a <ent type='ORG'>Federally</ent> regulated financial institution was
exclusively the only acceptable PRIMA FACIE <ent type='ORG'>Evidence</ent> [005]</p>

<p>[005]============================================================= PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE is <ent type='ORG'>Evidence</ent> that is good and sufficient on its face. PRIMA FACIE
differs from CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE in the sense that PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE may be
contradicted or attacked by other <ent type='ORG'>Evidence</ent>, whereas CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE is not
open to such an attack. If left unexplained or unchallenged, PRIME FACIE
EVIDENCE is deemed to be of sufficient merit to sustain a judgment in favor of
the issue at hand that it is supporting. Both PRIMA FACIE and CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE are Evidentiary Rules involving the use of PRESUMPTIONS, which I will
discuss later.
=============================================================[005]</p>

<p>-- or even CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE -- of that Person's entry into the juristic
highways of Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, is an erroneous and overly enlarged
interpretation, and falls outside the contours of the two narrow questions that
I thought I had addressed in that Letter:</p>

<p>1.What right does <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> have to criminalize a conversation two
people have, just because the content discussed in that conversation does not
meet with <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent>'s approval? (Relating to Mr. Condo's civilly denominated
prosecution where <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States sought a Restraining Order silencing his
<ent type='ORG'>YHPA</ent> ["<ent type='ORG'>Your Heritage</ent> Protection Association"];
2.What rights does <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> have to incarcerate a Person for a mere
circumstantial omission that is in want of both a MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent> [006]</p>

<p>[006]============================================================= The MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>
is an evil state of mind that is necessarily inherent in all criminals as they
knowingly go about their pre-planned work by intentionally damaging someone
else.
"Criminal liability is normally based upon the concurrence of two
factors, 'an evil-meaning mind and an evil-doing hand...' ...Few areas of
criminal law pose more difficulty than the proper definition of the MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>
required for any particular crime. [Extended discussion then follows defining
what the MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent> is and is not]."
-UNITED STATES VS. BAILEY, 444 U.S. 394, at 402 (1979)
=============================================================[006]</p>

<p>and a CORPUS DELECTI... [007]</p>

<p>[007]============================================================= The CORPUS
DELECTI is the hard evidentiary "body of the crime" that is supposed to exist
on the record; it is related to DUE PROCESS in the sense that it ferrets out a
unique form of error. Originated as a Common Law rule by judges in our old
<ent type='ORG'>Mother England</ent>, the <ent type='ORG'>Britannic</ent> judiciary had been embarrassed by having
consented to execute a man for murder, when the individual believed to have
been murdered later returned to the village very much alive. As a corrective
result, the judiciary then required that in all capital murder cases, the
prosecuting Crown has the burden of adducing satisfactory evidence that the
alleged victim is actually dead (separate from, and in addition to, other
evidence that the accused is guilty.) Today, the CORPUS DELECTI rule is very
much a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE for those criminal prosecutions falling
under Tort Law indicia (where no contract governs the grievance); but it lies
largely in slumber. It could be a test of the factual setting for the presence
of hard damages on the criminal record, and as such would screen out
illegitimate prosecutions where the Complainant never experienced any damages;
but as our Father's Common Law has been replaced by contractual <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent>, this rule
has largely faded away into atrophy. Should it ever be resuscitated, perhaps in
the form of mandating <ent type='ORG'>Criminal Arraignment Magistrates</ent> to document either a
contract or the twin Tort indicia of MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>/CORPUS DELECTI on the record, as
a condition for allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed on to Trial, such
a procedural rule would automatically disable any Special Interest Group from
succeeding in having their little penal <ent type='NORP'>Majoritarian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> forced on others in
violation of both the REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT CLAUSE of Article 4, and of
PRINCIPLES OF NATURE that replicate the thinking of <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father. All
Special Interest Groups sponsored penal <ent type='ORG'>LEX</ent> is always characterized by the
absence of any contract or damages present in the factual setting that the
defendant is being prosecuted for -- such as growing <ent type='ORG'>Marijuana</ent> in your backyard
and gambling in your basement. There is a chilling story to be told some other
time of the Special Interest Temperance sponsors of the Prohibition of the
1920's here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States and of their descendants, who today are
heavily involved with drug smuggling, so called; as the criminalization of
plants and plant derivatives that are in broad demand creates a FABULOUS Black
Market to pursue Commercial enrichment in.
=============================================================[007]</p>

<p>the criminalization of a non-event that never happened? (Relating to Mr.
Condo's 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE prosecution).</p>

<p>You have me in such a position, Mr. May, that writing this response to you
makes me feel like I am <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent>, reaffirming a prior
Opinion, yet turning around and writing voluminous explanative text discussing
the implications to a slight twist to the factual setting. [008]</p>

<p>[008]============================================================= In a limited
cognitive sense, I am also sympathetic to the position Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Albert Einstein</ent> was
in when he first disseminated his THEORY OF RELATIVITY in 1929 with
qualifications, as he knew then that only a few people were in a position to
come to grips with its contents:
"... his latest formal document -- the new "Field Theory" on the
relations between gravitation and electromagnetism -- concerning which he
himself declares it is absurd to waste time to try to elucidate it for the
public because 'probably not more than a dozen or so men in the world could
possibly understand it'."
-<ent type='ORG'>The <ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent> <ent type='ORG'>TIME</ent>S</ent> ["Einstein Distracted by Public Curiosity; Seeks
Hiding Place"], Page 1 (February 4, 1929).
=============================================================[008]</p>

<p>The narrow answers explaining why Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> was just plain wrong in both of
those questions were discussed in that letter -- because in both questions, the
United States had written Commercial contracts <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent> had entered into
wherein Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> agreed not to disseminate any erroneous tax information, and
additionally, where Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> agreed not to withhold or fail to file any
information the Secretary of <ent type='ORG'>Treasury</ent> deemed necessary to determine Mr. Condo's
Excise Tax Liability (with the amount of tax being measured by net taxable
income). Those contracts <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States was operating on were Mr. Condo's
bank accounts.</p>

<p>Furthermore, to aggravate the just plain "wrongness" of Mr. Condo's position,
those contracts were entered into by Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> in the circumstantial context of
Mr. Condo's attempting to experience monetary profit or gain through the
operation of those contracts. In other words, there had been an exchange of
financial <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> (benefits) involved, and in <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law, the exchange
of valuable <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> (benefits) is of particular significance. [009]</p>

<p>[009]=============================================================
<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> is technically defined to be either a benefit or a detriment --
meaning that some operation of NATURE out there in the practical setting took
place.
"Under the common law of <ent type='GPE'>Missouri</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> sufficient to support
a simple contract may consist either of a detriment to the Promisee, or a
benefit to the Promisor."
-IN RE WINDLE, 653 F.2nd 328, at 331 (1981).
"The very essence of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>... is legal detriment that has been
bargained for and exchanged for the promise... The two parties must have agreed
and intended that the benefits each derived be the <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> for a
contract."
-JOSEPHINE HOFFA VS. FRANK FITZSIMMONS, 499 F.Supp. 357, at 365
(1980). This <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> DOCTRINE -- this requirement that there must first
be a practical operation of NATURE prior to triggering the Law is very
important, and applies across all factual settings, and not just on contracts,
as I will explain by the end of this Letter. But for the purposes of this
Letter, only the benefit slice of <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> will be discussed.
=============================================================[009]</p>

<p>This <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> requirement is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, [010]</p>

<p>[010]============================================================= Yes, the
requirement for <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> originated in the Heavens, but not so to lawyers,
who begin their analysis of the Law by starting off in the wrong direction when
assuming that men created the Law. Just like collegiate intellectual's
conjecture that the organic history of technological innovations is the result
of accidents, so too do lawyers skew their perceptions off into factually
defective tangents:
"Bargain consideration was invented for the sake of bilateral
agreements and then was extended to unilateral agreements..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Hugh Willis</ent> in RATIONALE OF BARGAIN <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> in 27 Georgetown
Law Journal 414, at 415 (1939).
The author then continues on with his dribblings.
=============================================================[010]</p>

<p>because it is immoral and unethical to hold a contract against a Person under
circumstances in which that Person never received any benefits from out of it.
[011]</p>

<p>[011]============================================================= See Charles
Fried in CONTRACT AS PROMISE "<ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>" [<ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>Harvard University</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent></ent>,
<ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent> (1981)].
=============================================================[011]</p>

<p>It has to be this way, otherwise the Judicature of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States would be
working a Tort (damage) on someone else. So simply giving the other party some
up front <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>, which is generally $10 in cash, separately and in
addition to any other benefit the contract may call for, will vitiate and
deflect any attack against the future enforcement of that contract on the
grounds the other party never experienced any benefit from it (the attack is
called FAILURE OF <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>). [012]</p>

<p>[012]============================================================= For
commentary in this area of <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, see:
-<ent type='PERSON'>James Barr Ames</ent> in TWO THEORIES OF <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, 12 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law
Review 515 (1899) [discussing the relationship between <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> and both
unilateral and bilateral contracts];
-<ent type='ORG'>Arthur Corbin</ent> in THE EFFECT OF OPTIONS ON <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, 34 Yale Law
Journal 571 (1925);
-<ent type='ORG'>Arthur Corbin</ent> in NON-BINDING PROMISES AS <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, 26 <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent>
Law Review 550 (1926);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph Beale</ent> in NOTES ON <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, 17 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 71
(1903);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Melvin Eisenberg</ent> in THE PRINCIPLES OF <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, 67 Cornell Law
Review 640 (1982);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Samuel Williston</ent> in SUCCESSIVE PROMISES OF THE SAME PERFORMANCE, 5
<ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 27 (1894). <ent type='PERSON'>Samuel Williston</ent> authored several tremendous
books on contract law called:
1.WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS, [<ent type='PERSON'>Baker</ent> &amp; <ent type='PERSON'>Voorhis</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1936-1945) 9
volumes];
2.CASES ON ENGINEERING CONTRACTS ("engineering" meaning "drafting"
contracts), [Little Brown, <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> (1904)];
3.RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW ON CONTRACTS [<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Law Institute, St.
<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> (1932)].
=============================================================[012]</p>

<p>This <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> [meaning some practical benefit being exchanged or some
operation of Nature taking place] can also originate from third persons not a
party to the contract. [013]</p>

<p>[013]============================================================= "In most
actions upon contracts, the <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> 'moved' directly from the <ent type='ORG'>Plaintiff</ent>
to the <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent>, either by way of a benefit conferred or a loss sustained, or
both, and the promise sued upon was made by the <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent> directly to the
<ent type='ORG'>Plaintiff</ent>. But occasionally the whole <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> arises between the
<ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent> and some third person other than the <ent type='ORG'>Plaintiff</ent>, and the promise is
made to such [third] person alone; and the question arises, 'Can any other
person than the promisee maintain an action upon such promise, solely because
he is beneficially interested in its performance?' Many cases seem to hold
that he can. Is that a universal or general rule? Is not the general rule the
other way? If A sends a package to B by an expressman and pays him double price
upon his promise to deliver the article promptly, can B recover damages for the
carrier's non-performance of that contract? ...A perfect, well-rounded contract
requires not only a promise and a <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>, but a participation by each
party in both of these elements..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Edward Bennett</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>S MOVING FROM THIRD PERSONS in 9
<ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 233, at 233 (1895). As we change settings from a common
everyday Commercial arrangement where merchandise is being transported back and
forth, over to a juristic setting involving contracts with <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>, nothing
changes either -- as <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> is deemed to have been exchanged based upon
an operation of indirect third persons not a party to the contract [as I will
discuss under the <ent type='ORG'>CITIZENSHIP</ent> CONTRACT later on].
=============================================================[013]</p>

<p>The word <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> has so many different meanings that anyone trying to use
the word instructionally finds themselves starting over from scratch in the
presentation of a definition. [014]</p>

<p>[014]============================================================= "The term
<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> has been used in so many senses that anyone who employs it must
define it for his own purposes anew. In using it as a title, I mean to include
thereunder all acts or omissions on the part of anyone other than the promissor
which, taken in connection with the promise, may be thought to afford a reason
for granting a legal remedy upon its breach. So stated, the question whether
<ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> exists in any given instance depends not on the character of the
particular act relied upon as <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>, but on its relation to the
parties, to the promise, and to the particular remedy which is sought."
-<ent type='PERSON'>George Gardner</ent> in AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF
CONTRACTS, 46 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 1, at 9 (1932). In the typical case of a
simple business contract these relationships that <ent type='PERSON'>Gardner</ent> was referring to
appear to be complex at first (as <ent type='PERSON'>George Gardner</ent> did not elucidate himself very
well in that article), but they are based on very simple PRINCIPLES OF NATURE
everyone can understand; and when understanding these <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> rules, the
indicia of Nature which creates invisible contracts will also surface and
become apparent. For example, let's say that A promises to B that if B will
ship him a farm reaper, then A will pay to B $500 ten days after it is shipped.
Fine. B ships the reaper, thus bring the element of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> into the
factual setting, and so now an invisible contract is formed: How? Since it was
necessary to promise $500 as an inducement to B to ship the reaper, it is
reasonably inferred that B experienced an outgoing DETRIMENT of something
around $500. But as for A, he accepted a benefit (the reaper) that B first
offered conditionally -- and when practical benefits were accepted by you that
someone else offered conditionally (here, the benefit was conditioned upon
receipt of $500 within ten days), then an invisible contract is in effect; and
contracts do not now, and never did, have to be stated in writing in order to
be enforceable by <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Judges. [The reaper sale is explained in PORT HURON
MACHINE COMPANY VS. WOHLERS, 207 <ent type='GPE'>Iowa</ent> 826 (1929)].
=============================================================[014]</p>

<p>Under some circumstances, successive Promises cascading down from existing
contracts can be deemed to be good and valuable <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>. [015]</p>

<p>[015]============================================================= Even though
no tangible <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> changed hands when this successive contract was
executed, the original contract did trigger an exchange of <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, an so
in a sense, other successive future contracts could be deemed ADDENDUMS to the
original contract, obtaining their life from the <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> the parent
contract experienced. See:
-C.C. Langdell in MUTUAL PROMISES AS A <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> FOR EACH OTHER in
14 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 496 (1900);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Samuel Williston</ent> in SUCCESSIVE PROMISES OF THE SAME PERFORMANCE in 8
<ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 27 (1894);
-Ballantine n MUTUALITY AND <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> in 28 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 121
(1914);
-<ent type='ORG'>OLIPHANT</ent> in MUTUALITY OF OBLIGATION IN <ent type='ORG'>BILATERAL</ent> CONTRACTS AT LAW in
25 <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> Law Review 705 (1925);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Samuel Williston</ent> in THE EFFECT OF ONE VOID PROMISE IN A <ent type='ORG'>BILATERAL</ent>
AGREEMENT in 25 <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> Law Review 857 (1925);
-Corbin in NON-BINDING PROMISES AS <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> in 26 <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> Law
Review 550 (1926).
=============================================================[015]</p>

<p>Harnessing the element of FRAUD to inure to your benefit is powerful stuff in
that it vitiates contracts whenever it makes an appearance in a factual setting
predicated upon contract; [016]</p>

<p>[016]============================================================= Fraud
vitiates the juristic vitality and destroys the legal validity of everything
that it enters into:
"Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It
affects fatally even the most solemn judgments and decrees."
-IRA <ent type='ORG'>NUDD</ent> VS. GEORGE BURROWS, 91 U.S. 426, at 440 (1875).
"There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the
most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. There is no question that
many rights originally founded in fraud become -- by lapse of time... no longer
open to inquiry in the usual and ordinary method."
-UNITED STATES VS. SAM THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61, at 64 (1878). Notice
how the lack of timeliness impairs one's ability to invoke this DOCTRINE OF
FRAUD and successfully have contracts, documents, etc. annulled where fraud has
surfaced as an element; and as we change arguments, <ent type='ORG'>the Principle</ent> of Timeliness
(Laches) does not change, so the importance of handling FAILURE OF
<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> in a timely manner as a defense line will also surface as a key
important judicial indicia in deciding whether or not to award a FAILURE OF
<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> judgment in your favor.
=============================================================[016]</p>

<p>and likewise, when contracts are up for review and judgment, the element of
<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> is also so important that the mere absence of it nullifies the
judicial enforceability of any factual setting alleging the existence of
contractual liabilities. As the PRESENCE of fraud vitiates contracts, so in a
similar manner does the ABSENCE of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> nullify contracts. [017]</p>

<p>[017]============================================================= In the early
1970's, a business called <ent type='PERSON'>Erika Incorporated</ent> had been the recipient of a train
of money originating from medical claims filed with <ent type='ORG'>University Hospital</ent> in
<ent type='GPE'>Birmingham</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Alabama</ent> for the <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> "C-Plus" payment plan. <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> had
been sending the money to <ent type='ORG'>University Hospital</ent>, who in turn sent the money to
<ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent>. But in the Summer of 1975, <ent type='ORG'>University Hospital</ent> decided to terminate
relations with <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent>, and so <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> then started paying its subscribers
directly for services rendered by <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent>. Now <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> had to go through the
nui<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>ce of trying to collect money from some distant patients; this was an
expensive procedure, and necessarily generated administrative headaches; and so
now <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> tried to get set up with <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> directly as a PROVIDER, now that
<ent type='ORG'>University Hospital</ent> stopped paying <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent>. In a preliminary attempt to get paid
directly from <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> presented some ASSIGNMENTS that its customers
had signed, instructing <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> to pay <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> directly, but <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent>
erected some administrative impediments. Later, <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> then asked <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> for
a PROVIDER NUMBER to return to a relationship where they get paid directly from
<ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent>, but <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> refused to issue out such a PROVIDER NUMBER. So in
the Summer of 1975, numerous letters were going back and forth between the
corporate management of <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent>. The letters seem to indicate that
<ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> deemed that a PROVIDER NUMBER for <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> really was not necessary,
and that special checks could be issued out to <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> in circumvention of house
rules, but things never worked out for <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent>. Circumstances came to pass later
where <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> is unhappy over the loss of revenue, so <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> started an action in
<ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> District <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>, now claiming that the letters from <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> stating
possible circumvention of PROVIDER NUMBER was an offer to a contract which
<ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> later accepted, and therefore a contract was in effect. The <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Judge
ruled that an exchange of letters is not a contract, and that all of the offers
and acceptances stated in such letters means nothing -- since NO <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>
EVER CHANGED HANDS:
"Even if the exchange of letters can somehow be construed as containing
essential elements of the agreement, no contract was formed because there was
no <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>. <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> for a promise is an act, a forbearance, or the
creation, modification or destruction of a legal relation, or a return promise,
bargained for and given in exchange for the promise. [Remember that
<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent> is a hard practical operation of Nature taking place.] ... In the
instant case, there was no <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> to <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> from <ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> for any
promise made by <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent>. Although legal detriment to the promisee is a valid
<ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> as a benefit to the promisor, ... that <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> must be
bargained for, and in the instant case there is no evidence that the action of
<ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent> in submitting bills in the form and manner set forth by <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> and
refraining from sending such bills to <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent>' subscribers was in any way
bargained for. The <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> finds that the exchange of correspondence did not form
a contractual obligation on the part of <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent> to pay the money directly to
<ent type='PERSON'>Erika</ent>."
-<ent type='ORG'>ERIKA</ent>, INC. VS. BLUE CROSS, 496 F.Supp. 786, at 788 (1980). I
simplified the factual setting on this Case, but the essential factual elements
relating to the promises written on paper, without any correlative operation of
Nature (<ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>) is largely accurate. Here in <ent type='ORG'>ERIKA</ent>, just like Tax
Protestors throwing Temporary Restraining Order Petitions at a new Employer,
one party lost no time barreling into <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> demanding some perceived
rights. And as is very often the case, as happened here, a third party
intervenes into the factual setting [here <ent type='ORG'>Blue Cross</ent>], and for reasons the
complaining party had little control over, damages are being experienced. With
Tax Protestors, the third party intervening into their factual setting by
preemptively grabbing their earnings is the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>. By the end of this Letter, you
should see quite clearly that the Law now continues to operate out in the
practical setting where it always has operated before recent technological
developments like paper, pens, and the like, and even general public literacy,
which surfaced generally as late as the 1300's to 1600's. The Law does not
operate on paper [whenever the Law is based on NATURE]; what is written on
paper is merely a STATEMENT OF THE LAW. Importantly, I hope you should see why.
=============================================================[017]</p>

<p>In general terms, both <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Jurisprudence and Nature that it is modeled
after are divided into actions that fall generally under Tort Law and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
Law. [018]</p>

<p>[018]============================================================= For a
presentation of the history of the bifurcation of Law into Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
going back into 1200 A.D., see C.H.S. Fifoot in HISTORY AND SOURCES OF THE
COMMON LAW, TORT AND CONTRACT; [<ent type='PERSON'>Stevens</ent> and Sons, <ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1949)].
=============================================================[018]</p>

<p>Numerous references will be made throughout this Letter to the two great
divisions in <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Jurisprudence: TORT LAW and CONTRACT LAW. Very simply,
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law applies to govern a settlement of a grievance whenever a contract
is in effect. This means that only certain types of very narrow arguments are
allowed to be plead in <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law grievances, since only the content of the
contract is of any relevance in the grievance settlement. The reason why
statutes are sometimes brought into a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law judgment setting, statutes
that do not appear anywhere within the body proper of the contract, is because
the contract was written under the supervisory <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> Jurisdiction of the
State, and that therefore those statutes form a superseding part of the
contract. [019]</p>

<p>[019]============================================================= Before 1933,
it was common practice in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States for various contracts to contain
covenants stating that a sum set certain would be paid in <ent type='ORG'>Gold Coin</ent>, and so
these special covenants were then called <ent type='ORG'>GOLD CLAUSES</ent>. They would read
something to the effect that "... will pay (amount) dollars in gold coin of the
United States of the standard weight and fineness existing on (date of
contract)..." In this way, creditors protected themselves from losses due to
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> creating a monetary change in currency value. When a Joint
Resolution of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in June of 1933 [31 U.S.C. 463] explicitly abrogated the
judicial enforcement of these <ent type='ORG'>GOLD CLAUSES</ent> in Commercial contracts, there was
the usual <ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent> howling, claiming that worn out <ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent> argument of
<ent type='ORG'>UNCONSTITUTIONALITY</ent>; some lingering residues of which continue on down to the
present time. However, long ago in the early 1800's, an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> jurist with
great foresight, who understood the correct relational status in effect between
COMMER<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L contracts and the Constitution, had a few words to say about this
state of affairs:
"Nay, if the legislature should pass a law declaring, that all future
contracts might be discharged by a tender of any thing, or things, besides gold
and silver, there would be a great difficulty in affirming them to be
unconstitutional; since it would become part of the stipulations of the
contract."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph Story</ent> in III COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION at 248
["Prohibitions - <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>"] (<ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent>, 1833). By the end of this Letter, you
too should see why COMMER<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L contracts are born, live and then die, in their
own strata, without the Constitution offering any significant restrainment on
<ent type='ORG'>Legislative</ent> intervention. See generally:
-THE <ent type='ORG'>GOLD CLAUSES</ent>, 294 U.S. 240 (1934);
-Barry, GOLD, 20 <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> Law Review 263 (1934);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Phanor Eder</ent>, THE GOLD CLAUSE CASES IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, 23 George
<ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> Law Review [Part 1 at Page 369 (Basic concepts of money); and Part 2
starts at Page 722 ("Debasement, Devaluation and Depreciation")] (1934);
-<ent type='ORG'>Russell Post</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Charles Willard</ent>, THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO
NULLIFY <ent type='ORG'>GOLD CLAUSES</ent>, 46 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 1225 (1933); and others mentioned
elsewhere in this Letter. Although it seems momentarily pleasing to ventilate
<ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent> frustrations by throwing invectives at the spineless <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> for their
successive continuum of enacting <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Special Interest Group legislation
with the national damages created secondarily in their wake, by the end of this
Letter, the true remedy will be found lying within yourself.
=============================================================[019]</p>

<p>There are many subdivisions within <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law, such as Securities Law, Estate
Inheritance, Quasi-<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, [020]</p>

<p>[020]=============================================================
Quasi-contracts are just contracts. Sir <ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Maine</ent> showed the use of the
adjunct QUASI in such <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> expressions as quasi-contract (quasi ex contractu),
but it is just an assignment of superfluous terminology. See a review of
<ent type='PERSON'>William Keeton</ent>'s book called QUASI-CONTRACTS by <ent type='PERSON'>Everett Abbott</ent> in 10 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent>
Law Review 209 (1896).
=============================================================[020]</p>

<p>Statutory <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, Taxes, Copyright and Trademark Infringement Law, Commercial
Business Practice under either the Law Merchant or the Uniform Commercial Code,
Insurance, Admiralty and Maritime <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, etc. Operating a business under a
regulated statutory juristic environment is very much a contract, since a
numerous array of <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> benefits are being accepted by Gameplayers in
<ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent>, as I will discuss later.</p>

<p>And in contrast to that, we have Tort Law. Think of Tort Law as being a
Judgment Law to settle grievances between persons where there are damages, but
without any contract in effect between the parties. [021]</p>

<p>[021]============================================================= "A tort is a
breach of duty (other than contractual duty) which gives rise to an action for
damages. That is, obviously, a merely procedural definition, of no value to the
layman. The latter wants to know the nature of those breaches of duty which
give rise to an action for damages. To put it briefly, there is no English Law
of Tort; there is merely an English Law of Torts, i.e., a list of acts and
omissions which, in certain conditions, are actionable. Any attempt to
generalize further, however interesting from a speculative standpoint, would be
profoundly unsafe as a practical guide."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Miles</ent>, DIGEST OF ENGLISH CIVIL LAW, Book II, Page xiv (1910). This
pitiful line of reasoning and of poorly presented facts without any guidance
Principles, is what collegiate law students are taught, so we should not be too
surprised to start uncovering damages that lawyers have done to our Father's
Law. =============================================================[021]</p>

<p>A good contrasting way to define a Tort is by enumerating on the things that it
is not: It is not a breach of contract. Included under the heading of Torts are
such miscellaneous civil wrongs, ranging from simple and direct interferences
against a person like assault, battery, and false imprisonment; or with some
property rights, like trespass or conversion; and various forms of negligence
are Torts ("judge, the defendant was negligent in maintaining his parking lot
by not fixing a dangerous and obscure crevice that was in it") -- but the final
definition is a simple one: Any wrong that has been worked by someone, where
there is no contract in effect, falls under Tort Law when the damaged person
brings the grievance into <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> and tries to seek a judicial remedy. [022]</p>

<p>[022]============================================================= "...it is a
distinguishing characteristic of Torts that the duties from the violation of
which they result are creatures of the law and not of peculiar agreements. As
contractual duties properly have their origin in, and derive their vitality
from, the assent of the parties, a breach of such duties only does not
constitute a Tort."
-62 CORPUS JURIS 1091, at 1092, Section 2. [See also 86 CORPUS JURIS
SECUNDUM under "Torts -- Definition, Distinctions, and History"; 86 CORPUS
JURIS SECUNDUM, Section 2 also discusses "Torts -- Distinction From, and
Relation To, <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>"].
=============================================================[022]</p>

<p>Such an easy concept to understand as that, with parallel easy to understand
rules and judgment reasoning -- and lawyers are actually baffled by it. [023]</p>

<p>[023]============================================================= And they
have been poorly writing cases, statutes and memoranda for a very long time:
"The law of <ent type='PERSON'>Edward</ent> I's reign draws no clear line between tort and
contract."
-Sir <ent type='PERSON'>William Holdsworth</ent> in Volume II, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, at 369
[<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1936); 18 Volumes]. But they should not have been baffled; back in the
early English days of King <ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent>, strategies for bringing actions into court
under either Tort or <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> was being fluently discussed back then:
"[While discussing the beginnings of ASSUMPSIT (ASSUMPSIT was a court
action to recover from breach of contract on simple unwritten contracts)]
...<ent type='ORG'>The King</ent>'s <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> was not very fond of contract, but it showed some interest
in tort, and it is in the action of trespass that the quickest progress was
made. ...The debate [back in the 1300's] makes it clear that all parties
recognized that the situation was fundamentally contractual, and that it was
being forced into the form of tort simply because the action of covenant could
be brought only upon deed upon seal. In this particular instance, the contrast
with trespass is well made, and the case is left, procedurally, at least, as a
case of negligent damage to a chattel. But it must not be imagined that this is
the story of the slow dawn of the idea of contract in the minds of common
lawyers. They knew quite well [back then] what a covenant was, but they
deliberately resorted to juggling with [the tort of] trespass because they felt
unable to sustain an action of covenant without a deed."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Theodore Pluckett</ent> in HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW, Page 637 [Little
Brown Publishers, <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> (1956); 5th Edition]. Today in 1985, lawyers will
still juggle their arguments around, trying to find the most advantageous
position for their client; and so applicability of Tort Law or <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law is
still being argued down to the present day.
=============================================================[023]</p>

<p>Similarly, orthodox medical doctors here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States are also blind,
by replicating the advisory suggestions of drug companies pursuing Commercial
Enrichment, to exclude the identification of simple nourishment deficiency as
the true seminal point of mammalian disease origin. Against that sad background
(of professionals not even knowing their own profession), [024]</p>

<p>[024]============================================================= Even
prominent <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> jurists have had difficulty coming to grips with the simple
ideas of Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>:
"But it must be remembered that the distinction between tort and
breaches of contract, and especially between the remedies for the two, is not
found ready made. It is conceivable that a procedure adapted to redress for
violence was extended to other cases as they arose."
-Oliver W. Holmes in THE COMMON LAW, at 13 [Little Brown, <ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent>
(1881)]. =============================================================[024]</p>

<p>the actual identification of Tort Law as an actual branch of <ent type='ORG'>the Majestic Oak</ent>
is a relatively recent recognition by <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> lawyers. Up until about 1859,
Tort Law was not understood as a separate and distinct branch of Law. [025]</p>

<p>[025]============================================================= "The
definition of a tort may be said to have baffled the text-book writers not so
much on account of the inherent difficulty of the conception as because of the
implication of the conception in questions of jurisdiction. ...Perhaps none of
the text-books succeeds in introducing all of these limitations into its
definition."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent>, TORTS AND DELICTS, 27 Yale Law Journal 721, at 723 (1918).
=============================================================[025]</p>

<p>The first treatise in ENGLISH ON TORTS was published in 1859 by Francis
Hilliard of <ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Massachusetts</ent>, who was followed a year later by an
English author named Addison. [026]</p>

<p>[026]============================================================= For a
discussion of the recent recognition of Tort Law by lawyers, see generally,
PROSSER AND <ent type='ORG'>KEETON</ent> ON TORTS, Page 1 [<ent type='ORG'>West Publishing</ent> (1984)]. By the time you
have finished this Letter, you will see that Tort Law has been in effect long
before this <ent type='ORG'>World</ent> ever came into existence, and long before para-legals
masquerading as professionals created a privately shared monopoly, the Bar
Association, in which to artificially limit new entrants and quietly pursue
enhanced Commercial self-enrichment. The fact that Tort Law has only recently
been recognized in <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Jurisprudence since the late 1800's does not mean
that Tort Law did not exist prior to such recognition -- it only means that
lawyers were groping in the dark back then [and not that things have really
changed that much].
=============================================================[026]</p>

<p>Even as late as 1871, the leading <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> legal periodical remarked that:</p>

<p>"We are inclined to think that Torts is not a proper subject for a law
book." [027]</p>

<p>[027]============================================================= 5 <ent type='ORG'>AMERICAN</ent>
LAW REVIEW 341 (1871). [Violating a premier PRINCIPLE OF NATURE with the
baneful and stupid conclusion that factual ignorance is beneficial to you.]
=============================================================[027]</p>

<p>In 1853, when Mr. Joel Bishop proposed to write a book on the Law of Torts, he
was assured then by all publishers he surveyed that there was no such call for
such a work on that subject. [028]</p>

<p>[028]============================================================= Mr. Bishop
was told that:
"... if the book were written by the most eminent and prominent author
that ever lived, not a dozen copies a year would be sold."
-Joel Bishop in NON-CONTRACT LAW, Page 2 (1889).
=============================================================[028]</p>

<p>Yet, the distinction in effect between Tort Law and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law was in effect
during the <ent type='NORP'>Roman</ent> Empire. [029]</p>

<p>[029]============================================================= See ROMAN
LAW AND COMMON LAW, at Page 18, by W.W. Buckland [<ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent> University <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>
(1936)]. =============================================================[029]</p>

<p>But in addressing Tort Law itself, if I were to hit you over the head with a
baseball bat or burn down your house, there is no contract in effect governing
the grievance, so Tort Law rules, reasoning, and arguments govern the
settlement of this type of grievance. In addition to damages, judges always
want to examine the factual record presented to analyze the Defendant's
character, and make sure that the intent to damage was there (as consent and
accidental damages can vitiate liability). [030]</p>

<p>[030]============================================================= This means
that if you had asked me to burn down your house, you would be unsuccessful if
you later tried to sue me for Tort damages -- because you had <ent type='ORG'>CONSENT</ent>ED. As for
bringing down a baseball bat on you, what we have here is an assault, and it is
necessary to argue <ent type='ORG'>CONSENT</ent> when assault is alleged. However, the STATE OF MIND
of the actor in assault Tort proceedings is of interest to judges for other
deeper reasons [because the STATE OF MIND is a behavioral point of beginning
and leads to other things]:
"As to assault, this is, perhaps, one of the kind in which the insult
is more to be considered than the actual damages, though no great bodily pain
is suffered by a blow on the palm of the hand, or the skirt of the coat, yet
these are clearly within the legal definition of assault and battery, and among
gentlemen too often induce duelling and terminate in murder."
-RESPUBLICA VS. <ent type='ORG'>DELONGCHAMPS</ent>, 1 <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> 111, at 114 (1784).
=============================================================[030]</p>

<p>And so hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat is called an
"assault," and there lies a Tort; however, there are many types of Torts that
do not have any names assigned to them. [031]</p>

<p>[031]============================================================= Smith, TORTS
WITHOUT PARTICULAR NAMES, 69 University of <ent type='GPE'>Pennsylvania</ent> Law Review 91 (1921).
=============================================================[031]</p>

<p>Some writers have attempted to uncover certain characteristics that lie in
common to all Torts as a starting point to identify some Principles (yes, there
may be some hope for a few of you lawyers after all). [032]</p>

<p>[032]============================================================= See writers
like:
-Radin in A SPECULATIVE INQUIRY IN THE NATURE OF TORTS, 21 <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent> Law
Review 697 (1943);
-Stone in <ent type='ORG'>TOUCHSTONES</ent> OF TORT LIABILITY, 2 Stanford Law Review 259
(1950);
-Seavey in COGNITIONS ON TORT (1954)
=============================================================[032]</p>

<p>One of the reasons why lawyers try and raise numerous subclassifications of
Tort up to the main level of Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> (as they grope and search in the
dark the way they do), is because they do not see the invisible contracts that
are often quietly in effect, correctly overruling Tort Law intervention, since
an examination of the factual setting seems void of any contract. By the end of
this Letter, you will see many invisible contracts for what they really are,
and you will see how to identify the indicia that create invisible contracts.</p>

<p>You may not understand the deeper significance of the distinction in effect
between Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> right now, but after reading this Letter through a
few times, the semantic differential in meaning should become very apparent to
you, as I will give many examples of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law and Tort Law reasonings and
arguments, as applied across many different factual settings; as whenever there
is a judgment of some type, there is always in effect some rules and an
exclusion of some evidence in the mind of the judge a to what arguments will
and will not be allowed to be heard -- (even though this process goes on
unmentioned orally by the judge); and the real reason why there is an important
significance here that you might be interested in taking PERSONAL NOTICE of
[just like Judges take JUDI<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L NOTICE of special items], in Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
rule differentials in judgment settings, is because we all have an impending
Judgment with <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father -- where arguments then presented will be judged
under similar Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> rules; a judgment setting where the pure
magnitude of the consequences renders unprepared incorrect reasoning
injudicious and lacking in foresight.</p>

<p>Like in <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law, there are numerous subdivisions within Tort Law to place
a specific grievance into, such as: <ent type='ORG'>Civil Rights</ent>, Wrongful Death, Product
Liability, Aviation Law, Personal Injury, Accident Recovery, Professional
Malpractice, Unfair Competition, Admiralty and Maritime Torts, and certain
Fraud and Anti-<ent type='ORG'>Trust</ent> actions, etc.</p>

<p>[033]============================================================= See:
-Section 2, subsection 3, by Salmond, LAW ON TORTS, 7th Edition
(1928);
-Goodhart, THE FOUNDATION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY, 2 Modern Law Review 1
(1938);
-Williams, THE FOUNDATION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY, 7 <ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent> Law
Journal 111 (1938);
-<ent type='PERSON'>James</ent>, TORT LAW IN MIDST<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>M: ITS CHALLENGE TO THE JUDI<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L PROCESS,
8 <ent type='GPE'>Buffalo</ent> Law Review 315 (1959).
=============================================================[033]</p>

<p>Based on the Status of the person involved and certain elements in the factual
setting, and certain types of damages asked for, then what grievance normally
would be under <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law, could be changed to fall under Tort Law.</p>

<p>So there is the general distinction in effect between Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>.
Question: What if a grievance falls into an area of grey where it could fall
under rules applicable to either Tort of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>? Although my introductory
remarks in this Letter are necessarily simplified, numerous commentators have
mentioned that defining the line between Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is sometimes
difficult. [034]</p>

<p>[034]============================================================= "Never did a
Name so obstruct a true understanding of the Thing. To such a plight has it
brought us that a favorite mode of defining a Tort is to declare merely that it
is not a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>. As if a man were to define Chemistry by pointing out that it
is not Physics or Mathematics."
-Wigmore, SELECT CASES ON THE LAW OF TORTS, page vii (1912).
=============================================================[034]</p>

<p>However, what is important is the reason why a simple distinction became
difficult: Because the parties to what started out as a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law grievance
did not fully anticipate all future events that could have occurred between the
parties in contract. [035]</p>

<p>[035]============================================================= For example:
"If I employ a piano tuner to tune my piano and he does it badly, in
fact does not really tune it, I have a claim for recovery of what I may have
paid, and for damages for breach of contract, and I can resist action on the
contract if I have not paid. But there is no question of tort: The duty broken
was created by the contract. If, however, he not only fails to tune the piano,
but in the course of his operations breaks some of the hammers, the case is
altered. If he breaks the hammers negligently, I can sue him for the damage
either in contract or in tort; if intentionally, then I can sue him in tort or
(probably) in contract."
-W.W. Buckland in ROMAN LAW AND COMMON LAW, ["Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>"] at
page 273 [<ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent> University <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> (1936)].
=============================================================[035]</p>

<p>Typically, all blurry factual settings that involve an area between Tort and
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> have their seminal point of origin in a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> that did not
completely define what would and would not happen under all possible scenarios;
and this is called INCOMPLETE CONTRACTING. [036]</p>

<p>[036]============================================================= In response
to grievances arising out of fractured and insufficient contracts, judges
sometimes create legal fictions to deal with these voids that the particular
contracts were silent on; such fictions are the DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED CONDITIONS
and the DOCTRINE OF PRESUMED INTENT [see <ent type='PERSON'>Farnsworth</ent> in DISPUTES OVER OMISSION
IN CONTRACT, 68 <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> Law Review 860 (1968)]. Since the contract does not
specify rights and duties, a limited slice of Tort Law reasoning enters into
the Court's judgment, and so now Tort questions of FAIRNESS are then
entertained by the Judge, under these special limited circumstances (but
remember, Judges are merely filling voids that were left unsaid by the contract
-- so there is no derogation of our Father's Law when such limited slices Tort
are allowed to intervene into what started out as a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law grievance). In
other cases, sometimes there are unallocated benefits or losses coming out of
contracts, because quite frequently the contract did not provide for them [see
<ent type='PERSON'>Schwartz</ent> in SALES LAW AND INFLATION, 50 Southern <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> Law Review 1, at 8
to 10 (1976), discussing that if the parties have assumed the risk of inflation
within certain boundaries, then the consequences of inflation experienced
outside the specified boundaries of the contract is to be distributed pursuant
to the FAIRNESS of judicial discretion]. Since the contract is silent on the
effect of high inflation occurring outside of its boundaries, Tort Law
reasoning of fairness and unfairness is then allowed to properly enter into the
picture for this limited reason. Another area of Tort Law reasoning making its
appearance to fill areas of voids in contracts comes when contract grievances
are brought into <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s arguing that the UNIFORM COMMER<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L CODE Section 2-615
now allows them to weasel out of their contract for some reason [see <ent type='ORG'>Hurst</ent> in
FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN AN UNSTABLE ECONOMY: JUDI<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>LLOCATION OF
CONTRACTUAL RISKS UNDER UCC 2-615 in 54 <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> Carolina Law Review 545 (1976)].
UCC Section 2-615 ["Excuse By Failure of Presupported Conditions"] allows
parties in contracts to try and weasel their way out of the contract because
some excusable circumstances came to pass; when such a contract termination is
presented before a Judge, factors considered in the Judge's mind also center
largely around Tort Law arguments of fairness -- but only because the contract
is silent, and where contracts are silent, <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law yields to Tort Law
arguments of fairness and unfairness [see FAIRNESS AND UTILITY IN TORT THEORY
by <ent type='PERSON'>George Fletcher</ent>, 85 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 537 (1972)].
=============================================================[036]</p>

<p>Once a determination has been made that Tort or <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> governs the question
presented, very important differences and rules then apply to settling claims
and grievances based on the factual setting falling under Principles governing
Tort Law, or under Principles governing <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law; and as you can surmise,
the question as to whether or not a grievance belongs under Tort or under
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is often a disputed and hotly argued question between adversaries in a
courtroom battle, as the question as to which Law governs can spell total
success or total failure for the parties involved. For example, see <ent type='ORG'>BUTLER</ent> VS.
<ent type='GPE'>PITTWAY</ent> CORPORATION, [037]</p>

<p>[037]============================================================= 770 F.2nd 7
(1985). =============================================================[037]</p>

<p>where to adversaries argued Tort Law or <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law governance in a pre-Trial
appeal, which was a product liability/warranty case. [038]</p>

<p>[038]============================================================= Meaning that
some merchandise was first purchased under contract, and then evidence of a
manufacturing defect surfaced later on, so now Tort Law claims were thrown back
at the manufacturer (claims for damages can be enlarged under Tort Law, since
Tort Law is a free-wheeling jurisdiction; claims for damages under <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law
are restricted to the content of the contract, as in B<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>CH OF CONTRACT).
=============================================================[038]</p>

<p>In deciding whether to allow Tort or <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law to govern, <ent type='ORG'>the Second Circuit</ent>
mentioned that:</p>

<p>"This case falls into a grey area between tort and contract law that
has never been fully resolved." [039]</p>

<p>[039]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>BUTLER</ent> VS.
<ent type='GPE'>PITTWAY</ent> CORPORATION, id., at 9.
=============================================================[039]</p>

<p>So, for the introductory purposes of this Letter, I will only be discussing the
differences between Tort Law and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law in general. [040]</p>

<p>[040]============================================================= Other
summary articles discussing the necessary distinctions in effect between Tort
and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> are:
-THE PAST OF PROMISE by E.A. <ent type='PERSON'>Farnsworth</ent>, 69 <ent type='GPE'>Columbia</ent> Law Review 576;
-CONTRACT DAMAGES by W.R. <ent type='ORG'>Purdue</ent>, 46 Yale Law Journal 52 to 96
(1936-37). =============================================================[040]</p>

<p>This stratification of the Law into two separate jurisdictions of Tort and
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is quite necessary, and in so doing, the Judiciary is no more than
conforming the contours of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Jurisprudence to more tightly replicate the
profile of Nature; and as you will soon see there will be very profound
consequences experienced by folks who try to outfox Nature by using Tort Law
reasoning in a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law judgment setting. You should also be aware that
very often, we all occasionally get ourselves into contracts that become
invisible for any number of reasons, and then erroneously use the logic of Tort
Law reasoning to try and weasel our way out of the contract we forgot about.</p>

<p><ent type='EVENT'>Experientially</ent> well seasoned contractualists know that the desires and wants of
people routinely change with the passage of time, and that it is quite common
that contracts that are entered into today are often unattractive and
unappealing in the hindsight of the future. So this <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> rule is of
particular importance in those types of marginal contracts where the benefit a
Person experiences from the contract depends upon some future efforts that same
Person must make, or where the benefits are qualified or otherwise conditional.
For our purposes, correctly understood, <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> is a benefit.
Comprehension of the significance of <ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> is fundamental to one's
understanding as to why the Judiciary is largely ignoring the IN REM CONTRACT
RECESSIONS many folks are filing on their Birth Certificates; and understanding
<ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent> (the acceptance of benefits) is the Grand Key to unlocking the
mystery as to why some of <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent>'s <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> hooks are so difficult to pull out
of you, as I will discuss later.</p>

<p>There having been an exchange of valuable <ent type='ORG'>CONSIDERATION</ent>, when Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> entered
into his bank account contracts, Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> was in an extremely weak position --
he was just plain wrong with his bank accounts and other invisible contracts
(having experienced hard cash benefits [<ent type='ORG'>Consideration</ent>] as a result of the
contract, as well as giving <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that he was a
participant in Interstate <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> and the acceptant of federal benefits) and
so as a result, there was not a lot of substance left over for Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> to
argue about... like trying to argue that the Earth's rotation about its own
axis is some type of an elliptical illusion, just somehow. Yes <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent>, there
are absolutes in both Nature and in <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law; and <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent>s in
prosecutions can be plain and simple wrong. When one is inside of a King's
cage, one begins to appreciate just how strong contracts can be. Additionally,
Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> was trying to argue the basic unfairness of the proceedings against
him, but that unfairness argument as well was non-applicable to his <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
Judgment. [041]</p>

<p>[041]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>Unfairness</ent>,
and all of its correlative arguments, are Tort Law arguments and have no place
whatsoever in the settlement of grievances falling under <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law
Jurisprudence:
"Since the relationship between <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States and petitioner is
based on commercial contract, there is no basis for a claim of unfairness in
this result."
-STENCEL AERO VS. UNITED STATES, 431 U.S. 666, at 674 (1976).
Commentators have pointed out the fact that Tort Law is primarily fairness
oriented. See:
-<ent type='PERSON'>Epstein</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>DEFENSES</ent> AND SUBSEQUENT PLEAS IN A SYSTEM OF STRICT
LIABILITY, 3 Journal of Legal Studies 165 (1974);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Epstein</ent> in A THEORY OF STRICT LIABILITY in 2 Journal of Legal Studies
151 (1971);
-<ent type='PERSON'>James Henderson</ent> in PROCESS CONSTRAINTS IN TORT, 67 Cornell Law Review
901 (1982). =============================================================[041]</p>

<p><ent type='ORG'>Unfairness</ent> is a concept that is related to moral Tort Law. [042]</p>

<p>[042]============================================================= Questions of
FAIRNESS and <ent type='ORG'>UNFAIR</ent>NESS are questions reserved for grievances that fall under
Tort -- a concept commentators note over and over again:
"...Tort theory has served to explain and to justify the changing
notions of fairness... that are captured by the kaleidoscope of tortious
events."
-<ent type='PERSON'>William Rodgers</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>NEGLIGENCE</ent> RECONSIDERED: THE ROLE OF RATIONALITY
IN TORT THEORY, 54 Southern <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> Law Review 1, at 1 (November, 1980).
When contracts are in effect, questions of fairness are not relevant -- because
only the content of the contract is relevant.
=============================================================[042]</p>

<p>Questions of damages, and lack of damages, of the MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent> criminal intent, of
fairness, of risk assumption, of equity, and equality are all reasoning and
arguments reserved for a Tort Law judgment setting. Remember that Tort Law
doctrine governs the settlement of grievances that arise between parties
without any contract being in effect. Tort Law is generally a free-wheeling
jurisdiction, and anything goes. The decision by <ent type='ORG'>the New Jersey</ent> State Supreme
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> to hold sponsors of parties responsible for the acts of persons who drank
in their homes is a Tort Law grievance. [043]</p>

<p>[043]============================================================= The case I
am referring to is <ent type='GPE'>KELLY</ent> VS. DONALD GWINNELL, 476 A.2nd 1219 (1984). For
Commentary, see:
-<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> Verardi in SO<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L HOST LIABILITY, 23 Duquesne Law Review 1307
(1985);
-<ent type='PERSON'>Maura Mahon</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>IMPOSING THIRD PARTY LIABILITY</ent> ON SO<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L HOSTS, in 5
Pace Law Review 809 (1985);
-Case Notes in TORTS - <ent type='GPE'>NEGLIGENCE</ent> -- SO<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L HOST <ent type='ORG'>WHO</ent> SERVES LIQUOR TO
A <ent type='ORG'>VISIBLY</ent> INTOXICATED ADULT GUEST, KNOWING THE GUEST WILL THE<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>FTER DRIVE AN
AUTOMOBILE, MAY BE HELD LIABLE, in 89 Dickerson Law Review 537 (1985). As the
ripple effect of Tort Law liability attachment ascends up the ladder to reach
third persons seemingly not involved with the heated grievance, then so too do
distant and removed Employers get held for similar attachments of Tort
liability, just like Social Hosts [see <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Gutis</ent> in EXPANDING THIRD PARTY
LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO CONTROL THE INTOXICATED EMPLOYEE <ent type='ORG'>WHO</ent> DRIVES, 18
Connecticut Law Review 155 (1985); the Case <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Gutis</ent> refers to in his Law
Review article is OTIS ENGINEERING CORPORATION VS. CLARK, 668 S.W.2nd 307
(<ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent>, 1983). This legal reasoning is largely just an extension of the
liability that has always been in place regarding the liability of the
Principle or the Torts of his Agents, when those Torts were done without the
knowledge or authority of <ent type='ORG'>the Principle</ent> [see <ent type='PERSON'>William Vance</ent> in LIABILITY FOR THE
UNAUTHORIZED TORTS OF AGENTS in 4 <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> Law Review 199 (1904)].
=============================================================[043]</p>

<p>In contrast to the elastic and expansive nature of Tort Law, when <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are
in effect, only the content of the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is of any significance when the
grievance is up for review and judgment. [044]</p>

<p>[044]============================================================= If a music
store sold you a piano and agreed to have it delivered before 6pm tonight, and
the piano does not get delivered when you need it, do you think you can ask for
simple breach of contract damages, plus compound the requested damages relief
asked for in a <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> to compensate you for the <ent type='ORG'>PSYCHIC</ent> INJURIES that you
experienced because of the embarrassment and humiliation you suffered before
the eyes of your party guests that evening, as the partying went on without
that piano being there? Such a request for equitable relief in your <ent type='ORG'>Complaint</ent>
for Breach of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is patently ridiculous -- however, you need to know why:
Because when contracts are in effect (the purchase and correlative expected
delivery of the piano was very much a contract), then only the content of the
contract will be addressed and considered by the Judge when a grievance arises.
If you want to get supplemental secondary damages (called CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
by lawyers) because of the lack of timeliness in the delivery of the piano,
then you need to get the other party to agree to pay such damages on their
default, in advance, within the body of the contract; then a <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> can address
your claims of secondary damages [because then your claim falls within the
content of the contract]. The question of demanding something as indefinite,
vague and arbitrary as <ent type='ORG'>PSYCHIC</ent> DAMAGES is a question that belongs in the
free-wheeling world of Tort Law, where such indefinite questions of fairness
and unfairness have their home:
"The primary root of legal liability through psychic causes can be
traced back to the year 1349 to a tort action which recognized a liability for
assault without [any] physical touching under the WRIT OF TRESPASS."
-Harold McNiece in <ent type='ORG'>PSYCHIC</ent> INJURY AND TORT LIABILITY IN <ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent>, 24
Saint John's Law Review 1, at 3 (1949). Harold McNiece then spends the rest of
the article talking about the difficulty a court has in assigning a set sum of
money as relief compensation for something as vague and indefinite as perceived
<ent type='ORG'>PSYCHIC</ent> DAMAGES:
"The problem of tort liability where a mental injury is involved has
troubled the courts for a great many years, and even at present no consistent
pattern of liability rules exist. When injuries and causes of injuries leave
the realm of the tangible world and enter the uncharted areas of the mind,
courts understandably have difficulty in establishing principles of law
calculated to assure substantial justice. In the psychic injury field, Mr.
Justice <ent type='PERSON'>Douglas</ent>' observation, though made in another connection, seems to be of
peculiar pertinence:
"But there are few areas of the law in black and white. The grays are
dominant and even among them the shades are innumerable. For the eternal
problem of the law is one of making accommodations between conflicting
interests. This is why most legal problems end as questions of degree [quoted
from ESTIN VS. ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541, at 545 (1948)]."
-Harold McNiece, id., at 1. By the end of this Letter, you will see
very well the real deep reasons why the bifurcation of our Father's Law into
Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is an important PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that originated -- not
with "some <ent type='ORG'>Commie Federal</ent> Judge throwin' <ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent>s in jail" -- but in the mind
of <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father who created that abstraction Judges now call NATURE.
=============================================================[044]</p>

<p>Tort Law means that for every damage someone works on you, corrective damages
will be applied back to that person as the remedy (call the retort). For
example, in Tort Law, if you burned down a neighbor's house out of a grudge and
without the owner's consent (since no <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are in effect, Tort Law governs
the courtroom grievance), pure natural moral Tort Law requires that you be
damaged in return, i.e., that a retort be worked on you in order to satisfy the
demands of Justice. As the Sheriff or other neutral disinterested third party
that administers the retort (to perfect the ends of Justice), by stuffing you
in one of his cages, that encagement retort itself is largely exempt from
experiencing further retorts for his damages on you. [045]</p>

<p>[045]============================================================= This is a
contributing reason why it is so difficult for people to get TITLE 42, SECTION
1983 <ent type='ORG'>Civil Rights</ent> relief, unless both hard damages and special circumstances
are present in the factual setting, because under normal circumstances, the
Sheriff is largely immune from further retort since he operates in the retort
cycle of Justice. [But that is another Letter.] In order for a <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Civil
Rights Case to prevail, the elements of unjustified, exceptional, and pathetic
circumstances must be present in the factual setting to trigger <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> relief
-- and then when the relief is granted, the Judiciary is really not interested
in enriching you as much as they are interested in awarding damage money to
preventively restrain the recurrence of unreasonable police <ent type='GPE'>Tortfeasance</ent> in the
future:
"Remedies for constitutional wrongs, like other legal remedies, chiefly
involve measures either to prevent or terminate the wrong or to redress the
harm caused by past unconstitutional [police] conduct."
-Professor <ent type='PERSON'>Sager</ent>, as quoted by <ent type='PERSON'>Bruce Miller</ent> in UNDERINCLUSIVE
STATUTES, 20 <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Civil Rights</ent> -- Civil Liberties Law Review 79, at 112
[footnote 145] (1985).
=============================================================[045]</p>

<p>So the cycle of Tort and retort ends there by the Sheriff jailing you for
damaging your neighbor the way you did by burning down his house. This is Tort
Law, and this is a key concept to understand, because numerous people
throughout the world have so deliberately and very carefully arranged their
affairs as to have all their murders and MAGNUM Torts executed on their behalf
under the liability vitiating and recourse free operating environment of pure
natural Tort Law, as I will explain later. Think about this Tort and Retort
Doctrine for a while, as it is very powerful -- with it damages can be
justified in a judgment setting, if your damages occurred to accomplish the
ends of Justice.</p>

<p>These people, taking counsel from <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, by arranging their damages to be
justified as a retort, believe quite strongly that they are morally correct and
that <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father [046]</p>

<p>[046]============================================================= Yes, we very
much have a <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father:
"If our Father and God should be disposed to walk through one of these
aisles, we should not know of him from one of the congregation. You would see a
man, and that is all you would know about Him; you would merely know Him as a
stranger from some neighboring city or country. This is the character of Him
who we worship and acknowledge as our Father and God... He is our <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent>
Father..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, President of the <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent>, in remarks delivered
in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>, January 8, 1865. 11 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent>
39, at 40 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1867)]. And we are quite similar to our Father in many ways:
"If we believe there is any truth in the writings of <ent type='PERSON'>Moses</ent>, the
<ent type='ORG'>Patriarchs</ent>, Prophets and Apostles, and the teachings of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, if we would
indeed be consistent <ent type='NORP'>Christians</ent> and receive the writings of the fathers, and
believe what was said unto them, we must believe that man is made in the image
of God, and consequently that we are of the species of the gods. However
child-like and feeble we are in this condition of mortality, we are
nevertheless descended from the gods, made in their image and after their
likeness."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Erastus Snow</ent>, in a discourse in <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>, January 20, 1878; 19
<ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 322, at 323 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1878)]. [The <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent>
is a large collection of instructional pronouncements by early <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent>
authorities that was published over a number of years in <ent type='GPE'>London</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>England</ent>. This
Letter contains many quotations from the <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent>, and since these are
transcripts of speakers, I made nominal changes in punctuation, capitalization,
and spelling that I deemed provident under the circumstances; in so doing,
there was no derogation of the original idea and meaning expressed by the
speaker. Please check original citations before requoting.]
=============================================================[046]</p>

<p>is required to support them and their abominations at the Last Day, as their
murders have in fact been executed under the vitiating retort cycle of pure
moral Tort Law, and therefore immune from further recourse, just like the
Sheriff is immune from further recourse for the damages he worked on you when
he stuffed you into one of his cages for burning down that house.</p>

<p>And those people arranging their behavior to conform themselves into a Tort Law
judgment profile with damages immunization reasoning are correct, because Tort
Law is a correct and pure operation of Nature, and their damages can very much
be justified before Father at the Last Day; but the question of justification
of damages is not going to be relevant at the Last Day, and for the identical
same reason as to why the question of no damages being present in Highway
traffic code prosecutions and Income Tax enforcement actions is also not
relevant. Because just one tiny little problem for these Tort Law justification
imps surfaces, based upon an obscure, remote, and little known Doctrine
uncovered from the archives of the <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>. I'll
explain all that later, but understanding the original Tort and recourse free
"Justice" retort concept, and its appreciation as a true PRINCIPLE OF NATURE,
is necessary before we probe deeper into Lucifer's extremely clever <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent>
reasoning and Father's little known "Ace" that he has up his sleeve; and then
into the deeper meaning of this Life, which involves (as you could guess by
now), a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>. But <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, of and by themselves, are never the end
objective, they are only a mechanical and procedural tool used to accomplish a
larger objective: An objective to someday have all of the rights, power,
domain, keys, status, and authority as our <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father now has. [047]</p>

<p>[047]============================================================= "I will go
back to the beginning, before the world was, to show what kind of a being God
is... God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits
enthroned in yonder Heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil was rent
today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all
worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible -- I say, if
you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like
yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for <ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent> was
created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received
instructions from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks
and converses with another. ...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an
<ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> the same as <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ himself did. [Our <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father when through
his Second Estate with his Father and has his Father to answer to, and so on
back up the line]."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph Smith</ent>, President of the <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent>, in remarks delivered at
a <ent type='ORG'>Conference</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Nauvoo</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Illinois</ent>, on April 6, 1844; 6 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 1,
at 3 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1859)].
=============================================================[047]</p>

<p>The Grand Meaning of this Life is quite a story, and simply focusing in on the
relevant material is difficult by virtue of the large volume of distraction
material that is floating around out there. Nevertheless, as strange as it may
initially seem, people correctly talking about it generally find themselves
having to tone things down a bit. [048]</p>

<p>[048]============================================================= "The whole
object of the creation of this world is to exalt the intelligences that are
placed on it, that they may live, endure, and increase for ever and ever... The
lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself; [and
this will happen after] we have been proved in our present capacity, and have
been faithful in all things he puts into our possession [namely <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>]...
Mankind [is] organized of elements designed to endure to all eternity; it never
had a beginning, and never can have an end. There never was a time when this
matter [our <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s], of which you and I are composed, was not in existence,
and there never can be a time when it will pass out of existence; it cannot be
annihilated. [This matter] is brought together, organized, and capacitated to
receive knowledge and intelligence, to be enthroned in glory, to be made
angels, Gods -- beings who will hold control over the elements and have power
by their word to command the creation and redemption of worlds, or to
extinguish suns by their breath, and disorganize worlds, hurling back into
their chaotic state. This is what you and I are created for... We are organized
for the express purpose of controlling the elements, of organizing and
disorganizing, of ruling over kingdoms, principalities, and powers..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent> in multiple discourses; 7 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 290; 3
<ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 93; and 3 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 356 (1856 to 1860). So
much for those collegiate <ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent> clowns, propagating intricate theories
of evolution on <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> campuses; like Tax Protestors flirting with Tort Law
rationalizations in summary <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> enforcement proceedings, the individuals
damaged by intellectuals with their factual error are largely themselves (as
others can only be damaged by deception to the extent that such a deceptive
skew is wanted and accepted). And this remains true even though a large number
of people, and even <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>men, support Tax Protestors; and a large number of
people with impressive worldly credentials also support evolution (after all,
"It's been accepted as scientific fact"). Yes, factual verities do march on
independent of any acceptance, rejection, or comprehension of them by anyone.
...The word <ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent>, of a <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> origin, has spread world wide, and
means generally those members of the educated class or informed people who were
criticizing institutions and pushing theories around. In <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>, there were
philosophically illicit political overtones semantically associated with the
characterization <ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent>:
"The concept of <ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent> must not be confused with the notion of
<ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S. Its members thought of themselves as united by something more
than mere interest in ideas; they conceived of themselves as being a dedicated
order, almost a secular priesthood, devoted to the spreading of a specific
attitude to life, something like a gospel. ...they invented social criticism."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Isiah Berlin</ent> in RUSSIAN THINKERS ["Birth of the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent>
Intelligentsia"], at 117 [<ent type='ORG'>Viking Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1978); sentences quoted out
of order] For our purposes, a member of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent> is also an
<ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>, bristling with theories, who pushes and propagates popular
theorems and notions they believe that the world wants to hear, while tossing
aside countermanding factual information that negates the theory's veracity.
Occasionally, I will throw a spicy little invective at <ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent>
<ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S by supplementally characterizing them as <ent type='GPE'>CLOWNS</ent> -- a somewhat
strong characterization, but nevertheless appropriate when used. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, too,
have also found the use of this word attractive:
"<ent type='PERSON'>Fahun</ent>, the foreign minister, had been adamant, but now <ent type='PERSON'>Sadat</ent> overruled
both <ent type='PERSON'>Fahun</ent> and himself -- and accepted <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent></ent>'s proposition... it was
at that moment that <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent> decided he was dealing, not with a clown, but
with a statesman."
-"How <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent></ent> Did It," an advertisement in FOREIGN AFFA<ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>
MAGAZINE, page A29 [<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> on Foreign Relations, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (April, 1976)]. Due
to the strong contrasting semantic differential <ent type='GPE'>CLOWNS</ent> creates, it neatly wraps
up into one word what would have been several paragraphs of negative commentary
discussing the absence of both competence and intellectual prowess.
=============================================================[048]</p>

<p>Tax Protestors, like their brothers in contract defilement, Draft Protestors
(as I will explain later), denounce the basic illegitimacy of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States
-- our fat King -- silencing speech, and of criminalizing something that just
didn't happen ("How could not filing a piece of paper be a crime? Why, the
Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta be a witness against my self. Common Law
says there can be no Constructive Offenses..."; and on and on). But
unappreciated by Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> was the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law jurisdictional environment he
was being prosecuted in: A summary Commercial contract enforcement proceeding,
up for review and enforcement based on administrative findings of fact. [049]</p>

<p>[049]============================================================= In such
administrative enforcement proceedings under grievances arising out of
privileges and contracts that <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> created, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> are acting
<ent type='ORG'>MINISTERIALLY</ent> as a <ent type='ORG'>Legislative</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>, functioning as an extension of the agency
for <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent>, and not JUDI<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>LLY as an Article III <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> acting like neutral
and disinterested Referees calling the shots as umpires between adversaries;
and so some steps taken by the Judge acting <ent type='ORG'>MINISTERIALLY</ent>, to shorten the
proceedings or otherwise silence the <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent> when irrelevant subject matter
is being discussed, are largely non-reversible on appeal. In NORTHERN PIPELINE
VS. MARATHON PIPE LINE [458 U.S. 50 (1982)], the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> ruled that
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> can create non-Article III LEGISLATIVE COURTS in three areas:
Territorial <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s, Military <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>s Martial, and in disputes involving
privileges that <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> created in the first place [MARATHON, id., at pages 64
et seq.]. Participating in that closed private domain of King's <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> is
very much accepting and benefiting from a privilege created by <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>.
=============================================================[049]</p>

<p>In these <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> contract enforcement proceedings, questions of morality, of
Torts, [050]</p>

<p>[050]============================================================= Throughout
this Letter, the word TORT is a multiple entente, and may mean either its
general public semantic understanding of just plain damages, or of Tort Law
Jurisprudence which generally circulates around both damages as a center of
gravity and correlative retort immunization reasoning.
=============================================================[050]</p>

<p>of basic reasonableness, of pure natural justice, of fairness, of mental
intent, of the presence of a CORPUS DELECTI, of privacy rights, of equality
between this instant <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent> and other previous <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent>s and the like, are
all irrelevant. And the only thing that is relevant is the content of the
contract that was entered into some time earlier, in general, and the exact
technical infraction <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, as your Adversary in a 7203 Action,
wants addressed as the grievance, in particular. Under some limited
circumstances, <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> will annul contract enforcement actions where
unreasonable and over-zealous statute enforcement <ent type='GPE'>Tortfeasance</ent> has taken place
-- what appears to be "fairness" -- but such annulment is really only to
preemptively restrain such <ent type='GPE'>Tortfeasance</ent> from recurring in the future, and not
to benefit you at all. So whether in a driver's license contract grievance
setting of a highway speeding infraction, or in a Commercial contract WILLFUL
FAILURE TO FILE grievance setting with <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> through a bank account and
other contracts, the only thing that is relevant is you and your contract. All
other previous persons, their cases of defilement, and their grievances, and
what arguments they made or did not make, is irrelevant. Translated into the
practical setting where a poor <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent> is presenting a defense line, this
means that all motions that are made for dismissal, based on grounds relating
to anyone else's previous prosecution, are automatically denied, as being
irrelevant to the instant factual setting. <ent type='ORG'>Equality</ent> and fairness are not
relevant in settling contract grievances. <ent type='ORG'>Equality</ent> and fairness are Tort Law
arguments; they are definable only along the infinite; and if the Judiciary
allowed equality or fairness to enter into the contract arena, then the effect
of allowing equality and fairness on one side is to work a Tort on the other
side -- so the Judiciary simple rules, very properly, that when contracts are
in effect, only the content of the contract is relevant. Although this policy
has the uncomfortable secondary effect of making <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> appear to be
carefully selected Commie pinkos when dealing with a Tax Protestor (as <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
Judges go about their work enforcing invisible contracts), restraining the
subject matter that will be discussed in a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Judgment setting to include
only the content of the contract, is a correct attribute of Nature, and does
correctly replicate the mind, will, and intention of <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father (as I will
discuss later on) in the area of laying down rules for settling contract
grievances. The very common belief that folks have, that since 100 other
persons prosecuted for the same contract infraction got suspended sentences,
and therefore in equality you too should get a suspended sentence, is in error.
What other people do or don't do, or what happens to or does not happen to them
in their contract judgment, is not relevant to you and your contracts. This
equality and fairness applicability is an important principle to understand,
because we all have an important Judgment impending at the Last Day. Here is
where <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father is going to judge us at the Last Day along very similar
lines; because Father is operating on numerous invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> I will
discuss later. You Highway <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Protestors and Income Tax Protestors out
there now have such a marvelous advantage, if you would but use your valuable
knowledge acquired through such prosecutions and your study of the Law, to
avoid making the same Tort Law argument mistakes at the Last Day before Father
-- where unlike now, there will be no more going back and trying some argument
line out again. Today, you can go back into a courtroom over and over again,
throwing one successive argument after another at the Judge as many times as
you feel like, until you finally figure out what legal reasoning is correct,
what is incorrect, and why. Such a repetitive presentation of error is not
going to be possible at the Last Day -- there will be no going back to <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent>
Father a second and successive times and throwing another round of defensive
arguments at Him. Your Tort Law reasoning of equality, fairness, and of no
damages and no MENS <ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>, when presented before Father at the Last Day to
justify your behavior down here will fall apart and collapse, and for very good
reasons that I will explain later. This judicial enforcement, separating Tort
from <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> in WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE prosecutions, is but one manifestation
of the extent to which rare gifted genius rules in <ent type='ORG'>the Federal</ent> Judiciary. [051]</p>

<p>[051]============================================================= The word
GENIUS is deemed by some to be a strong characterization whose presentment
should be sparingly used.
"Genius is a word that ought to be reserved for the rarest of gifts."
-Justice <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent>, in <ent type='PERSON'>MARCONI</ent> WIRELESS VS. UNITED STATES, 320
U.S. 1, at 62 (1942). On the day President <ent type='PERSON'>Nixon</ent> announced on behalf of <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> that <ent type='ORG'>Warren Burger</ent> was going to be nominated to be the new Chief
Justice of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, President <ent type='PERSON'>Nixon</ent> stated that in filing vacancies
on the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent>, he would look for those judges who would follow in the
tradition of <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent>. QUESTION: Who is <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent>? Born in
1882 in <ent type='GPE'>Vienna</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Austria</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> emigrated to <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States with
his family. Three previous generations of European Frankfurters were <ent type='NORP'>jewish</ent>
rabbis; Felix's dad had studied for the rabbinate, but he pursued commercial
interests here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States while his son <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> went to <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent>
University to study Law. <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> stayed in <ent type='GPE'>Cambridge</ent> afterwards generally to
teach Law, although he took short stints to <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>.
Nominated to <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>FDR</ent> in 1939, <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent>
was one of the most intellectually strong and intense, high-powered <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s
that was ever brought forth into this Estate -- and I admire him so much for
his impressive calibre. Merely reading his <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> rulings is a
stretching exercise in intellectual gymnastics, as he compressed a well-blended
train of ideas into a single sentence and selected an organically enlarging
succession of words and phrases to swirl around his justifications and
elucidations on both peripheral ideas and concepts turning on a central axis.
Yes, <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> was very much a man of great and tremendous ability,
operating on a slice of rare gifted genius so exalted in stature that he left
all others biting the dust behind him -- but here is where I stop throwing
accolades at <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent>: Because <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> was a <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>. ...In
April of 1913, that fateful year again, there was held a little known
CONFERENCE ON LEGAL AND SO<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L PHILOSOPHY; organized largely by <ent type='PERSON'>Harold Laski</ent>,
<ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent>, and his close friend <ent type='PERSON'>Morris Cohen</ent>, the CONFERENCE was
chaired by <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> Dewey; Keynote Speaker was <ent type='PERSON'>Roscoe Pound</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Dean</ent> of the <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent>
Law School. Out of that CONFERENCE held in 1913, wrote <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> Cohen [son of
<ent type='PERSON'>Morris Cohen</ent>]:
"...much of the social and philosophical consciousness of modern
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> jurisprudence derives." <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> was an admirer of imp Roscoe
Pound, and openly propounded the redirection of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> jurisprudence into
what <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> called SOCIOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE (meaning in a sense,
that Law was going to be now determined by the social needs of the community,
and those old worn out relics of fixed Property Rights, Common Law rules, hard
Constitutional pronouncements and the like that are difficult for <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s to
massage, are just not anything that we need to be concerned with anymore). In
1913, <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> talked about a "great job" that would have to be done
on <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Law, stating that:
"That it has to be done -- to evolve a constructive jurisprudence going
hand in hand with the pretty thorough going overturning that we are in for."
<ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> admired <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> economist <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> Maynard Keynes and actually
accepted his doctrines; <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> expressed recurring high remarks for a "socially
sound taxing system" of high estate and income taxes; and while teaching at
<ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent>, he taught his students that:
"The Constitution is not a fixed body of truth, but a mode of social
adjustment." President <ent type='PERSON'>Teddy Roosevelt</ent> once sent a letter to a newspaper in
<ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> attacking <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> for his <ent type='ORG'>Bolshevik</ent> orientation and sympathy,
and came down on <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> for the assistance he was giving to <ent type='NORP'>Communists</ent> -- but an
attack on <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> through <ent type='PERSON'>Teddy Roosevelt</ent> is not necessary to see the
imp in <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> (scan Felix's personal correspondence in THE
BRANDEIS--FRANKFURTER CONNECTION by <ent type='PERSON'>Bruce Murphy</ent> [<ent type='ORG'>Oxford University Press</ent>, New
York (1982)]. Yes, <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> was a <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>; he taught their doctrines,
he admired their philosophy (damaging others through the instrument of taxation
never bothered <ent type='PERSON'>Felix</ent> at all), he attended their conferences, he spoke at their
forums, he offered to them his assistance, he expressed sympathy at any
difficult position they would be in, and he also created the model image of an
imp Jurist that the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s wanted so much for emulation by others. This brief
sketch was extracted largely from:
-<ent type='PERSON'>Mike Parrish</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>FELIX</ent> FRANKFURTER AND HIS <ent type='ORG'>TIME</ent>S [The Free <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, New
York (1982)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Helen Thomas</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>FELIX</ent> FRANKFURTER -- SCHOLAR ON THE BENCH [<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>
Hopkins <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> (1960)];
-Leonard <ent type='PERSON'>Baker</ent> in BRANDEIS &amp; FRANKFURTER: A DUAL BIOGRAPHY [<ent type='PERSON'>Harper</ent> and
Row, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1984)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Nelson Dawson</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>LOUIS</ent> BRANDEIS, <ent type='GPE'>FELIX</ent> FRANKFURTER AND THE NEW DEAL
[Archon Books, <ent type='GPE'>Hamden</ent>, Connecticut (1980)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph Lash</ent> in FROM THE DIARIES OF <ent type='GPE'>FELIX</ent> FRANKFURTER [WW Norton &amp;
Company, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1975)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Wallace Mendelson</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>FELIX</ent> FRANKFURTER: A TRIBUTE [Respnal &amp; Company,
<ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1964)];
-H.N. Hirsch in THE ENIGMA OF <ent type='GPE'>FELIX</ent> FRANKFURTER [Basic Books, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>
(1981)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Phillip Kurland</ent> in MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND THE CONSTITUTION
[University of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> (1971)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>Melvin Urofsky</ent> in THE BRANDEIS--FRANKFURTER CONVERSATIONS [Supreme
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> Review (1985), at 299 (University of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>)]. This is the same
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> that Richard <ent type='PERSON'>Nixon</ent> was once told to say something nice about, and this
is the same little high-powered <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> I will be quoting throughout this
Letter. =============================================================[051]</p>

<p>Yes, contractual equity is a hard line to abide by, and people who operate
their lives with that smooth and envious SAVIOR FAIRE always avoid entering
into such tight binding regulatory restrainments in their affairs that they
know that their minds just cannot handle in the future. [052]</p>

<p>[052]============================================================= Throughout
this Letter there are numerous examples cited of invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> and
invisible Principles in effect that are latent and difficult to see; although
the consequences for violating <ent type='ORG'>the Principle</ent>s and <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are also invisible
initially, yet their latent nature remains elusive and invisible only for a
short while. Eventually, there is a hard accounting coming due on all
Principles that are violated, and so when Judges throw their corrective
snortations at improvident defense arguments, they are actually your friends --
even though their status of such also remains invisible. Anything that even
vaguely replicates a corrective presentation of error is to our benefit in the
advance similitude of the Last Day it creates for us. In the <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent>
Letter, I quoted United <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> Justice <ent type='PERSON'>Felix Frankfurter</ent> on the advisory
statement he made that yes, equity is brutal -- but that Judges are merely
enforcing contracts [so the remedy for the problem actually lies within
ourselves]. And just as invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> sometimes get us into difficult
positions, so too do invisible Principles get invoked by Judges to correctively
retort improvident positions being taken by parties. For example, when a Judge
invokes JUDI<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L ESTOPPEL against you, he is actually invoking an invisible
PRINCIPLE OF NATURE to operate to your advantage, by preventing you from
defiling yourself. [I will discuss JUDI<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L ESTOPPEL later on.] [Transcriber's
Note: Yes, the author seems predisposed to delaying the discussion of a <ent type='ORG'>LOT</ent> of
things "later," but keep in mind we are now ONLY on page 35 of a 745-page book,
so when the author says "later" remember that there's a lot of room to
elaborate on "later."] When Judges invoke this DOCTRINE OF JUDI<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L ESTOPPEL,
the appearance created on the floor of the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room is that"
"The rule is a harsh and rigid one which deprives a litigant of the
right to assert a claim."
-UNITED STATES VS. CERTAIN LAND, 225 F.Supp. 338, at 342 (1964). Like
the appearance created that Judges are <ent type='ORG'>Fifth Column Commies</ent> by greasing the
procedural skids of a Tax Protestor into a <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Cage as they merely enforce
invisible taxation contracts in effect; <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> know that the
enforcement of invisible PRINCIPLES OF NATURE on the floor of their <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>room
also creates the image that the rulings are harsh, unnecessarily rigid, and
patently unfair. But the Judge is merely invoking PRINCIPLES OF NATURE that the
defendant has no knowledge of. So the seminal point of correction lies within
ourselves; and to uncover the existence of invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> and invisible
PRINCIPLES OF NATURE in effect is to uncover our <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father who created
that abstraction that Judges now call NATURE.
=============================================================[052]</p>

<p>Yes, experienced people will forego some immediate benefits all contracts
initially offer, just to avoid the larger liability and cost picture later on.
Yes, it is better to forego experiencing impressive glossy benefits and accept
nominal benefits that accomplish the same thing, and avoid a contract
altogether. For example, this could mean buying a used car for cash without an
installment contract, rather than a new one on installment payments, unless the
structure of your livelihood is such that enrichment is experienced as a result
of the gloss benefits, such as real estate salesmen, who need the gloss to make
a SUB SILENTIO statement: That they are a very important person; someone you
should better start paying some attention to; someone you had better start
doing some business with.</p>

<p>There are folks out there, marvelous, bright, and otherwise just great all
around, but who are weak in some administrative dimension; these types should
generally shy away from difficult and marginally feasible contracts they can't
handle. In a domestic family setting, marriage counselors report back identical
observations: That it was household mismanagement or unmanagement originating
from infracted contracts previously entered into under a relaxed level of
interest or inappropriate budgetary environment that caused unnecessary
secondary grief sometime later on. (In other words, like <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent>, they
entered into contracts unknowingly incompatible with their philosophy, and not
appreciating the significance of the contract's terms thereof. So the recourse
significant became invisible to them. Those are the contracts and <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent>
Relationships they should have avoided all along from the beginning, AB
INITIO.) [053]</p>

<p>[053]============================================================= The word
EQUITY is an ENTENTE in that it carries multiple meanings in Law, depending on
the semantic context in which it is exposited. On one hand, it can mean
fairness or justice, and also a "nexus relationship with benefits accepted
equal to contract relational status" on the other hand. For a profile review of
the jurisprudential foundations of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Jurisprudence going back
into the old B.C. Greek days of <ent type='PERSON'>Aristotle</ent>, see EQUITY AND THE CONSTITUTION, by
Gary McDowell [University of <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> (1982)]; and the several
hundred citations therein.
=============================================================[053]</p>

<p>So, from a counseling perspective, a general attitude might be to have a spirit
of reluctance about your <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI before entering into recourse
contracts. Entering into Commercial contracts with anyone without careful
respect to the terms that the contract calls for is an invitation for nothing
but headaches and aggravations you don't need, and could have, and should have,
avoided at a lower, pre-contract chronological level.</p>

<p>In order to appreciate just how wrong Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Condo</ent> really way, and just how stupid
and not very well thought out his sophomoric badmouthing was of the presiding
<ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Judge, [054]</p>

<p>[054]============================================================= I am aware
of the distinction between a FEDERAL <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> and a NATIONAL <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. A
FEDERAL <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> can freely change itself through acts of the <ent type='ORG'>Legislatures</ent>,
while a NATIONAL <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> can only be changed or altered by the direct
popular consent of the Citizenry, and not through acts of <ent type='ORG'>Legislatures</ent>. The
United States Constitution is a composite hybrid blend of the two, meaning that
it possesses limited grants of <ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL power</ent> and limited grants of FEDERAL
power. For this Letter, that distinction will be abated and addressed later.
=============================================================[054]</p>

<p>one needs to study and be brought to a knowledge of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law -- its
majestic origins and history, and of recourse Commercial contracts -- their
enforcement and life in the contemporary <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> judicial setting. What I am
about to say may very well surprise you, but the reality is that those
seemingly unnatural and artificial instruments we call <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are actually
highly and tightly interwoven into Nature and Natural Law. [055]</p>

<p>[055]============================================================= "Take away
<ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent>, and you disable Men from being useful and assistant to each other...
We therefore esteem it a most Sacred command of the Law of Nature, and what
guides and governs, not only the whole method and order, but the whole grace
and ornament of Human Life, that every man keep his faith, or which amounts to
the same, that he fulfill his <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, and discharge his promises."
-Samuel de Puffendorf, THE LAW OF NATURE AND OF NATIONS (1729);
(Translated from the <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>Basil Kennett</ent>.)
=============================================================[055]</p>

<p>And it is very rare that I have found any contract enforcement or grievance
proceeding to have been inappropriately adjudged, based upon the factual
setting presented, the issues raised for settlement and the question addressed
by the presiding administrative or judicial magistrate.</p>

<p>Such strong enforcement of contracts improperly concerns some people, who don't
give too much thought to the consequences of being able to have any Commercial
contract simply tossed aside and annulled judicially, just because one of the
parties no longer feels like honoring the terms of the contract. [056]</p>

<p>[056]============================================================= And
COMMER<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L CONTRACT means a full recourse contract that will be enforced before
a Judge, and you are up against asset seizure and incarceration on your
default, unless explicitly waived by the other party. By the end of this
Letter, you will see just what you are really in for, when entering into a
so-called COMMER<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L CONTRACT. Don't be fooled by those nice plea<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>t smiles,
those oh so friendly salesmen on the floor -- they are out for your money, and
they are going to use the guns and cages of the State to finish getting what
they want: Your money.
=============================================================[056]</p>

<p>That's right, under that line of reasoning, contracts should be tossed aside
and annulled just because one of the parties doesn't feel like it anymore: Like
<ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent> no longer feeling like sending in a 1040 anymore. His self
declarations of lofty Status are initially impressive ("I am not a slave
anymore"); but unilateral self declarations do not now, and never have,
annulled contract liability. By the end of this Letter, you will know how to
get out of a contract, but such a termination does not involve self
declarations of status. The reason why there is such a tight adhesive
relationship going on in <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Jurisprudence between contract enforcement
and Nature/Natural Law is because <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are very much on the mind of the
Great Creator who made Nature. [057]</p>

<p>[057]============================================================= Yes,
<ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father created our Jurisprudence, a fact which when given some thought
is so obvious that even private legal commentators remark on it occasionally:
"Law, whose seat is in the bosom of God..."
-Morgan &amp; Maguire in LOOKING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS AT EVIDENCE, 50
<ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent> Law Review 909, at 910 (1937).
=============================================================[057]</p>

<p>And so when <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Jurisprudence so strongly enforces contracts, then the
Judiciary, as an agent of Nature, is merely replicating the mind of our Creator
who wants to have people learn to honor their contracts -- and yes, even more
so when those contracts contain philosophically bitter terms, like the
<ent type='ORG'>Bolshevik</ent> Income Tax. Learning the deeper meaning of that Principle is a bit
more important than some folks realize: Because <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are very important to
<ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father. And the design of Nature to so strongly enforce contracts is
inverse evidence to indicate that Father deals extensively with <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>,
wants people to learn to respect <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, and will honor his <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> with
you (if you can get a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> out of Father). <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father is similar to
<ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> in the limited sense that both of them want something from us, and
both of them use the same tools to get what they want. Father wants our bodies,
and <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> wants our money, and both use <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> extensively to accomplish
their end objectives. I conjecture that <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> is far more successful in
gross aggregate percentage terms by his manipulative adhesive use of invisible
contracts to get what he wants than Father is with His invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, as
Father does not force himself on unwilling participants. <ent type='ORG'>The King</ent> deals with
people out of the barrel of a gun and accomplishes through clever
administrative arm-twisting and adhesion contract wringing what otherwise
cannot be sustained in front of the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> in freely negotiated contract
terms; whereas in contrast <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father deals with people very
conservatively on the basis of their wants, and where no <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is wanted, I
can assure you none will be forced on you. <ent type='ORG'>The King</ent> has copied the <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent>
OPERANDI of Father to deal extensively in <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, and then has added his own
Royal enrichment twist to it: Unlike Father's altruism (legitimate concern for
the interests of others), our King is only interested in himself, his own
welfare, and in that <ent type='ORG'>Golden Money Pot</ent> he passes out to Special Interest Groups
who make their descent on <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> when <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> is in Session, in vulture
formation. [058]</p>

<p>[058]============================================================= "History
shows that financial power and political power eventually merge and unite to do
their work together... The federal bureaucracy at the present time is
effectively under the control of the corporate and moneyed interests of the
nation."
-<ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> Justice William <ent type='PERSON'>Douglas</ent> as quoted by <ent type='PERSON'>Bob Woodward</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Scott Armstrong</ent> in THE BRETHREN, page 399 [<ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent> &amp; Schuster, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1979)].
Please be advised that the mere mentioning of THE BRETHREN does not constitute
an endorsement of that book, as that was a very tacky and childish book for two
<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> agents to have written.
=============================================================[058]</p>

<p>There are numerous reasons why <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father wants our bodies -- one is so,
for our benefit, we can be Glorified some day and have a continuing association
with Him again. Such a statement is implicitly a status statement, since in
order to associate with Father, one's stature must be on a similar calibre to
Father. [059]</p>

<p>[059]============================================================= "How many
Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not
Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we
are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and
will be to all eternity. You cannot comprehend this, but when you can, it will
be to you a matter of great consolation. It appears ridiculous to the world,
under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite
being... He has passed on, and is exalted far beyond what we can now
comprehend." [Our <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father had his Father, and so on back up the line;
there never was a time when this line of progression from son to father to son
was not in effect].
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse at the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent> on
October 8, 1859; 7 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 331, at 333 to 334 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1860)].
=============================================================[059]</p>

<p>But Father first wants to patiently see who His friends really are, under
circumstances where his very existence is difficult to see. Yes, these are
Adversary proceedings we are in down here (and when you take out a new <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
with Father, you will know what I mean, as <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> the Great Adversary ("Great"
in terms of ability), will suddenly start to take you very seriously). If
<ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father has the Celestial Jurisdiction it takes to Glorify a person
into such an indescribable state similar to his own Status, as people entering
into Father's highly advanced <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> down here have been explicitly and
bluntly promised, then Father ought to be very carefully listened to. [060]</p>

<p>[060]============================================================= There are
several layers of <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> available down here beyond the introductory
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> of Baptism. They become increasingly difficult to administer, not
because they are inherently difficult in themselves, but because you will be
placed under tremendous pressure by the Adversary to either be in default or
otherwise infract the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, and unfortunately <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> and his army of
hardworking imps know exactly what they are doing, as they go about their work
trying to run folks into the ground.
=============================================================[060]</p>

<p>There are a few people who have lived upon this <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> before us, who now have
such Glorified bodies under advanced timing schedules, and F<ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>T PERSON
EVIDENCE of that nature (an eye witness) is difficult for <ent type='NORP'>Heathens</ent> to reverse
or countermand under attack, so they have no choice but to ignore it and talk
about something else. [061]</p>

<p>[061]============================================================= For example,
the July 1985 issue of <ent type='PERSON'>AMERICAN ATHEIST</ent> is quite political with extensive
negative commentary on <ent type='ORG'>the Federal</ent> Judiciary of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States. When
religion itself is addressed as a subject matter, rather than talking about a
specific <ent type='ORG'>Spiritual</ent> event they cannot refute (such as the many personal
appearances of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ Himself going on today in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States), they
back off and take a lighter, safer road: By badmouthing the institution of
religion in general:
"All religions come from man's absurd egocentricity, from his planetary
xenophobia, from his arrogant sense of being the center of things."
-<ent type='PERSON'>AMERICAN ATHEIST</ent>, id., at page 20. Beginning with the unreality and
limited factual knowledge that they do, by travelling down the wrong tangent,
<ent type='PERSON'>AMERICAN ATHEIST</ent>S have no choice but to exercise one defective judgment after
another in order to support multiple erroneous successive conclusions
predicated upon their seminal factual assumptions. To begin a correct initial
point of beginning, we will enlarge the initial factual setting assessed, and
enter into evidentiary consideration of F<ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>T PERSON eye witness evidence that
operates to countermand and overrule all of their internal conclusions that God
does not exist: As there are, in fact, people now living, here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States of 1985, who have seen and conversed with <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, face to face,
just as one man speaks to another. <ent type='PERSON'>AMERICAN ATHEIST</ent>S are in the same
ecclesiastical posture that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> Nikolai <ent type='PERSON'>Lenin</ent> was once in, who once stated
quite flatly:
"Every religious idea, every idea of God, even flirting with the idea
of God, is unutterable vileness... of the most dangerous kind, 'contagion' of
the most abominable kind [<ent type='ORG'>CONTAGION</ent> means a contagious disease]. Millions of
sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence [<ent type='PERSON'>Lenin</ent> should THE LAST ONE to talk] and
physical contagions... are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea
of God decked out in the smartest 'ideological' costumes... Every defense or
justification of God, even the most refined, the best intentioned, is a
justification of reaction."
-<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> Nikolai <ent type='PERSON'>Lenin</ent> [after he changed his name for the fourth
time], in his frequently quoted Letter to <ent type='PERSON'>Maxim Gorky</ent>, November 13, 1913.
Nikolai <ent type='PERSON'>Lenin</ent> seems to be quite irritated at the mere mentioning of the
possible existence of a Supreme Being -- as well he should. As I will discuss
later, Nikolai <ent type='PERSON'>Lenin</ent> was among those who were also thoroughly irritated at
Father back in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, and his being brought forth into <ent type='ORG'>this Second</ent>
Estate did not alter his personality or <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI. Today, <ent type='NORP'>Heathens</ent> and Tax
Protestors share a common attribute with <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s in that they do not want the
responsibility weighing on them that is always associated with knowledge of
error; and the error of Tax Protestors is their continued defilement under
contracts that were once invisible to them.
=============================================================[061]</p>

<p>Although that retortional statement, of and by itself, is not strong enough to
irritate a hardened <ent type='NORP'>Atheist</ent>, this statement might:</p>

<p>"No human has had the power to organize his own existence. That there
is one greater than we, the Father, actually begat the <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s, and they were
brought forth and lived with Him... I want to tell you... that you are well
acquainted with God our Father... For there is not a soul of you but what has
lived in his house and dwelt with him year after year... We are the children of
our Father in Heaven... We are <ent type='ORG'>Sons and Daughters</ent> of Celestial Beings, and the
germ of Deity dwells within us." [062]</p>

<p>[062]============================================================= Brigham
Young, in multiple discourses: 8 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 64, at 67, et seq., to
10 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 192.
=============================================================[062]</p>

<p>Yes, both the mind of <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father and the mind of the <ent type='PERSON'>Savior</ent> are swirling
in a vortex of <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>. [063]</p>

<p>[063]============================================================= "Making
covenants with his people and with individuals has always been one of the
principle ways in which the Lord deals with them. The scriptures tell us that
he made covenants with <ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent>, with <ent type='PERSON'>Noah</ent>, with Enoch, Melchizedek, <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>, and
others and that he also made covenants with <ent type='GPE'>Israel</ent> of old, with the Jaredites,
and with the <ent type='NORP'>Nephites</ent>. Surely [we] are a blessed people, because in a similar
way the Lord has made covenants with us individually and collectively."
-El Ray <ent type='NORP'>Christians</ent>en, in CONFERENCE REPORTS, October, 1972, pages 43
to 44. [CONFERENCE REPORTS are the transcripts of what is called GENERAL
CONFERENCE proceedings of the <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent>, which are held twice annually in
<ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>. This event called GENERAL CONFERENCE is when prominent GENERAL
AUTHORITIES come forth out into the open in successive speaking appearances,
and present their views on subjects that interest them. The <ent type='ORG'>Conference</ent> is now
televised, and transcripts are issued].
=============================================================[063]</p>

<p>For a brief sizing glimpse at the extent to which <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are constantly and
endlessly on the mind of Father and the <ent type='PERSON'>Savior</ent>, open up either the Old or the
New Testaments to any place at random, and see how many pages can be turned
before the word "Covenant" [<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>] reappears. [064]</p>

<p>[064]============================================================= That I am
aware of, the root word COVENANT occurs 303 times in the Old and New Testaments
alone. When I opened a spot at random, I uncovered a statement by <ent type='PERSON'>Ezekiel</ent>:
"I bound myself by oath, I made a covenant with you... and you became
mine."
-EZEKIEL 16:8 In Hebrew, EZEKIEL means the "strength of God", which is
a well chosen name for this man who lived in <ent type='GPE'>Babylonia</ent> in the 500 BC era.
Commentators have associated <ent type='PERSON'>Ezekiel</ent> with the elevated stature of <ent type='PERSON'>Isaiah</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Jeremiah</ent>, and for good reasons. The circumstances surrounding Ezekiel's Calling
are described in Chapter 1, and his <ent type='ORG'>Celestial Commission</ent> follows in Chapters 2
and 3. What we know today as the BOOK OF EZEKIEL has been divided into 47
Chapters and is grouped largely around four dominate themes. The BOOK OF
EZEKIEL is almost devoid of biographical and personal details; it was known
that <ent type='PERSON'>Ezekiel</ent> had been a Priest, was one of the first deportees to <ent type='GPE'>Babylonia</ent>
[after <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> had gone to the dogs], and had lived there in a refugee
community at Tel-Abib on the River <ent type='ORG'>Chebar</ent>, which was a large irrigation canal
leading from the <ent type='LOC'>Euphrates</ent> on the north side of <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent>. The only reference to
his family is that the death of his wife on the eve of the fall of <ent type='GPE'>Jerusalem</ent>
was for him a small personal symbol of the larger national disaster that had
befallen <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Ezekiel</ent> was very much in tune with the Celestial order of
things: The vision he once had of the throne chariot of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ is one of
the most impressive pictures of the Glory and Celestial Majesty of Deity to be
found anywhere in the Old Testament; and he also repetitively talks about
COVENANTS 17 times over (a man does not harp on the same subject matter over
and over again without there being special significance and deeper importance
to it). =============================================================[064]</p>

<p>Here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, in a Commercial contract factual setting, the word
"covenant" is of an Old English Law Merchant origin, and now means only a few
clauses within a larger contract; [065]</p>

<p>[065]============================================================= For example,
an attempt by <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> agent <ent type='PERSON'>Frank Snepp</ent> to use <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Amendment to try and
weasel his way out of one of the individual covenants within his larger
COMMER<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L Employment <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> with the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> that he had previously entered
into, was correctly rebuffed by the <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> in FRANK SNEPP VS. UNITED
STATES, 444 U.S. 507 (1979).
=============================================================[065]</p>

<p>like when entrepreneurs sell their businesses, the continuing restriction they
take upon themselves within the larger <ent type='ORG'>Purchase</ent> and Sale <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, not to turn
right around and build up the same duplicate business all over again until some
5 to 10 years or so has first lapsed, is called a COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE.
[066]</p>

<p>[066]============================================================= See
generally, <ent type='PERSON'>Louis Hammon</ent> in COVENANTS AS QUASI-CONTRACTS in 2 <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> Law
Review 106 (1903).
=============================================================[066]</p>

<p>But in an ecclesiastical setting, what all ancient and contemporary Prophets
and <ent type='ORG'>Patriarchs</ent> cal COVENANTS, are really CONTRACTS:</p>

<p>"As all of us know, a covenant is a contract and an agreement between
at least two parties. In the case of gospel covenants, the parties are the Lord
and men on <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>. Men agree to keep the commandments and the Lord promises to
reward them accordingly. The gospel itself is the new and everlasting covenant
and embraces all the agreements, promises, and rewards which the Lord offers
his people." [067]</p>

<p>[067]============================================================= Joseph
Fielding Smith, in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["Gospel <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent>"], page 70 (October,
1970). =============================================================[067]</p>

<p>In analyzing the Law comparatively with Father's Plan for us, there are
numerous facial changes in descriptive names for things that are commonly known
and understood by everyone under other names. For example, what we call a
CONTRACT in our everyday Life, <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father calls COVENANTS. And the
financial enrichment one party receives under a contract here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States (such as the financial compensation a <ent type='PERSON'>Landlord</ent> receives out of a Lease
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> from a Tenant), is called a BENEFIT; and what is called a BENEFIT
arising under contract in a Commercial setting is known as a BLESSING arising
under Covenant in an ecclesiastical setting with <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father. [068]</p>

<p>[068]============================================================= "A covenant
is an agreement between two or more parties. An oath is a sworn attestation to
the inviolability of the promises in the agreement. In the covenant of
Priesthood the parties are the Father and the receiver of the Priesthood. Each
party to the covenant undertakes certain obligations."
-Marion G. Romney in CONFERENCE REPORTS, page 17 (April, 1976).
=============================================================[068]</p>

<p>Coming down into this Life, this "Second Estate" we are now in (as the ancient
Prophets originated its characterization), [069]</p>

<p>[069]============================================================= "I will
therefore put you in remembrance, though you once knew this before... [that
there were] angels that kept not their First Estate,..."
-A Letter from <ent type='PERSON'>Jude</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>JUDE</ent> 1:5 to 6.
=============================================================[069]</p>

<p>our memories were deflected off to the side and temporarily locked away. [070]</p>

<p>[070]============================================================= "When a man
goes to sleep at night he forgets the doings of the day. Sometimes a partial
glimpse of them will disturb his slumbers; but sleep is the general thing, and
especially sound sleep, throws out of memory everything pertaining the past;
but when we awake in the morning, with the wakefulness returns a vivid
recollection of our past history and doings. So it will be when we come up into
the presence of Father and God in the mansion whence we emigrated to this
world. When we get there we will behold the face of our Father, the face of our
Mother, for we were begotten there the same as we were begotten here..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson Pratt</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent>, Salt Lake
<ent type='GPE'>City</ent>, August 20, 1871; 14 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 233, at 241 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1872)].
=============================================================[070]</p>

<p>Coming down from <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate into this <ent type='ORG'>World</ent>, we all came here by
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, and sometime in the third trimester of our mother's pregnancy, our
spirits entered these bodies (called the "quickening" of the body). There came
a point in time back during <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, when after Father revealed his
Grand Plans for us all, as the Sons of God we all shouted for joy in ecstatic
response. [071]</p>

<p>[071]============================================================= "We will
refer now to the [38th] Chapter of Job, to show that there were Sons of God
before this world was made. The Lord asked Job a question in relation to his
pre-existence, saying,
'Where was thou when I laid the cornerstone of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>?' "Where were
you, Job, when all the Morning Stars <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>g together, and all the sons of God
shouted for joy; when the nucleus of this creation was commenced? If Job had
been indoctrinated into all the mysteries of modern religionists, he would have
answered this question by saying,
'Lord, why do you ask me such a question? I had no existence at that
time.' "But the very question implies a previous existence of Job, but he had
forgotten where he [had been], and the Lord put the question as though he did
exist, showing to him in the declaration, that, when he laid the cornerstone of
the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, there were a great many sons of God there, and that they all shouted
for joy. Who were these sons of God?... They were <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, the elder brother, and
all the family that have come from that day until now -- millions on millions
-- and all who will come hereafter, and take tabernacles of flesh and bones
until the closing up scene of this creation."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson Pratt</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the 14th <ent type='ORG'>Ward Assembly</ent>
Rooms, December 15, 1872; 15 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 241, at 246 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1873)].
Discourse then continues into a protracted discussion as to why we, as the sons
of God back then, shouted for joy, at that time. This fellow Job that <ent type='PERSON'>Orson</ent>
Pratt talks about lived in the lands of Uz, and fathered ten children; his
livelihood was that of a rancher, managing at one time over ten thou<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>d sheep,
camels, oxen, and the like. The BOOK OF JOB occupies a unique position in the
Old Testament; it stands outside all of the conventional classifications of Old
Testament literature in that it is neither Law (in the sense of THE <ent type='ORG'>TORAH</ent>), nor
is it history, and it has no parallel with the other Prophets in the Old
Testament. In both literary form and general outlook, Job is different; a large
part of the book may be called dialogue as people are quoted speaking back and
forth to each other, but the dialogue is of a succession of elaborate
protracted speeches rather than an accelerated exchange of conversation such as
is often found in the narrative books. The BOOK OF JOB takes it place nestled
along side with the great ancient <ent type='NORP'>Sumerian</ent> and Akkadian theodicies [meaning
works dealing with the nature of Celestial Justice]. The central position of
the book deals with the Question: What should the righteous man expect to
receive from the hands of God? Should he expect only good fortune, or should he
also expect bad fortune? Job talks about how both contrasting types of
circumstances are thrown at Saints from Father. As for himself, Job once had
great prosperity, but then everything was swept away from him except his life.
After being tried right down to the wire, Job had his prosperity returned to
him in double. Individuals holding unrealistic understandings of Divine <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent>
OPERANDI are counselled that adverse circumstances making their appearance in
our lives are not to be ruled out, and should actually be expected to surface
at some point in time [see JOB 2:10 after reading the preceding background
text]; but today as has always been the case, the NOBLE AND G<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>T (like Job
from yesterday) are intolerant of distractions, they know what they want to
hear, and when they hear the right words -- they buckle down tight and get
serious, and enter into Celestial <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent>, just like Job did [see JOB 31:1
and 41:4]. =============================================================[071]</p>

<p>Whether this shouting for joy took place before or after Father started
extracting his <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> out of us, I don't know; talk in this area is limited
to generalities. [072]</p>

<p>[072]============================================================= "Our
<ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s... were in <ent type='ORG'>the Councils</ent> of the Heavens before the foundations of the
<ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> were laid. We were there. We <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>g together with the <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> hosts for
joy when the foundations of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> were laid, and when the plan of our
existence upon this <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> and redemption were mapped out. We were there, we
were interested, and we took part in this great preparation... We were vitally
concerned in the carrying out of these great plans and purposes, we understood
them, and it was for our sakes they were decreed, and are to be consummated..."
-Joseph F. Smith, GOSPEL DOCTRINE, page 93, et seq. [Deseret Book,
<ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent> (1939)].
=============================================================[072]</p>

<p>But we do know that we are ones that Job referred to as the Sons of God. [073]</p>

<p>[073]============================================================= "We were
there when the foundations of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> were laid. We were numbered among the
sons of God, whom the Lord speaks of to the patriarch Job. 'Where wast thou,
[speaking to Job], when I laid the cornerstone of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, when all the sons
of God shouted for you, and the morning stars <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent> together?' Job, where were
you at that time? He was among them, he was there, perhaps he did not remember
it, any more than we do."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson Pratt</ent>, in a discourse on March 9, 1879; 20 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF
<ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 142, at 156 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1880)].
=============================================================[073]</p>

<p>Later on, after we have been around down here for a while, by the careful
honoring of those other <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> we can enter into down here, we can enlarge
our standing before Father and be like him some day, by ordered, planned, and
organized accretion. [074]</p>

<p>[074]============================================================= "We believe
that we are children of our parents in Heaven. That being that dwells in my
tabernacle, and those beings that dwell in yours; the beings who are
intelligent and possess, in embryo, all of the attributes of our Father in
Heaven; the beings that reside in those earthly houses, they are the children
of our Father who is in Heaven. He begat us before the foundations of this
<ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> were laid and before the Morning Stars <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>g together or the Sons of God
shouted for joy when the corner stones of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> were laid, as is written in
the sayings of the Patriarch Job."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson Pratt</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent>, Salt Lake
<ent type='GPE'>City</ent>, August 20, 1871; 14 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 233, at 240 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1872)].
=============================================================[074]</p>

<p>Some of those other Celestial <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> that are available to be entered into
down here are the introductory <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> of Baptism, and the more advanced
Endowment <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> [which are entered into in Temples], in addition to
multiple other ecclesiastically related <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>. [075]</p>

<p>[075]============================================================= The first
Covenant is the introductory Covenant of BAPTISM, and although I characterize
it as being INTRODUCTORY, it nevertheless is the same identical NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANT spoken of by the Prophets and <ent type='ORG'>Patriarchs</ent> of old (as I will
discuss later). A great man once had a few words to say about the significance
of this BAPTISM COVENANT:
"By accepting membership in the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>, through Baptism and the laying
on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, a person enters into a Covenant
with the Lord to obey and live by all the requirements of the Gospel. The
Lord's promise, conditioned upon such obedience, is the gift of Eternal Life.
"What must we then think... of a Covenant where God himself is the
party of the first part? Such a Covenant God has made with every one of us [as
members of this <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>]. He has entered into an agreement with us. If you will
do all things which the Lord your God shall command you; if you will do his
will, you shall have glory added upon your heads forever and ever. That is his
pledge, and God keeps his <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent> and we should do the same.
"How do we enter into that Covenant? Not by signing a written
instrument. True. But in a most impressive manner and most authoritative manner
[by conferring upon his servants down a GRANT OF CELESTIAL JURISDICTION]. The
Lord commissions his servants, bestows upon them his Priesthood and authorizes
them to perform sacred ordinances, the same as if he had signed it in person.
They call attention to the necessity of the following the Lord <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ and
obeying his Gospel, doing all things whatsoever the Lord shall command us. That
is the contract, and we enter into it in a most solemn way. What is the
formality of it, if not by writing with pen and ink? It is by baptism by
immersion for the remission of sins. What a wonderful and impressive formality!
Could anything be more so? In baptism by immersion we symbolism both death and
life, for as the Apostle <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> explains: 'We are buried with [Christ] by baptism
into death' and brought forth out of the watery grave in likeness of his
glorious resurrection.
"This explanation of the significance of the baptismal Covenant has
remained vivid in my mind for all these forty years."
-Marion G. Romney in CONFERENCE REPORTS ["A Covenant Obligation"], at
129 (October, 1978).
=============================================================[075]</p>

<p>Yes, these <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent> that we can now enter into are REPLACEMENT <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent>,
because <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father already has invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> in effect on us all, as
we all entered into <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> with Father in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, all of us
without exception: Saint, sinner, <ent type='ORG'>Heathen</ent>, and <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>:</p>

<p>"In our preexistence state, in the day of the great <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>, we made
certain agreements with the Almighty..." [076]</p>

<p>[076]============================================================= <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>
Widtsoe, writing in the "The Worth of Souls," in <ent type='ORG'>UTAH</ent> GENEALOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL MAGAZINE, October, 1934, at page 198. This statement appears in the
context of a discussion of what some of the special terms of those <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>
were that Latter-Day Saints entered into with Father back then.
=============================================================[076]</p>

<p>And the content of those preexistence [previous existence] First Estate
<ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent> are designed to remain largely withheld from our present memory for a
reason. [077]</p>

<p>[077]============================================================= "... I think
there is great wisdom in withholding the knowledge of our previous existence.
Why? Because we could not, if we had all our pre-existent knowledge
accompanying us into this world, show to our Father in the Heavens and to the
<ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> host that we would be in all things obedient; ... In order to try the
children of men, there must be a degree of knowledge withheld from them, for it
would be no temptation to them if they could understand from the beginning the
consequences of their acts, and the nature and results of this and that
temptation. But in order that we may prove ourselves before the Heavens in all
things, we have to begin at the very first principles of knowledge, and be
tried from knowledge to knowledge, and from grace to grace, until, like our
elder brother, we finally overcome and triumph over all of our imperfections,
and receive with him the same glory that he inherits, which glory he had before
the world was. That is the way we as a people look upon our previous
existence."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson Pratt</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the 14th <ent type='ORG'>Ward Assembly</ent>
Rooms, December 15, 1872; 15 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 241, at 245 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1873)].
=============================================================[077]</p>

<p>Back in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, not everyone entered into the same identical terms on
their previous existence <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>. There was very much <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> customization
involved, when Father deemed it appropriate. For example, the Noble and the
Great <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s, who excelled in <ent type='ORG'>valiance</ent> back then above all others, had special
addendums attached to their First Estate <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> with Father, just tailor
made for their missions down here:</p>

<p>"Now the Lord had shown unto me, <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>, the intelligences that were
organized before the world was; and among these were many of the Noble and
Great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and [in a <ent type='ORG'>Conference</ent>]
he stood in the midst of them, and he said:
'These I will make my rulers.'
"For he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were
good, and he said unto me:
"<ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>, thou art one of them; thou was chosen before thou wast
born..." [078]</p>

<p>[078]============================================================= The writings
of <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>, while he was in <ent type='GPE'>Egypt</ent>, written in his own hand on papyrus. See
"Book of <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>," Chapter 3, in DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS [meaning FATHER'S
DOCTRINE AND CONTRACTS]. Published by the <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Utah</ent>.
This is an unusual book and is also distinctively peculiar in that it is the
only book in the world that has the honor of a Preface in it written by <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
Christ himself [this Preface now appears as Section 1]. In an age when the
prevailing view is that the Heavens were probably once open to Revelation a
long time ago, but now are forever closed (for some unexplained reason), the
publication of such a doctrinally hybrid volume such as the DOCTRINE AND
COVENANTS is as startling as well as it is unique -- because its contents are
not really open to debate or argument. They require either total acceptance or
total rejection -- a somewhat extreme and difficult position for a person
unacquainted with them to take at first. However, the word UNIQUE means
"standing alone" or perhaps something "different or new." In a contemporary
ecclesiastical setting where a confluence of divergent religious thoughts
permeate the intellectual scene, UNIQUE infers something that is different from
generally accepted predominate views -- and so the effect of DOCTRINE AND
COVENANTS is to supply an enlarged understanding through enlarged factual
presentations -- not in opposition or contradiction to other previously
recorded or circulated Revelations, but merely adding an enlarged dimension to
information already at hand. Like privately circulating newsletters offering
slices of factual information largely only complimentary to that which appears
in the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> Billboards of the major <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent> media -- the
newsletter's factual presentations now creates an enlarged basis of factual
knowledge for their readers to exercise judgment on, and so such additional
information often leads, in turn, to end conclusions that fall outside of the
generally accepted predominate contours of views that the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> controlled
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> Billboard major media would prefer that folks remain intellectually
isolated within. Even so, be cognizant that the information in Father's
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS only "adds a dimension" to other sources of Celestial
information obtainable elsewhere, and by no means are represented as being
complete in themselves; nor should they be relied upon as offering such a total
and thorough picture of the Celestial scene that other important complimentary
sources of information [such as that originating from our <ent type='ORG'>Patriarchs</ent> and
Fathers of old] are improvidently tossed aside and ignored.
=============================================================[078]</p>

<p>Although that brief account by <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent> does not describe everything that went
on in that <ent type='ORG'>Conference</ent>, what also transpired in that <ent type='ORG'>Conference</ent>, in addition to
the lofty Status pronouncements from On High, was the extraction of additional
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Addendums out of the participants, just tailor made to fit the Noble
and the Great.</p>

<p>As we enter into and fulfill Father's Advanced <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> down here, the
significance of those <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> that we entered into in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate fades
away until they are of no significance whatsoever. [079]</p>

<p>[079]============================================================= Numerous
<ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> commentators have detected that something was Divinely special about
the idea of a COVENANT, and their feelings are correct -- the idea is very
significant. But being deficient in factual knowledge on <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate where
we came from, and not having other key slices of information, they never hit
the nail right on the head, or even come close to it. See:
-<ent type='PERSON'>Delbert Hillers</ent> in COVENANT: THE HISTORY OF A BIBLICAL <ent type='ORG'>IDEA</ent> [<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>
Hopkins <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> (1969)];
-D. <ent type='PERSON'>McCarthy</ent> in T<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>TY AND COVENANT; A STUDY IN THE ANCIENT ORIENT
DOCUMENTS... [<ent type='ORG'>Pontifical Bible Institute</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent> (1963)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>George Mendenhall</ent> in LAW AND COVENANT IN <ent type='GPE'>ISRAEL</ent> AND THE ANCIENT NEAR
EAST [The Biblical Colloquium, <ent type='GPE'>Pittsburgh</ent> (1955)];
-<ent type='PERSON'>George Mendenhall</ent> in "COVENANT" <ent type='ORG'>THE INTERPRETER</ent>'S DICTIONARY OF THE
BIBLE [<ent type='GPE'>Abingdon</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1962)];
-William H. <ent type='PERSON'>Brownlee</ent> in A COMPARISON OF THE COVENANTERS OF THE DEAD
SEA SCROLLS WITH PRE-<ent type='NORP'>CHRISTIAN</ent> JEWISH SECTS [The Biblical Archeologist
(September, 1951)].
=============================================================[079]</p>

<p>These <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> that we enter into with Father down here supersede our previous
<ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, and if no <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is entered into with Father down here, then the
governing <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> at <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent> will be <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>.
People playing the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> avoidance routine on Father's <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are playing
with fire and damaging themselves, because knowledge of the content of those
Previous Existence <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> is being withheld from us for a reason. This then
raises a moral question: What right does Father have to hold us to <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>,
the content of which we have no knowledge of? Answer: Father has our consent to
do so as part of the game plan. Yes, we are placed in this world measurably in
the dark, necessarily so. [080]</p>

<p>[080]============================================================= "We are
placed in this world measurably in the dark. We no longer see our Father face
to face. While it is true that we once did; we stood in His presence, seeing as
we are seen, knowing, according to our intelligence, as we are known; that
curtain has dropped, we have changed our abode, we have taken upon ourselves
flesh; the veil of forgetfulness intervenes between this life and that, and we
are left, as [the Apostle] <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> expresses it, to "see through a glass darkly,"
to "know in part and to prophesy in part;' to see only to a limited extent, the
end from the beginning. We do not comprehend things in their fullness. But we
have the promise, if we will receive and live by every word that proceeds forth
from the mouth of God, wisely using the intelligences, the opportunities, the
advantages, and the possessions which He continually bestows upon us -- the
time will come, in the eternal course of events, when our minds will be cleared
from every cloud, the past will recur to memory, the future will be an open
vision, and we will behold things as they are, and the past, present and future
will be one eternal day, as it is in the eyes of God our Father, who knows
neither past, present or future; whose course is one eternal round; who
creates, who saves, redeems and glorifies the workmanship of His hands, in
which He Himself is [in turn] glorified."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson</ent> F. <ent type='ORG'>Whitney</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent> on
<ent type='LOC'>Sunday</ent>, April 19, 1885; 26 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 194, at 195 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1886)].
=============================================================[080]</p>

<p>And when you understand the benefits of the game plan, your initial reticence
will also fade away. [081]</p>

<p>[081]============================================================= And the
benefits are quite substantial:
"As our Father and God begat us, sons and daughters, so will we rise
immortal, males and females, and also beget children, and, in our turn, form
and create [other] worlds, and send forth our spirit children to inherit those
worlds, just the same as we were sent here, and thus will the works of God
continue..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson Pratt</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent>, Salt Lake
<ent type='GPE'>City</ent>, August 20, 1871; 14 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 233, at 242 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1872)].
=============================================================[081]</p>

<p>And if it initially appears to be unfair to penalize someone for their innocent
ignorance by being judged under invisible contracts they had no knowledge of,
then remember that in a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law Judgment setting such nice things as
fairness and relative levels of knowledge or ignorance of the Contract's terms
are all irrelevant factors; and this Tort Law argument of <ent type='ORG'>UNFAIR</ent>NESS, by being
made a party to such excessively one-sided and unequal contract terms really
falls apart when the temporary deflection of the previous memory itself is made
such an integral and an important structural element in those First Estate
<ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>. [082]</p>

<p>[082]============================================================= "We come
here to live for a few days, and then we are gone again... We had an existence
before we came into the world. Our spirits came here to take these tabernacles;
they came to occupy them as habitations, with the understanding that all that
had passed previously to our coming here should be taken away from us, that we
should not know anything about it."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse made at the Bowery, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent> on
June 22, 1865; 3 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 362, at 367 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1856)].
=============================================================[082]</p>

<p>This means that if there had been no memory deflection taking place, then the
objectives Father has for us in this Life, to live in a free-wheeling world for
a little while by "starting over" in a sense, would be infeasible to
accomplish; and so without memory deflection there would have been no reason
for <ent type='ORG'>this Second</ent> Estate Life and the numerous <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> associated with it --
Celestial <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> that overrule our First Estate <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent>. [083]</p>

<p>[083]============================================================= "We all
acknowledge that we had an existence before we were born into this world. How
long before we took our departure from the realms of bliss to find our
tabernacle in the flesh is unknown to us. Suffice it to say that we were sent
here. We came willingly... Then if it be true that we entered into a Covenant
with the powers Celestial, before we left our former homes, that we would come
here and obey the voice of the Lord, through whomsoever he might speak, these
powers are witnesses of the Covenant into which we entered [back then]; and it
is not impossible that we signed the articles thereof with our own hands --
which articles may be retained in the archives above, to be presented to us
when we rise from the dead, and be judged out of our own mouths, according to
that which was written in the books. Did we Covenant and agree that we would be
subject to the authorities of Heaven placed over us? ...Did we Covenant to be
subject to the authority of God in all the different relations of life -- that
we would be loyal to the legitimate powers that emanate from God? I have been
lead to think that such is the truth. Something whispers these things to me in
this light. ...What did we agree to before we came here? If to anything, I
suppose the very same things [that] we [have] agreed to since we [came] here,
that are legitimate and proper."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson</ent> Hyde, in a discourse made in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent> on October 6, 1859
["Sowing and Reaping -- Fulfillment of <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent>"] in 7 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent>
313, at 314 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1860)].
=============================================================[083]</p>

<p>The unfairness aspect of this impending state of affairs that gnaws at us -- of
people being adjudged under invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> -- causes some folks to want to
shy away from such a harsh Father; but such a reduced view of Father's Plans is
defective. In this world, we are conditioned to think that penalizing someone
means directly throwing something negative at him, i.e., docking his pay,
giving him a reprimand, having him picked up, confining the fellow to barracks,
giving the poor fellow a spanking, or having him taken out and shot, and the
like. To be penalized by Father carries no such negative circumstances being
applied against us at all; a penalty levied at us by Father is the mere absence
of a possible prospective Celestial Blessing that could have been ours -- if we
had buckled down tight and gotten serious when presented with information to
the effect that <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are governing at the Last Day. So when Father places
a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law Judgement environment in effect for us on <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent>, and
people then start claiming unfairness for any one of several dozen different
reasons (and each argument has merit to it), their arguments sounding in the
Tort of unfairness will fall apart and collapse, and properly so, as there is
nothing inconsistent about Father's selective withholding of any of his
discretionary Blessings from us that were waived by us, and the great Celestial
Grant of Eloha. [084]</p>

<p>[084]============================================================= The phrase
used here, SOUNDING IN TORT, appears in different places throughout <ent type='ORG'>the Federal</ent>
jurisprudential strata of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States. When a grievance is presented to a
Judge for a ruling, it means that the relationship is not predicated on a
contract, and that the instant claim being sought is sounding [based on]
correlative arguments of unfairness, for some reason, and therefore Tort Law
applies there to fill the vacuum left by no contracts. Remember that Tort Law
and its arguments of <ent type='ORG'>UNFAIR</ent>NESS can sometimes apply to govern grievances even
when a contract is hanging in the distant background, because the instant
grievance falls outside of the content of the contract. That I could find, the
phrase SOUNDING IN TORT first surfaced in a <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> ruling in a Case
called <ent type='GPE'>GARLAND</ent> VS. DAVIS, 45 U.S. 131, at 141 (1846), which declared the rule
that <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> grievances are best separated away from, and adjudged differently
from Tort grievances (and properly so). The <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> also ruled in <ent type='GPE'>GARLAND</ent> that
declarations made within a Pleading, commingling Tort claims with <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>
claims, are to be discouraged. There are 56 other <ent type='ORG'>Supreme Court</ent> cases I found
where the phrase SOUNDING IN TORT appears. Recently, it appears in Footnote #2
to MIGRA VS. WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT, 465 U.S. 75 (1984) while discussing an
action for Tort damages sought on grounds of wrongful interference unfairness
with the petitioner's <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> of Employment. In <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> statutes, the phrase
is found in the <ent type='GPE'>INDIAN</ent> TUCKER ACT.
"The <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment... upon
any express or implied contract... in cases not sounding in tort."
-28 U.S.C. 1505. Some of the other <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> statutes incorporating this
phrase SOUNDING IN TORT are:
-28 U.S.C. 1346 ["United States as <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent>"];
-28 U.S.C. 1491 ["Claims against <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States generally"];
-28 U.S.C. 2412 ["Costs and fees"]. By the end of this Letter, the
distinction between Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> should be quite clear to see; and most
importantly, its true origin in the mind of <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father who created Nature,
and not judges, should be recognized.
=============================================================[084]</p>

<p>Yes, the Third Estate we will enter into after <ent type='EVENT'>the Last Judgment Day</ent> is
stratified into multiple different strata, and people will go where they are
most comfortable; yes, Father has many mansions in his <ent type='ORG'>House</ent>. [085]</p>

<p>[085]============================================================= "Salvation
is an individual operation... We read in the Bible that there is one glory of
the <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>, another glory of the <ent type='LOC'>Moon</ent>, and another glory of the Stars. In the Book
of DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, these glories are called Telestial, Terrestrial, and
Celestial, which is the highest. These are worlds, different departments, or
Mansions, in our Father's <ent type='ORG'>House</ent>. Now these men, or those women, who know no
more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>, than to be
led entirely by another person, suspending their understanding, and pinning
their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the
Celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable
of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others,
but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control
themselves in the least, but <ent type='PERSON'>James</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Peter</ent>, or somebody else must control them.
They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rules with glory, immortality,
and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in
the <ent type='GPE'>Celestial Kingdom</ent>. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the
true independence of Heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of God,
leaving others to so as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind
besides should take the opposite course."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse at the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent> on February 20, 1853;
1 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 309, at 312 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1854)].
=============================================================[085]</p>

<p>For example, if you simply cannot handle a difficult <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> or do not want
the responsibility that such a difficult <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> carries along with it -- then
that is fine, as Father has a <ent type='GPE'>Kingdom</ent> for you; and if this idea of spending
Time and all Eternity in the midst of clowns who also cannot handle <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>
intrigues you, then I would suggest that you explore the possibility of
terminating further interest in this Letter. Maybe I am missing something
somewhere, but I think it is inconsistent for Tax and Highway Protestors to so
freely and willingly be criminally prosecuted for no more than defining a new
elevated Status relationship with <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> -- but then for those same
Protestors to turn around and say that yes, they would somehow enjoy spending
the rest of Time and all Eternity on their knees licking someone else's feet as
some low level ministering angels. Therefore, we will settle for nothing but
the top -- and if we err along the way, then we erred while expending maximum
effort. [086]</p>

<p>[086]============================================================= "These words
set forth the fact to which <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> referred to when he said, 'In my Father's
<ent type='ORG'>House</ent> are many Mansions.' How many I am not prepared to say; but there are
three distinctly spoken of: The Celestial, the highest; the Terrestrial, the
next below it; and the Telestial, the third. If we were to take the pains to
read what the Lord has said to his people in the Latter days we should find
that he has made provision for all the inhabitants of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>; every creature
who desires, and who strives in the least, to overcome evil and subdue iniquity
within himself or herself, and to live worthy of glory, will possess one. We
who have received the Fullness of the Gospel of the Son of God, or <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent>dom
of Heaven that has come to <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, are in possession of these laws, ordinances,
commandments and revelations that will prepare us, by strict obedience, to
inherit the <ent type='GPE'>Celestial Kingdom</ent>, to go into the presence of the Father and the
Son."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse in the New <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent> on June 25th,
1871; 14 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 147, at 148 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1872)].
=============================================================[086]</p>

<p>When <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are in effect, the only thing that is relevant in a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law
Judgment setting is the content of the contract, the Person whose behavior the
contract seeks to measure compliance with, and the behavior that was being
measured; and as we traverse from a political setting involving Tax Protestors
to an ecclesiastical setting involving us all at the Last Day, then nothing
changes. The fact that <ent type='PERSON'>Irwin Schiff</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Armen Condo</ent> never bothered to read the
Commercial bank account merchant contracts that they were adjudged to be in
default of, and also their invisible Citizenship <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, and then were
penalized under those contracts by being incarcerated in a <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> cage, that
ignorance of the contract's terms is neither a relevant question nor excusable
behavior under a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law judgment setting. Literally, the only thing that
is relevant is: Did they honor the contract or not. People who are unable to
think along these precise and very narrow ratiocinative [087]</p>

<p>[087]=============================================================
RATIOCINATIVE means the process of exact thinking with little room, if any, for
error. =============================================================[087]</p>

<p>lines of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law will find themselves being self-penalized for their
ignorance (penalized in the sense that prospective blessings that could have
been their's will be forfeited). If that sounds excessively harsh, then
momentarily picture yourself as being in Father's position, and then consider
what you would do differently when confronted with a group of people who can
and do think precisely, and another group of people that do not think so
precisely, and another group who really could care less about anything. [088]</p>

<p>[088]============================================================= "All of the
doctrines of <ent type='ORG'>Life and Salvation</ent> are as plain to the understanding as [are]
geographical lines of a correctly drawn map. This doctrine, revealed in these
latter times, is worthy of the attention of all men. It gives the positive
situation in which they will stand before the Heavens when they have finished
their career. Generation after generation is constantly coming and passing
away. They all possess more or less intelligence, which forms the foundation
within them for the reception of an eternal increase [in their] intelligence...
But [in contrast to that] hundreds of millions of human beings have been born,
lived out their short earthly span, and passed away, ignorant alike of
themselves and of the PLAN OF SALVATION provided for them. It gives great
consolation, however, to know that this glorious plan devised by Heaven follows
them into the next existence, offering for their acceptance eternal life and
exaltation of thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers in the presence of
their Father and God, through <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ his Son. How glorious -- how ample
is the gospel plan in its saving properties and merciful designs. This one
revelation, containing this Principle, is worth worlds on worlds to mankind."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent>, Great Salt Lake
<ent type='GPE'>City</ent>, on January 12, 1862; 9 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 147, at 148 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1862)].
=============================================================[088]</p>

<p>And it will be on <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent> that we will be judged by <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>, and
under a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law jurisprudential setting -- and not under the rights,
justice, relative collective equality, and group fairness of pure natural moral
Tort Law. Interestingly enough, also known to those Persons who have entered
into Father's Advanced <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> down here is that the timing of the Judgment
Day can be accelerated into this life, thus removing any lingering vestige of
uncertainty someone may have about their Standing before Father; there is no
Last Day for these special people to concern themselves with. When Father
approves of your Standing down here, you are going to know it under rather
strong circumstances.</p>

<p>Yes, <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father has contracts on us all going back into <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate.
[089]</p>

<p>[089]============================================================= "Those
covenants that [Latter-Day Saints now make] were also made in the beginning of
the creation. They are now renewed to us..."
-Heber C. Kimball, in a discourse made in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent>, Salt Lake
<ent type='GPE'>City</ent>, January 6, 1861; 9 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 126, at 130 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1862)].
=============================================================[089]</p>

<p>And just like <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> in 7203 WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE prosecutions
quietly taking Judicial Notice of contracts in their <ent type='ORG'>Chambers</ent> even before the
Tax Protestor gets arrested and the adversary criminal proceedings start,
Father too already has all the <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> he needs in front of him awaiting the
judgment scene of Last Day -- First Estate <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> that were solicited from
us before we were born into this <ent type='ORG'>World</ent>, and <ent type='ORG'>this Second</ent> Estate proceeding
started to collect and assemble the factual setting the Last Day will issue out
a Judgment on. First Estate <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are now in effect on everyone -- ON
EVERYONE -- down here without any exceptions, and Father is not interested in
either any Tort or great thing we accomplish -- except that if that action is
encompassed within the content of a positive or restraining covenant on one of
the <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> he has on us. [090]</p>

<p>[090]============================================================= "Those
things which we call extraordinary, remarkable, or unusual may make history,
but they do not make real life. "After all, to do well those things which God
ordained to be the common lot of all mankind, is the truest greatness. To be a
successful father or a successful mother is greater than to be a successful
general or a successful statesman."
-Joseph F. Smith in <ent type='GPE'>JUVENILE</ent> INSTRUCTOR, page 752 (December 15, 1905).
Let's say you were <ent type='PERSON'>Armand Hammer</ent>, and you spent your life building up a great
oil company -- <ent type='ORG'>OCCIDENTAL</ent> PETROLEUM. Was that a great event for Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Hammer</ent> to
accomplish down here? Yes, it very much was, and a very difficult task
technically as well. But -- building up one huge <ent type='ORG'>OCCIDENTAL</ent> PETROLEUM or
building up one thou<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>d such dynastic empires means nothing to magnify your
standing at the Last Day. Although the training and SAVOIR-FAIRE acquired in
the process of such empire construction that dynasty builders are going through
is prepatory to other things, and could be very helpful to them in other ways;
the successful administration of difficult Celestial <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> remains the
dynasty builder's sole obstacle to inheriting the Celestial realms, as much as
the administration of those Celestial <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> remains the sole obstacle to us
PEASANTS as well.
=============================================================[090]</p>

<p>By the wording of the <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> Father has on us, a wide ranging array of
damages are not permissible -- but the moral Tort question of damages itself is
not relevant unless the damages fall into an area restricted by the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>.
In a similar way, some of the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> terms call for both positive action and
negative restrainment under situations where there could be no damages created
regardless of what we do; SO DAMAGES ARE NOT RELEVANT WHEN CONTRACTS ARE IN
EFFECT. ONLY CONCERN YOURSELF WITH THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT. And even if we
have carefully avoided entering into any <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> with him now in this Life,
he still has <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> on us all from <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate he will hold us to at
<ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent>: In other words, there is no such thing as outfoxing Father.
[091]</p>

<p>[091]============================================================= Do you want
to even try and outfox Father? A profile examination of the benefits that we
will experience by entering into, and then honoring a difficult advanced
contract, makes the search for ways to outfox Father rather silly and childish
in comparison. We are all organized to become Gods; whether or not we
accomplish such a noble objective depends upon how we handle our affairs down
here in this school.
"Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the sons of
Gods, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the
highest intelligences that dwell in eternity. We are now in that school, and
must practice upon what we receive."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, President of the <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent>, in a discourse made in
the Bowery, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>, September 2, 1860; 9 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 158, at
160 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1862)]. This life is a school, and Protestors refusing to consider
the idea, however remotely accurate it might be, that it is they themselves
that might be in error with their Protesting, are manifesting in that setting
an attitude of UNTEACHABLENESS. Such an attitude [forcefully concluding
prematurely that <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> is wrong, and I am right] causes Protestors to
disregard countermanding factual information when it surfaces. Such a rejection
of that uncomfortable information, before it is analyzed for authenticity,
relevancy, etc., is not exemplary of good students. Students who go through
school effortlessly are those who are in a teachable state of mind, and are
receptive to the possibility that they may have been in error before.
=============================================================[091]</p>

<p>Unlike our King in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> who has multiple technical deficiencies existing
within his own statutes, which when invoked timely preclude him from collecting
any <ent type='ORG'>Inland Revenue</ent> tax money under many circumstances even when it is
rightfully due and payable, there are no deficiencies in the <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> Father
writes; and for the incredible benefits being offered by Father, [092]</p>

<p>[092]============================================================= "...I
expect, if I am faithful with yourselves, that I shall see the time with
yourselves that we shall know how to prepare to organize an <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> like this --
know how to people that <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, how to redeem it, how to <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>ctify it, and how to
glorify it, with those who live upon it [being ones] who hearken to our
counsels. The Father and the Son have attained to this point already; I am on
the way, and so are you, [along with] every faithful servant of God."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse in a Special <ent type='ORG'>Conference</ent> held in the
<ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent> on August 28, 1852; 6 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 273,
at 274 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1859)].
=============================================================[092]</p>

<p>you should not even probe for any improvident technical moves. [093]</p>

<p>[093]============================================================= "There was a
time before we ever came into this world when we dwelt in [Father's] presence.
We knew what kind of being he is. One thing we saw was how glorious he is.
Another thing, how great was his wisdom, his understanding, how wonderful was
his power and his inspiration. And we wanted to be like him... If we will just
be true and faithful to every Covenant, to every Principle of <ent type='ORG'>Truth</ent> that he has
given us, then after the resurrection we would come back into his presence and
we would be just like he is. We would have the same kind of bodies -- bodies
that would shine like the sun."
-Joseph Fielding Smith in TAKE HEED TO YOURSELVES!, page 345 [Desert
Book Publishing, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent> (1966)].
=============================================================[093]</p>

<p>And this question of trying to outfox Father, is why the <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent>, who
otherwise like to consider themselves as being very clever folks, will find
their Torts, murders, revolutions, wars and environmental damages
justifications fall apart and collapse at the Last Day -- because pure natural
moral Tort Law will be irrelevant at <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent>. They will regret having
made their improvident technical moves down here: By trying to outfox Father
with their clever Tort Law reasoning on justifying damages. Father has a
special treat planned, an Ace up his sleeve, just tailor made for dealing with
these <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Bolshevik</ent> types of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s; it is the same identical Ace
that <ent type='ORG'>Federal Judges</ent> have up their sleeves, just tailor made to deal effectively
with Constitutionalists: An invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> the poor fellow didn't even know
about. By the end of this Letter, you will know of the numerous layers of
invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> has on Tax Protestors. But assuming that you
avoided entering into new <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> with Father in this Life, then when your
memory is restored to you, Father will solicit an accounting of the terms of
the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> he extracted from you in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate. [094]</p>

<p>[094]============================================================= "Now admit,
as the Latter-Day Saints do, that we had a previous existence, and that when we
die we shall return to God and our former habitation, where we shall behold the
face of our Father, and the question immediately arises, shall we have our
memories increased, that we shall remember our previous existence? ...we
shall."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson Pratt</ent>, in a discourse delivered in the 14th Assembly Rooms on
December 15, 1872; 15 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 241, at 249 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1873)]. <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>
is often portrayed as being the MEDIATOR OF THE NEW COVENANT [Hebrews 12:24],
which means that he has some type of an equitable interest in it:
"For as these memorials of the <ent type='ORG'>ATONEMENT</ent> were used by the ancient
<ent type='ORG'>Patriarchs</ent> and Prophets to manifest to God their faith in <ent type='EVENT'>the Plan</ent> of
Redemption and in the coming Redeemer... <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> [is] the Mediator of the New
Covenant..."
-<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> Taylor in THE <ent type='ORG'>MEDIATION</ent> AND <ent type='ORG'>ATONEMENT</ent>, at 123 [Deseret
Publishing, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent> (1892)]. Question: If there is a NEW COVENANT, was
there an OLD COVENANT? Answer: Yes, there most certainly was an Old Covenant;
and Father extracted the OLD Covenant out of us all in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, so now
that Covenant has the appearance of being invisible to us. <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ once
had a few words to say about the replacement of Father's First Estate Covenant
with his own [meaning that at the Last Day before Father, those <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s who
entered into Father's NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANTS down here will find that
<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> is acting as their Advocate before the Father at the Last Day]:
"...I say unto you that all old <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent> have I caused to be done away
with in this thing; and this is a NEW AND AN EVERLASTING COVENANT, even that
which was from the beginning."
-DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 22:1.
"...I am in your midst, and am your Advocate with the Father."
-DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 29:5. With <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ being your Advocate
before Father at the Last Day [which is a benefit offered to those who have
entered into Father's NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT], I am unaware of any other
Counselor I would rather have, acting on my behalf. ...Another set of <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent>
that <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> was responsible for replacing with another Covenant, are the
<ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent> associated with the LAW OF MOSES that our Fathers from another era
once entered into [the sacrifice of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> back near the MERIDIAN OF <ent type='ORG'>TIME</ent>
fulfilled the symbolic blood sacrifices that many of the Mosaic Ordinances were
centered around (the MERIDIAN OF <ent type='ORG'>TIME</ent> separates B.C. from A.D.)].
=============================================================[094]</p>

<p>And so what was once an invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> will then become a rather strongly
known <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, and then and there the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s will crinkle in self-inflicted
anguish. The Prophets have stated that there will be weeping, wailing and a
gnashing of teeth at the Last Day; [095]</p>

<p>[095]============================================================= "I am Alpha
and Omega, Christ the Lord; yes even I am he, the Beginning and the End, the
Redeemer of the <ent type='ORG'>World</ent>. ...at the... Last Great Day of Judgment... woes shall go
forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on
my left hand."
-DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 19:1 to 5.
=============================================================[095]</p>

<p>those are rather strong characterizations to use -- but now you know why -- for
among other reasons, the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s will have a perfect knowledge that their
clever justifications to pull off and try and get away with <ent type='ORG'>WORLD</ent> CLASS
mischief were not worth it. And when, at the Last Day, the <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> and
their <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> brothers are confronted with the terms of those First Estate
<ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> that they entered into before <ent type='ORG'>this Second</ent> Estate even started, and
when Father then asks for a simple factual recital of their Covenant
compliance, then will the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s realize the irrelevancy of their excuses to
justify and vitiate their murder, war, and miscellaneous abomination damages
(and all committed, of course, to accomplish and perfect Justice); and those
<ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> types might just find themselves, at that time, being a bit
disappointed: Because their Tort Law justifications will not even be addressed
by Father.</p>

<p>Father will be asking a very simple question then, to which he will expect,
very properly, a very simple answer: What was the extent to which you honored
your <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent>?</p>

<p><ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> defense arguments sounding in the Tort of damages justification will be
tossed aside and ignored then at the Last Day just like State and <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent>
Judges now toss aside and ignore Tort Law arguments of Constitutionalists and
other Protestors arguing lack of CORPUS DELECTI damages to try and get a
dismissal of Tax and Highway <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> enforcement prosecutions, when invisible
contracts unknown to the Constitutionalist were actually in effect. There is
actually nothing inaccurate or defective about the planned <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> defense
arguments, just like there is nothing inaccurate or factually defective about
<ent type='ORG'>Patriot</ent> arguments thrown at Judges today; the question is not one of accuracy
or whether they are correct, but rather the question is one of whether the
defense line addresses the contract compliance question asked -- and they
don't, they are not relevant. Simple questions of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> compliance by their
nature exclude a large body of prospective rebuttals that are distractive to
the simple question asked; when contracts are up for review and judgment, then
only the content of the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is of any relevance. [096]</p>

<p>[096]============================================================= In August of
1937, Maurice <ent type='PERSON'>Harper</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Fred Test</ent> were beer distributors in <ent type='GPE'>Ontario</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Oregon</ent>.
They needed to borrow some money, so they entered into a contract with their
own beer suppliers for a loan; they gave a real property deed on land they
owned to their supplier of beer as security for this loan, and as circumstances
often work out, the loan went into default, and a sale of the property quickly
was commenced by the beer suppliers with the result being that the minimal
price obtained under the pressure such an accelerated forced sale was far below
market value. The sale yielded just enough money to pay off the loan, and there
was no surplus available to give to the beer distributors who had posted the
land as security for the loan. Maurice <ent type='PERSON'>Harper</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Fred Test</ent> yelled <ent type='ORG'>UNFAIR</ent>, and
then threw a <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> action at the beer suppliers for damages. <ent type='ORG'>UNFAIR</ent>NESS is not
relevant when contracts are up for review, so the action was brought in under
Tort Law. [How is an action brought under Tort? By simply claiming in the
<ent type='ORG'>Complaint</ent> that Tort Law governs the grievance, pleading such things as the
damages experienced and then asking relief sounding in Tort; however, whether
or not your Tort claims ultimately prevail is another question]. Here, <ent type='PERSON'>Harper</ent>
and Test asked for the Tort relief in the nature of <ent type='GPE'>EXEMPLARY</ent> DAMAGES. A Trial
was held, and during Trial at the close of evidence presentation, the <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent>
beer suppliers motioned the <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> to require the <ent type='ORG'>Plaintiff</ent>s, <ent type='PERSON'>Harper</ent> and Test,
to identify whether they wanted to proceed to judgment under the rules of Tort
of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>:
"<ent type='ORG'>Plaintiff</ent>s [<ent type='PERSON'>Harper</ent> and Test] elected to proceed in Tort. Immediately
upon the election, being made by <ent type='ORG'>Plaintiff</ent>s, the <ent type='ORG'>Defendant</ent>s moved for a
directed verdict on the grounds that the <ent type='ORG'>Complaint</ent> failed to state a CAUSE OF
ACTION in Tort and in support of the motion counsel stated:
"...it is our position that in this case, when construed in the light
of surrounding circumstances as it must be done, does not raise any obligation
or does not permit the inference of any obligation EXISTING IN LAW OUTSIDE OF
THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF..."
-HARPER VS. INTERSTATE BREWERY, 120 P.2nd 757, at 761 (1942). The
<ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> when on to analyze the difference between Tort and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>; and as is
the factual setting in so many cases brought before the Judiciary for
resolution, a business relationship in effect between some parties was
initially construed around a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> as the center of gravity, and when
unanticipated circumstances came to pass (as someone pulled something sneaky
off that the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> has made no governing provision for), so the Judiciary
now has a grievance that is sounding in Tort with a <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> hanging in the
background:
"The distinction between a TORT and a B<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>CH OF CONTRACT is broad and
clear, in theory. In practice, however, it is not always easy to determine
whether a particular act or course of conduct subjects the wrongdoer to an
action in Tort, or one merely for breach of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>. The test to be applied is
the nature of the right which is being invaded. If this right was created
solely by the [contractual] agreement of the parties, the <ent type='ORG'>Plaintiff</ent> is limited
to an action EX CONTRACTU. If it was created by law he may sue in Tort."
-HARPER VS. INTERSTATE BREWERY, id., at 762. Under these cases where a
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> is hanging in the background, but a Tort Law claim is being demanded
as the relief, often times Attorneys for the <ent type='ORG'>Plaintiff</ent> will ask for both Breach
of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> and Tort relief, reciting elements of the factual setting that
support the respective claims, with the end result being that appellate judges
are frequently asked to draw lines dividing Tort from <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, as was the
instant factual setting here with HARPER. But important for the moment is that
the distinction once created in the Heavens, a long time ago, bifurcating Tort
from <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, is now being honored by the Judiciary, and that the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law
legal reasoning being enforced by judges today -- as seemingly unplea<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>t as it
is initially -- that excludes arguments and other distractions from being
considered unless they fall within the content of the <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>, is in fact a
correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that everyone will eventually become very well
acquainted with at the Last Day.
=============================================================[096]</p>

<p>If Father was planning on using pure natural moral Tort Law Justice at the
<ent type='EVENT'>Judgment Day</ent>, then there could be no such things as the third party liability
absorption feature such as the <ent type='EVENT'>Atonement</ent> (which is operation of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent>); and
additionally, for the tortious act of swatting a fly, spanking our kids,
drilling a railroad tunnel through a mountain, or mowing our lawns, we would be
penalized forever -- if we are operating under the rules of pure natural moral
Tort Law (which means that all Torts get retorted as the remedy -- with an
exception being only those excusable Torts necessary to perfect the Ends of
Justice). That important qualifying retort exception reasoning is the line that
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> carefully taught his <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> followers to profile themselves around
to justify their actions before Father. [097]</p>

<p>[097]============================================================= <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> too
uses contracts to accomplish his end objectives; he too is playing this
<ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Game. As for <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent>, irrevocable oaths and covenants are required for
standing membership in <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> temples. Once contracts are extracted out of
new <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> initiates, that <ent type='ORG'>Equity</ent> Relationship that was created is
considered to be a FAIT ACCOMPLI (meaning once accomplished, then being
irrevocable in nature). In other secret societies that <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> maintains a
managing interest in, covenants (contracts) that were sealed under blood oaths
are extracted out of new members. So <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> very much knows all about the
rather strong underlying nature of <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> and of <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law Jurisprudence.
Witches also use covenants extensively; for a discussion of First Degree,
Second Degree and Third Degree Initiation Rites, see <ent type='PERSON'>Janet</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Stewart Farrar</ent>
in A WITCHES BIBLE [Magickal Childe Publishing, 35 West 19th Street, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>
10011 (1981)].
=============================================================[097]</p>

<p>Lucifer's clever inveiglement to use damage arguments to vitiate yourself at
<ent type='EVENT'>the Last Judgment Day</ent> is facially very attractive, and since Tort Law itself is
a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, any scrutiny of Lucifer's reasoning withstands
attack and challenge from any angle; it is not until a remote, little known,
and obscure doctrine is uncovered from the archives of the <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent> in
<ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent> (regarding our lives as <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s before with Father, and Father's
Previous Existence <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> on us all, and therefore our Judgment will be
under <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law) does Lucifer's brilliant Tort Law justification reasoning
fall apart and collapse. In reading <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> literature, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> again
manifests his supergenius at deception through concealment, as although there
are references to general <ent type='ORG'>Spiritual</ent> matters (certain strata of <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> are
not atheists) as a distraction, however there are no references to any
<ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> with Father out there that the <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> need to concern themselves
with. An exemplary line propagated by persons who circulate in the genre of
Witches, <ent type='NORP'>Bolsheviks</ent>, and <ent type='ORG'>Illuminists</ent> is that "You should do it in the name of
Justice, so you can justify it in the end."</p>

<p>In the pop song ONE TIN SOLDIER, one finds the following lyrics:</p>

<p>"...Do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the end... There
won't be any Trumpets blowing come <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent>..." [098]</p>

<p>[098]============================================================= Lyrics
Copyright by FLASHBACK RECORDS/ARISTA RECORDS, <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent>. Words and music
by <ent type='PERSON'>Dennis Lambert</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Brian Potter</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Trousdale Music Publishing</ent> (1969); revived
by <ent type='ORG'>COVEN RECORDS</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>WARNER</ent> BROTHERS, 1971); <ent type='ORG'>MGM RECORDS</ent>, (1973); <ent type='ORG'>WARNER</ent> BROTHERS
again (1974).
=============================================================[098]</p>

<p>These lyrics also appear in the <ent type='GPE'>Hollywood</ent> movie BILLY <ent type='PERSON'>JACK</ent>. [099]</p>

<p>[099]============================================================= Starring Tom
Laughlin and <ent type='PERSON'>Delores Taylor</ent>; distributed by <ent type='ORG'>WARNER</ent> BROTHERS (1971).
=============================================================[099]</p>

<p>With a setting on an <ent type='NORP'>Indian</ent> Reservation in <ent type='GPE'>the Western United</ent> States, the plot
in BILLY <ent type='PERSON'>JACK</ent> told the tale of how the ever changing laws of men are frequently
out of harmony with true Justice, and so now murder is necessary to accomplish
the true Ends of Justice where the laws of men fall short; sort of like forcing
a contemporary hybrid variant of <ent type='ORG'>ROBIN HOOD</ent>'s grab as a means of accomplishing
JUSTITIA OMNIBUS [justice for all]. Remember that the <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s need
to have people (their prospective recruits in particular) think in terms of
Tort Law reasoning down here, and so they propagate the view that murders
committed to accomplish Justice (to correctively retort the damages of others
that the Law does not reach) are excusable acts that <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father is
required to vitiate and ignore at the Last Day [just like the Sheriff is
excused from bearing the consequences for working the damages you experienced
when he incarcerated you, after you had first burned your neighbor's house
down; what the Sheriff did, as a neutral and disinterested third party, was to
correctively retort the damages created by others]. Once an <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent>
initiate accepts this reasoning, it takes little effort to have the initiate
accept the application of Tort Law reasoning to larger corrective retorts like
wars, wholesale murders, environmental damages, use of the police powers of the
state to accomplish other damages, and assorted other <ent type='ORG'>MAGNUM OPUS</ent> abominations
that accomplish proprietary <ent type='ORG'>Illuminatti</ent> objectives, and all very carefully
documented and neatly arranged to remedy some other damages else where, and
also benefit the world by accelerating the commencement timing of the
Millennial Reign. This is brilliant reasoning that <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> taught these little
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s; Tort Law is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE and cannot itself be
attacked from any angle. The use of Tort Law reasoning to govern judgments when
no contracts are in effect is absolutely morally correct and in harmony with
Nature in itself, and so are all of its retorts to perfect Justice and the Ends
of Justice. And so an esoteric [100]</p>

<p>[100]============================================================= To be
<ent type='ORG'>ESOTERIC</ent> means to be designed for, and understood by, specially informed people
only; or otherwise withheld from generally open public avowal.
=============================================================[100]</p>

<p>factual element deficiency problem surfaces that will absolutely nullify those
expected benefits Witches are driving towards as they travel down that YELLOW
BRICK ROAD of theirs: <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father extracted <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> out of us all in the
First Estate before we came down here, and so Tort Law reasoning will not be
applicable at the Last Day. Yes, those Trumpets will blow at the Last Day;
sorry, <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, but your days are numbered. Yes, the HANDWRITING IS ON THE
WALL for <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s. [101]</p>

<p>[101]============================================================= Back in the
days of <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent>, there was once a great and fabulous <ent type='GPE'>City</ent> called <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent>,
reaching its peak at about 600 B.C. Today, BABYLON has a lingering illicit
stigma associated with it, but before <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> went to the dogs, it was very
impressive. <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> was the most prominent, majestic, prosperous, and powerful
<ent type='GPE'>City</ent> that the world had ever known, up to that time. It had been the most
important trading center, it had the most powerful military force, the greatest
cultural resources, and was even a center of tourism due to its <ent type='LOC'>Hanging Gardens</ent>
and numerous other man made wonders. <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> had twin sets of tall walls
surrounding her and with a moat in between; massive and everlasting, those twin
walls were so thick and so dimensionally impressive that they were viewed as
being impregnable by any military technology of the day. Inside the <ent type='GPE'>City</ent>, there
was a two year supply of food; and there was no lack of water, either, because
no less than the great river <ent type='LOC'>Euphrates</ent> ran through <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent>. Yes, <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> was
powerful, wealthy, and just so secure that any potential adversary could hardly
be taken seriously. And even when it became clear that an increasingly powerful
adversary like the <ent type='LOC'>Medes</ent> and the <ent type='NORP'>Persians</ent> were building military momentum,
there was no concern within <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> -- whatever adversaries the world offered
were only huffing hot air. At a Royal banquet one night in his Palace [DANIEL
5:1], King Belshazzar saw a finger writing messages on a wall. None of this
soothsayers, astrologers, or wise men [filled with a wide ranging array of
factual knowledge on everything the <ent type='ORG'>WORLD</ent> had to offer -- except <ent type='ORG'>Spiritual</ent>
matters] could interpret the meaning. After the clowns had had their turn,
along came the Prophet <ent type='PERSON'>Daniel</ent> who understood what he saw; and told <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent>
what <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent> did not want to hear: That Father had adjudged his kingdom, and
found it wanting in minimum <ent type='ORG'>Spiritual</ent> expectations; that the impossible was
going to happen and that <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> was going to be divided and given to
adversaries -- introduced into the violent and unplea<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>t circumstances of an
invasion [DANIEL 5:25 to 28]. Father meant what he said, and so the HANDWRITING
WAS ON THE WALL for <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent>. That same evening, the flow of the great River
<ent type='LOC'>Euphrates</ent> receded, and then slowed down to a trickle; it had been diverted
upstream by the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Darius</ent>, who had big plans for the conquest of <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent>.
And now there were holes in the great walls of <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> where the <ent type='LOC'>Euphrates</ent> once
was. The riverbed openings served as the ingress point of entry for the
invading army of <ent type='ORG'>Darius</ent>; and <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> was conquered without resistance. [See
generally, the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ["<ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent>"] (<ent type='GPE'>London</ent>, 1929)]. ...Down to
the present day, the phrase HANDWRITING ON THE WALL has come to characterize
improvident and unrealistic fantasy expectations one holds by reason of
unappreciated impending adverse circumstances, particularly in an area
involving Father. Today, <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States has a very similar military
adversary waiting in the wings, an adversary who has been busy on a very well
known extensive commitment to prepare for war. Water resources were the
ACHILLES HEEL that brought <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> to her knees then; and when our turn comes,
it too will be the sudden and unexpected damages of our water resources that
the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent>s will use to make their invasion Statement, as they attempt a very
quick lock down on <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> military installations. <ent type='GPE'>Babylon</ent> had its quislings
then, and we have our's now; and we should have known something was afoot when
<ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> spent two years of his life in the early 1970's heavily
involved in collecting information on <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> water resources.
=============================================================[101]</p>

<p>In other words, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> counsels his followers to perform their murders and
Torts in the retort cycle of Justice administration where they can be justified
and vitiated, so that <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father would then be required to excuse and
vitiate their behavior at the Last Day. Under Tort Law reasoning, all Torts
(damages) need to be "retorted" as the remedy to perfect Justice, but the
person administering the retort damage itself, like the Sheriff, is immune from
further cyclic retort, so the Justice cycle stops there. And there also lies
the Grand Key for getting people to commit murders while believing quite
strongly that they are exempt from Father's Justice: By simply arranging the
background circumstances for the murder to fall under the protective justifying
retort cycle of Justice. Therefore, the person who administers the retort is
immune from further damages himself. In this brilliant way, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> intends to
double cross all of his hardworking assistants down here, every single one
without exception, but not until just before <ent type='EVENT'>the Judgment Day</ent>: Because although
Tort Law is a correct PRINCIPLE OF NATURE, our <ent type='EVENT'>Great Judgment</ent> will be under
<ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law, and Tort Law arguments and rationalizations will be
ignored. So, when <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father pulls his Ace out of his sleeves to deal with
these clever <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s who sincerely believe that they have found a way to
outfox Father and get away with MAGNUM Torts by neatly justifying everything in
the good name of Justice, Father will do no more than merely lift the veil of
memory we all had lowered on us to seal away the access to our past memories
while we once journeyed through <ent type='ORG'>this Second</ent> Estate, and the poor <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s will
then and there remember with a perfect knowledge of the <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> they
previously entered into with Father in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate -- <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> that were
invisible during the Second Estate. Now the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s will be sealing their own
fate, as their Tort Law arguments are not relevant when a simple and limited
accounting of <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> is asked for.</p>

<p>Yes, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> was in the many <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>s of Heaven with us all when we were on our
knees reciting the terms of our <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> from our tongues, [102]</p>

<p>[102]============================================================= When the
rebellion in the Heavens took place, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> was cast down to the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>; so the
<ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> was created before the rebellion, and <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> was there in the Heavens
when the first version of those <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> were extracted from us all, and so by
encouraging arguments sounding in Tort, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> knows exactly what he is doing
(meaning that he intends to double cross his servants down here at the Last Day
-- giving them a line of reasoning that will fall apart and collapse before
Father's <ent type='EVENT'>Judgment Day</ent>).
=============================================================[102]</p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> knows very well that <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law jurisprudence will govern the Last
Day. Does <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> know what he is doing in his Tort Law reasoning? He most
certainly does. [103]</p>

<p>[103]============================================================= "In regard
to the battle in Heaven... when <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent>, the Son of the Morning, claimed the
privilege of controlling the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> and redeemed it, a contention arose; but I
do not think it took long to cast down one-third of the hosts of Heaven, as it
is written in the Bible. But let me tell you that it was one-third part of the
spirits who were prepared to take tabernacles upon this <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, and who rebelled
against the two-thirds of the <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Hosts; and they were cast down to this
world. It is written that they were cast down to this <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> -- to this TERRA
FIRMA that you and I walk on, and whose atmosphere we breathe. One-third of the
spirits that were prepared for this <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> rebelled against <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ, and
were cast down to <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, and they have opposed him from that day to this, with
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> at their head. He is their general -- <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent>, Son of the Morning. He
was once a brilliant and influential character in Heaven, and we will know more
about him hereafter."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Brigham Young</ent>, in a discourse made at the Bowery, <ent type='GPE'>Salt Lake City</ent>,
July 19, 1857; 5 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 52, at 54 to 55 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1858)].
=============================================================[103]</p>

<p>Tort Law reasoning itself cannot be attacked, as it is merely a reflection of
Nature, and it does have its proper time and place to govern the settlement of
grievances between persons when contracts are not in effect. The question is
not whether Tort Law is morally correct or incorrect, or whether Tort Law is in
or out of harmony with Nature; the question is one of applicability of either
Tort Law or <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law reasoning to govern the judgment of a factual setting
presented for a ruling. And so as long as <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> keeps his hard working
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> servants down here thinking along Tort Law lines, and discussing only
Tort Law reasoning in their private communications they send back and forth to
each other, then <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> is getting all that he wants now, since his little
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s will go right ahead and knowingly commit tremendous damages while
sincerely believing that they are on safe grounds at the Last Day, just like
Highway <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Protestors very sincerely believe that the absence of a MENS
<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent> and CORPUS DELECTI, together with the nonexistence of a Driver's License,
will place them and their Tort Law RIGHT TO TRAVEL unfairness arguments on safe
grounds before sophisticated appellate judges [this is not correct, as I will
explain later]. This is a brilliant deception EXTRAORDINAIRE by <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> to his
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, and this is also extremely sophisticated reasoning (which in itself
creates an allure to intellectual <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s). [104]</p>

<p>[104]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s
highly admire <ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S, as there is something about their high-powered
status that creates such an intriguing aura of devilish mystique. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent> once had a few words to say about his mentors, <ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S, putting
in an honest days' labor, going through the foibles and headaches that they do;
those poor hardworking <ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S, racking themselves to sole one tough
problem after another; but also the <ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent> contributes to an important
participating juristic role in making global conquest administratively
efficient:
"How about the role of individuals who have addressed themselves to
acquiring substantive knowledge -- the intellectuals? Is our problem, as is so
often alleged, the lack of respect shown to the intellectual by our society?
"The problem is more complicated than our refusal or inability to
utilize this source of talent. Many organizations, governmental or private,
rely on panels of experts. Political leaders have intellectuals as advisors...
"One problem is the demand for expertise itself. Every problem which
our society becomes concerned about... calls into being panels, committees, or
study groups supported by either private or governmental funds. Many
organizations constantly call on intellectuals for advice. As a result,
intellectuals with a reputation soon find themselves so burdened that their
pace of life hardly differs from that of the executives who they counsel. They
cannot supply perspective because they are as harassed as the policy makers.
All pressures on them tend to keep them at the level of the performance which
gained them reputation. In his desire to be helpful, the intellectual is too
frequently compelled to sacrifice what should be his greatest contribution to
society -- his creativity...
"A person is considered suitable for assignments within certain
classifications. But the classification of the intellectual is determined by
the premium our society places on administrative skill. The intellectual is
rarely found at the level where decisions are made. His role is commonly
advisory. He is called in as a 'specialist' in areas whose advice is combined
with that of others from different fields of endeavor on the assumption that
the policymaker is able to choose intuitively the correct amalgam of
'theoretical and 'practical' advice. And even in this capacity, the
intellectual is not a free agent. It is the executive who determines in the
first place whether he needs advice. He and the bureaucracy frame the question
to be answered. The policy maker determines the standard of relevance...
"The contribution of the intellectual to policy is therefore in terms
of criteria that he has played only a minor role in establishing. He is rarely
given the opportunity to point out that a query limits a range of possible
solutions or that an issue is posed in irrelevant terms. He is asked to solve
problems, not to contribute to the definition of goals. Where decisions are
arrived at by negotiation, the intellectual -- particularly if he is not
himself a part of the bureaucracy -- is a useful weight in the scale. He can
serve as the means of filtering ideas to the top outside of organizational
channels or as one who legitimizes the viewpoint of contending factions within
and among departments. This is why many organizations build up batteries of
outside experts or create semi-independent research groups, and why articles or
books become tools in the bureaucratic struggle. In short, all too often what
the policymaker wants from the intellectual is not ideas but endorsement.
"This is not to say that the motivation of the policymaker towards the
intellectual is cynical. The policymaker sincerely wants help... Of necessity,
the bureaucracy gears the intellectual effort to its own requirements and its
own pace; the deadlines are inevitably that of the policymaker, and all too
often they demand a premature disclosure of ideas which are then dissected
before they are fully developed. The administrative approach to intellectual
effort tends to destroy the environment from which innovation grows. Its
insistence on 'results' discourages the intellectual climate that might produce
important ideas whether or not the bureaucracy feels it needs them.
"Thus, though the intellectual participates in policymaking to an
almost unprecedented degree, the result has not necessarily been salutary for
him or of full benefit to the officials calling on him...
"In seeking to help the bureaucracy out of this maze, the intellectual
too frequently becomes an extension of the administrative machine, accepting
its criteria and elaborating its problems. While this, too, is a necessary task
and sometimes even an important one, it does not touch the heart of the
problem...
"This does not mean that the intellectual should remain aloof from
policymaking. Nor have intellectuals who have chosen withdrawal necessarily
helped this situation. There are intellectuals outside the bureaucracy who are
not part of the maelstrom of committees and study groups but who have,
nevertheless, contributed to the existing stagnation through a perfectionism
that paralyzes action by posing unreal alternatives. There are intellectuals
within the bureaucracy who have avoided the administrative approach but who
must share the responsibility for the prevailing confusion because they refuse
to admit that all of policy involves an inevitable element of conjecture. It is
always possible to escape difficult choices by making only the most favorable
assessment of the intentions of other states or of political trends. The
intellectuals of other countries in the free world where the influence of
pragmatism is less pronounced and the demands of the bureaucracies less
insatiable have not made a more significant contribution. The spiritual malaise
described here may have other symptoms elsewhere. The fact remains that the
entire free world suffers not only from administrative myopia but also from
self righteousness and the lack of a sense of direction [that sounds like
something a <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> going no where would say].
"Thus, if the intellectual is to make a contribution to national
policy, he faces a delicate task. He must steer between the <ent type='PERSON'>Scylla</ent> of letting
the bureaucracy prescribe what is relevant or useful and the Charybdis of
defining those criteria too abstractly. If he inches too much toward the
former, he will turn into a promoter of technical remedies; if he chooses the
latter, he will run the risks of confusing dogmatism with morality and of
courting martyrdom -- of becoming, in short, as wrapped up in a cult of
rejection as the activist is in a cult of success.
"Where to draw the line between excessive commitment to the bureaucracy
and paralyzing aloofness depends on so many intangibles of circumstances and
personality that it is difficult to generalize... The intellectual should
therefore refuse to participate in policymaking, for to do so confirms the
stagnation of societies whose leadership groups have little substantive
knowledge...
"The intellectual must therefore decide not only whether to participate
in the administrative process but also in what capacity: Whether as an
intellectual or as an administrator.
"Such an attitude requires an occasional separation from
administration. The intellectual must guard against his distinctive, and in
this particular context, most crucial qualities: The pursuit of knowledge
rather than of administrative ends and the perspective supplied by a
non-bureaucratic vantage point. It is therefore essential for him to return
from time to time to his library or his laboratory to 'recharge his batteries.'
If he fails to do so, he would turn into an administrator [and we wouldn't
want that to happen], distinguished from some of his colleagues only by having
been recruited from the intellectual community."
-<ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent></ent> in THE NECESSITY OF CHOICE ["The <ent type='ORG'>Policymaker</ent> and the
Intellectual"], at page 348 [<ent type='PERSON'>Harper</ent> &amp; Brothers, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1960)]. Today, few
common folks have much admiration for <ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S; very appropriately, many
folks find them irritating because they are out of touch with hard DAY TO DAY
practical reality -- a state of perception that has been going on since the
very founding of this Republic:
"These lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men, that talk so
finely, gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people
swallow down the pill, expect to get into <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> themselves; that expect to
be the managers of the Constitution, and get all the money and power in their
own hands, and then they will swallow up all us little folks, like the great
<ent type='ORG'>LEVIATHAN</ent>, Mr. President; yes, just as the whale swallowed up JONAH. This is
what I am afraid of..."
-Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Singletarry</ent>, a rural delegate to the special 1788 <ent type='GPE'>Massachusetts</ent>
Convention elected to consider ratification of the Constitution, as quoted by
<ent type='PERSON'>Jonathan Elliot</ent> in II DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS, at 102 [J.B.
<ent type='ORG'>Lippincott</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Philadelphia</ent> (1863)]. And <ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S also possess behavioral
elements of playfulness about them that is difficult to come to grips with at
first:
"The very suggestion that the intellectual has a distinctive capacity
for mischief, however, leads to the consideration that his piety [means STATE
OF BEING PIOUS], by itself, is not enough. He may live for ideas, as I have
said, but something must prevent him from living for ONE <ent type='ORG'>IDEA</ent>, from becoming
excessive or grotesque... the beginning and end of ideas lies in their efficacy
with respect to some goal external to intellectual processes. The intellectual
is not in the first instance concerned with such goals. This is not to say that
he scorns the practical: The intrinsic intellectual interest of many practical
problems is utterly absorbing. Still less is it to say that he is impractical;
he is simply concerned with something else, a quality in problems that is not
defined by asking whether or not they have practical purpose. The notion that
the intellectual is inherently impractical will hardly bear analysis (...<ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent>
Smith, <ent type='PERSON'>Thomas Jefferson</ent>... have been eminently practical in the politician's or
businessman's sense of the term)...
"If some large part of the anti-intellectualism of our time stems from
the public's shock at the constant insinuation of the intellectual as expert
into public affairs, much of the sensitiveness of intellectuals to the
reputation as a class stems from the awkward juxtaposition of the sacred and
profane roles. In his sacred role, as prophet, scholar, or artist, the
intellectual is hedged about by certain <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>ctions -- imperfectly observed and
respected, of course, but still effective...
"It is part of the intellectual's tragedy that the things he most
values about himself and his work are quite unlike those society values in him.
<ent type='ORG'>Society</ent> values him because he can in fact be used for a variety of purposes,
from popular entertainment to the design of weapons. But it can hardly
understand so well those aspects of his temperament which I have designated as
essential to his intellectualism. His playfulness, in its various
manifestations, is likely to seem to most men a perverse luxury; in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States the play of the mind is perhaps the only form of play that is not looked
upon with the most tender indulgence. His piety is likely to seem nettlesome,
if not actually dangerous. And neither quality is considered to contribute very
much to the practical business of life...
"To those who suspect that intellect is a subversive force in society,
it will not do to reply that intellect is really a safe, bland and emollient
thing... To be sure, intellectuals, contrary to the fantasies of cultural
vigilantes, are hardly ever subversive of a society as a whole.
"I have suggested that one of the first questions asked in <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>
about intellect and intellectuals concerns their practicality. One reason why
anti-intellectualism has changed in our time is that our sense of the
impracticality of intellect has been transformed. During the [1800's], when
business criteria dominated <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> culture almost without challenge, and when
most business and professional men attained eminence without much formal
education, academic schooling was often said to be useless. It was assumed that
schooling existed not to cultivate certain distinctive qualities of the mind
but to make personal advancement possible. For this purpose, an immediate
engagement with the practical tasks of life was held to be more usefully
educative, whereas intellectual and cultural pursuits were called unworldly,
unmasculine, and impractical."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Richard Hofstadter</ent> in ANTI-<ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>ISM IN <ent type='ORG'>AMERICAN</ent> LIFE, starting
at 29 [Random <ent type='ORG'>House</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1963)]. When <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States began its
existence out from underneath the thumb of <ent type='PERSON'>King George</ent>, the presence of stuffy
<ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S on the political scene was not a problem then:
"When <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States began its national existence, the relationship
between intellect and power was not a problem. The leaders WERE the
intellectuals. Advanced though the nation was in development of democracy, the
control of its affairs still rested largely in a patrician elite; and within
this elite men of intellect moved freely and spoke with enviable authority.
Since it was an unspecialized and versatile age, the intellectual as expert was
a negligible force; but the intellectual as ruling-class gentleman was a leader
in every segment of society -- at the bar, in the professions, in business, and
in political affairs. The Founding Fathers were sages, scientists, men of broad
cultivation, many of them apt in classical learning, who used their wide
reading in history, politics, and law to solve the exigent problems of their
time. No subsequent era in our history has produced so many men of knowledge
among its political leaders as the age of <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent>s [and others]. One might
have expected that such men, whose political achievements were part of the very
fabric of the nation, would have stood as permanent and overwhelming
testimonial to the truth that men of learning and intellect need not be
bootless and impractical as political leaders. It is ironic that <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States should have been founded by intellectuals; for throughout most of our
political history, the intellectual has been for the most part either an
outsider, a servant, or a scapegoat."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Richard Hofstadter</ent> in ANTI-<ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>ISM IN <ent type='ORG'>AMERICAN</ent> LIFE, at 145
[Random <ent type='ORG'>House</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1963)]. The reason why having <ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S on the
scene back then was not a problem is because <ent type='NORP'>INTELLECTUAL</ent>S, per se, are not a
source of problems; only when operating as slippery bureaucratic extensions of
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> intrigue, only then does the tainted lustre of their high-powered
intellect come home to roost -- then they become problems.
=============================================================[104]</p>

<p>And just as <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> freely uses his deception to motivate his associates in his
direction, so to do his <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> assistants down here use deception between each
other in turn, whenever they feel like it. <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s thrive on throwing
deceptions back and forth at each other, and they do not really concern
themselves on the background setting the deception takes place in. [105]</p>

<p>[105]============================================================= Yes, there
are no circumstances that are spared from the strategic use of DECEPTION --
when <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s are running the show:
...Carved in the white walls of the Riverside <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> in <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent>
are the figures of six hundred men that the world esteems as being great for
one reason or another -- hanging on the walls are canonized saints,
philosophers, kings, and other assorted geniuses. One panel enshrines fourteen
geniuses of science, starting with <ent type='NORP'>Hippocrates</ent>, who died around 370 B.C., to
<ent type='PERSON'>Albert Einstein</ent> [who was still alive when he was enshrined in this <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>]. In
this environment surrounded by greatness converged some 2500 people from 71
countries to the <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>ctuary of Riverside <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> in <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent> on this Friday,
February 2, 1979. They had dropped what they were doing world wide to come pay
their last respects and hear final praise and eulogies for <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>.
They heard orations from, among others, daughter Ann <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Roberts, from
son <ent type='PERSON'>Rodman</ent> C. <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>, from brother <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>, and from <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent></ent>. [See the <ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent> <ent type='ORG'>TIME</ent>S ["Dignitaries and Friends Honor
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>"], page 1 (February 3, 1979)]. Judging by the glowing
characterizations that were used to express final admirations for <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>, this
<ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> is really missing out on something special if a limestone statue of
<ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> isn't soon enshrined with the 600 others mounted on the
walls.
...Of the orations spoken at Nelson's funeral service, <ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent>
Kissinger's eulogy deserves very special attention: Because it was steeped in
deception. Seemingly with tears in his eyes, <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent></ent>'s choking voice
was echoed throughout the great <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>ctuary of the Riverside <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent>
characterized <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> as "friend," "inspiration," "teacher," and "my older
brother." Seemingly stricken with grief, Kissinger's eulogy act was a smooth
masterpiece in well-oiled deception, and brought tears to the eyes of many. In
his final passage, <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent> claimed that he frequently chatted with <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>:
"In recent years, he and I would often sit on the veranda overlooking
his beloved <ent type='LOC'>Hudson River</ent> in the setting sun. I would talk more, but he
understood better. And as the statues on the lawn glazed in the dimming light,
<ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> would occasionally get that squint in his eyes, which
<ent type='ORG'>betokened</ent> a far horizon, and he would say, because I needed it, but above all,
because he deeply felt it...
'... never forget, that the most profound force in the world is love'."
-<ent type='GPE'>NEW YORK</ent> <ent type='ORG'>TIME</ent>S, id., ["Excerpts From Eulogies At Memorial for
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>"], page 23. Having finished his smooth acting job, having left the
mourners spellbound and wailing largely in tears, this little <ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> who had
criminally coordinated at a mid-management level the murder of <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> a week earlier, slowly turned and left the pulpit. <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> had never actually spoken those words <ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> claimed -- but pesky
little details like that are not important; conversations between <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> were limited to communications exchanged in furtherance of wars, murders,
conquest, and revolutions, with only a minimal amount of personal interest
material being exchanged as necessary to fill a vacant time slice hiatus.
Background factual accuracy is never something that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s concern themselves
with, and <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kissinger</ent></ent>'s fraudulent and deceptive eulogy of <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent>, under circumstances where any enlightening corrective retort would
be inappropriate, was no exception to the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI of using
deception as an instrument of aggression wherever and whenever they feel like
experiencing the benefits derived from it.
=============================================================[105]</p>

<p>Absent unusual appreciation for what an abbreviated <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> Law judgment
setting is really like (such as trying to contest speeding and insurance
infractions on Highway <ent type='ORG'>Contract</ent> enforcement proceedings, going through 7203
WILLFUL FAILURE TO <ent type='ORG'>FILE Star Chamber</ent> prosecutions, etc.) only very few folks
have the factual background necessary to grasp the significance of this line.
Due to circumstances which transpired back in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent>
passionately hates us all (i.e., all persons who took bodies in <ent type='ORG'>this Second</ent>
Estate), and he fully intends to have each and every single person, without any
exceptions, who trusted in his Tort Law logic and reasoning, screwed to the
wall for having done so. This planned double cross by <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> even includes his
highly prized intimates, the contemporary <ent type='ORG'>Rothschild Brothers</ent>, with whom
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> has personally conversed with, face-to-face; <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> has the
<ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> believing that they are the top dogs and they call the shots. They
too will be double crossed, and this is true even though <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> has very
reliably dealt with many <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> generations in <ent type='ORG'>this Second</ent> Estate going
back several centuries. Yet, the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> will likely never the see the
forest for the trees, as the effect of his impending <ent type='ORG'>MAGNUM OPUS</ent> Double Cross
will not even occur until this <ent type='ORG'>World</ent> is over with, and then it is too late to
start taking an interest in <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> with Father, and stop using pure natural
moral Tort Law Principles to govern your behavior, under such untimely and
belated circumstances. Boy, I can just hear Baron <ent type='PERSON'>Phillippe</ent> de <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent>, LE
GREMLIN EXTRAORDINAIRE, now at the Last Day telling Father that:</p>

<p>"Father, you just don't understand... why, I had to have <ent type='PERSON'>David</ent> killed
to accelerate the arrival of your <ent type='EVENT'>Millennium</ent>. The world experienced the
benefits of it. It just had to be done to further your Ends of Justice."</p>

<p>As for the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent>, after their Eyes are Opened on the foolishness of their
Tort Law reasoning, their greatest disappointment at that time may yet lie in
another area altogether: As they ponder the long term significance of their
being denied further inhabitation on this planet they once participated in
Creating. [106]</p>

<p>[106]============================================================= The
<ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> nest of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s are not as smart as they like to think of
themselves; however, with their aloofness above us pea<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>try, you could not
tell them that. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> Taylor, President of the <ent type='ORG'>Mormon Church</ent>, once tried and got
nowhere:
"Do you think that the <ent type='NORP'>jews</ent> today would want to publish things
pertaining to <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent>, describing the manner in which he would come? I should
think not. In a conversation I once had with Baron <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent>, he asked me if I
believed in the Christ? I answered him: "Yes, God has revealed to us that he is
the true Messiah, and we believe in him." I further remarked: "Your Prophets
have said 'They shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and they shall
mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for
him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born.', 'And one shall say unto
him, What are these wounds in thy hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which
I was wounded in the house of my friends.'" Do you think the <ent type='NORP'>jewish</ent> rabbis
would refer you to such scripture as that? Said Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent>, "Is that in our
Bible?" "That is in your Bible, sir."
-<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> Taylor, speaking at a Funeral Service on December 31, 1876; 18
<ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 324, at 329 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1877)]. The <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> commune with
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> from time to time, and his grand plans for conquest that have been
revealed to the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> (plans that have been handed down the line
originating in time back almost to the Garden of Eden), are so impressive and
so outstanding that the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> are totally relying on <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> to come
through for them. But just like the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> are deficient on factual
information regarding the <ent type='NORP'>jewish</ent> perspective of a Messiah (however defective a
view that is factually), the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> are also deficient on information
explaining why <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> is only pretending to be interested in their welfare
before Father, and actually intends to double cross them at the Last Day.
=============================================================[106]</p>

<p>In the Third Estate, this planet is in for some refining and advancement, and
there will be no <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s inhabiting the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> then. [107]</p>

<p>[107]============================================================= "Who, in
looking upon the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> as it ascends in the scale of the <ent type='ORG'>Universe</ent>, does not
desire to keep pace with it, that when it shall be classed in its turn among
the dazzling orbs of the blue vault of Heaven, shining forth in all the
splendors of Celestial Glory, he may find himself proportionately advanced in
the scale of intellectual and moral excellence. [Would GREMLINS even concern
themselves with that?] Who, but the most abandoned, does not desire to be
counted worthy to associate with those higher orders of Beings who have been
redeemed, exalted, glorified, together with the worlds they inhabit, ages
before the foundations of our <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> were laid? Oh man, remember the future
destiny and glory of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, and secure thine everlasting inheritance upon
the same, that when it shall be glorious, thou shalt be glorious also."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson Pratt</ent>, in a discourse ["The <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> -- Its Fall, Redemption, and
Final Destiny -- the Final Abode of the Righteous"], appearing in 1 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF
<ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 328, at 333 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1854)].
=============================================================[107]</p>

<p>Father was the only architect of this particular planet. [108]</p>

<p>[108]============================================================= The world is
searching for evidence, just something out there some where, that suggests the
possibility that life might exist on other planets. Like Tax Protestors looking
in the wrong places by searching for error in others rather than in themselves,
the world would also be wise to look for answers to their probing questions on
the extraterrestrial in a local source that they have known about all along:
"The <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> upon which we dwell is only one among the many creations of
God. The stars that glitter in the heavens at night and give light unto the
<ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> are His creations, redeemed worlds, perhaps, or worlds that are passing
through the course of their redemption, being Saved, purified, glorified, and
exalted by obedience to the principles of truth which we are now struggling to
obey. Thus is the work of our Father made perpetual, and as fast as one world
and its inhabitants are disposed of, He will roll another into existence. He
will create another <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent>, He will people it with His offspring, the offspring
of the Gods in eternity, and they will pass through [their] probations such as
we are now passing through [ours], that they may prove their integrity by their
works; that they may give an assurance to the Almighty that they are worthy to
be exalted through obedience to those principles, that unchangeable PLAN OF
SALVATION which has been revealed to us."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Orson</ent> F. <ent type='ORG'>Whitney</ent>, in a discourse in the <ent type='GPE'>Tabernacle</ent> on <ent type='LOC'>Sunday</ent>, April
19, 1885; 26 <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> OF <ent type='ORG'>DISCOURSES</ent> 194, at 196 [<ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1886)].
=============================================================[108]</p>

<p>Yes, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> has a double cross up his sleeve planned for the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent>, just
like the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> in turn have numerous impending double crosses planned for
their associates as well. A DOUBLE CROSS is a serious betrayal that occurs on
the tail end of a well-planned continuum of deception -- and deception is very
important to <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s. [109]</p>

<p>[109]============================================================= "Deception
tests the means by which we perceive reality, and it reminds us sharply of what
these means are. We have our sense organs which receive data, principally ones
affixed to our head -- ears, eyes, nose. But this data is given shape and
meaning by the thing inside our skull, the brain. This has only second-hand
evidence of what is real out THERE. "Deception must seem particularly frivolous
for the scientist because PERception, working out these just what is there, is
his vocation. It may also tempt him for just this reason. Like the playful
punch for the athlete, it makes fun of the faculties that he prizes most. But
we are all using these faculties and perceiving things at every waking moment.
Anyone who has been involved in a practical joke on either the delivering end
or the receiving end knows something of the pleasures. "It is important to note
that for the person who is fooled, the fun, if any, lies in the process of
being fooled, not the consequences. A deceived spouse cannot be relied on to
react with a chortle of glee, and the editors of McGraw-Hill did not go around
chuckling after they found that <ent type='PERSON'>Clifford Irving</ent> had hoaxed them into parting
with most of a million dollars. For deception is not practiced only for fun. It
is also practiced to steal money, fame or the love of women, to win battles and
sink ships, to demoralize populations and overthrow governments."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Norman Moss</ent> in THE PLEASURES OF DECEPTION ["Introduction"], at page 7
[Reader's Digest <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1977)].
=============================================================[109]</p>

<p>And the mass media serves as a good instrument to propagate a large volume of
factually worthless information. [110]</p>

<p>[110]============================================================= "The power
and the glory of the <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> are based on the false assumption that the best way
to talk to a man is through a loudspeaker. It's certainly not the only way; but
if you think of men as indistinguishable units of a group, community, newspaper
circulation or concentration camp, this scattergun broadcasting may make some
simple announcement understood. But a free <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> doesn't make simple
announcements. The <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> doctrinaires have tried to prove that men can be
taught to forget that they are first and foremost <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent>S, or at least to
act as if they had forgotten; and their <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent> is just the ticket for mass men.
Our world is perhaps not so far ahead of the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> doctrine as we like to
suppose, but in theory at least we honor the <ent type='ORG'>INDIVIDUAL</ent>."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Thomas</ent> S. Matthews in THE SUGAR PILL: AN ESSAY ON NEWSPAPERS, at 178
[The Camelot <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>London</ent> (1957); (<ent type='PERSON'>Simon</ent> &amp; Schuster republished in <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>
(1959)]. In the APPENDIX, the author analyzed newspapers to determine the
actual content of factual events reported; out of 11 articles appearing on the
front page, only 4 of those reported events had actually occurred. The other 7
events were either commentary, or stories dealing with projected, predicted,
intended, or desired events.
=============================================================[110]</p>

<p>Similar to <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s thriving when throwing deceptions back and forth at each
other, deception is also very attractive for <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s to throw at the public at
large. [111]</p>

<p>[111]============================================================= In contrast
to the deception proclivities of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father would prefer to deal
with us on the basis of ABSOLUTE TRUST, when possible; a highly privileged
relational status he has entered into with other people down here on occasion;
an exalted relational status known to a handful of great people, like <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent>
Lincoln, who used this relational status in a diplomatic setting, particularly
with a <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> Czar. And ABSOLUTE TRUST is an impending criteria element I
suspect will become one of the minimum indicia required for enjoying Celestial
relationships with Father. And just as there is ABSOLUTE TRUST, so is there
ABSOLUTE TRUTH:
"Science, as I understand it, is a search after <ent type='ORG'>Absolute Truth</ent> -- after
something which when ascertained is of equal interest to all thinkers of all
nations. No matter how wise and learned and famous a person may have said a
thing is so in the realm of science, it remains open to anybody to prove that
it is not so; and if it is proved to be not so, the authority of the wise and
learned and famous person disappears like a morning mist. In science, what we
are really seeking is not the opinion or the command of any human being. We are
subject to no [such] command, and are not bound to follow any previously
expressed opinion."
-Edwin <ent type='ORG'>Whitney</ent> in THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, 3 <ent type='GPE'>Michigan</ent> Law Review
89, at 89 (1904). And as we change from law books over to religious books (so
called) nothing changes there, either:
"There are absolute truths and relative truths. The rule of dietetics
have changed many times in my lifetime. Many scientific findings have changed
from year to year... <ent type='ORG'>Absolute Truth</ent>s are not altered by the opinion of men. As
science has expanded our [factual] understanding of the physical world, certain
accepted ideas of science have had to be abandoned in the interest of truth.
Some of these seeming truths were stoutly maintained for centuries. The sincere
searching of science often rests only [next to] the threshold of truth, whereas
revealed facts give us certain <ent type='ORG'>Absolute Truth</ent>s as a beginning point so we may
come to understand the nature of man and the purpose of life... We learn about
these <ent type='ORG'>Absolute Truth</ent>s by being taught by the <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>... God, our <ent type='ORG'>Heavenly</ent> Father
-- Elohim -- lives. That is an <ent type='ORG'>Absolute Truth</ent>. All four billion of the children
of men on the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> might be ignorant of Him and his attributes and his powers,
but he still lives. All the people on the face of the <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> might deny [his
existence] and disbelieve, but he lives in spite of them. [Everyone] may have
their own opinions, but [Father] still lives, and his form, powers, and
attributes do not change according to men's opinions. In short, opinion has no
power [to intervene] in the matter of <ent type='ORG'>Absolute Truth</ent>. [Father] still lives.
"...The intellectual may rationalize [<ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ] out of existence
and the unbeliever may scoff, but Christ still lives and guides the destinies
of his people.
"...The watchmaker in <ent type='GPE'>Switzerland</ent>, with materials at hand, made the
watch that was found in the <ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>d in a <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> desert. The people who found
the watch had never been to <ent type='GPE'>Switzerland</ent>, nor seen the watchmaker, nor seen the
watch [being] made. [But] the watchmaker still exists, no matter the extent of
[the <ent type='GPE'>California</ent>ns' factual] ignorance or experience. If the watch had a tongue,
it might even lie and say "There is no watchmaker." [But] that would not alter
the <ent type='ORG'>Truth</ent>. If men were really humble, they will realize that they [only]
DISCOVER [or uncover], but do not C<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>TE, <ent type='ORG'>Truth</ent>."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Spencer Kimball</ent> in ABSOLUTE TRUTH; 8 Ensign Magazine, at 3 [Salt Lake
<ent type='GPE'>City</ent> (September, 1978)].
=============================================================[111]</p>

<p>The mass media is a very important instrument for the conveyance stage of
deception by <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s. [112]</p>

<p>[112]============================================================= Remember
that deception is a three step process: First it is created, then conveyed, and
then accepted. Failure at any point voids the entire deception show. As for the
second stage of deception, the mass media is one such very important instrument
of deception conveyance:
"With the creation of the mass media, a whole new area of deception
opened up. This provided the means of fooling the whole public at the same time
in the same way. Anything told through the mass media carries credibility. It
is more solid than rumor, more respectable than gossip, more believable than
hearsay. People who say they never believe what they read in the newspapers in
fact absorb what they read as uncritically as others.
"The authority that is given to the mass media, regardless of the
message, is seen in the lack of discrimination with which unsophisticated
readers and viewers talk about them. 'The newspapers say so and so.' One wants
to ask WHICH newspaper. And which part of the newspaper, the editorial columns
or the news pages? And whether it was one of the newspaper's own staff or an
outside commentator. 'They said on television...' But one wants to ask <ent type='ORG'>WHO</ent>
said? Was it the news reader, stating it as a fact? Or was he reporting someone
else's opinion? Or was someone giving it as HIS viewpoint, a politician, a
commentator, or a critic? After all, you don't say 'They said on the
telephone,' you say who told you.
"This authority stems partly from the fact that the media, and
particularly the news media, deal with public issues that are beyond the
experience of most of its audience."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Norman Moss</ent> in THE PLEASURES OF DECEPTION ["Fit To Print: Hoaxing and
the Media"], at page 70 [Reader's Digest <ent type='ORG'>Press</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1977)]. Yes, many
public issues are in fact beyond the intellectual experience of their
audiences, and those issues will continue to remain beyond the experience of
those audiences until such time as the members of those audiences individually
start to perk up a bit and ask some QUESTIONS -- a point of beginning in a new
<ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI of intellectual enlightenment that Tax Protestors would also be
wise to take particular notice of; a <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI that would catalytically
trigger the uncovering of a great deal of latent error existing not only in
juristic settings where ambitious kings and princes in bed with looters and
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s have plastered the countryside with invisible contracts, but also in
ecclesiastical settings where even more important invisible <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> are also
hanging in the background, waiting for the Last Day to arrive -- then those
<ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> will become VERY visible. But if you are different, you will want to
uncover and deal with those invisible Celestial <ent type='ORG'>Contracts</ent> now, to avoid being
surprised by them at the Last Day, just like Protestors are surprised in tax
and highway enforcement actions where their <ent type='ORG'>UNFAIR</ent>NESS arguments are tossed
aside and ignored. Many Protestors have a secret hunch that some contract is
there, but they draw a blank when trying to identify just what contract it is,
or how they got into it.
=============================================================[112]</p>

<p>Deception is important to <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s and those who replicate their <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent>
OPERANDI; so much so that almost like intellectual nourishment, <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s seem
to manifest deep intermittent cravings for a few good clever sounding lies.
[113]</p>

<p>[113]============================================================= Part of the
reason for this is that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s see real, immediate, and impressive benefits
to be experienced by selectively incorporating deception into their <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent>
OPERANDI. For example, it is typical of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> methodology to pretend to be
opposed to something that they really want:
...When <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> Aldrich wanted the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> to pass <ent type='ORG'>the Federal</ent>
Reserve Act in 1913, he tried to create the appearance that he did not want it;
even though every one knew it was very similar to his proposed <ent type='ORG'>ALDRICH</ent> CURRENCY
BILL of 1907, he went right ahead and threw invectives at it any way, citing
some technical reservations [see 97 THE NATION MAGAZINE, at 376 (October 23,
1913)]. <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> Aldrich was in bed with another <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> by the name of Frank
Vanderlip, President of National <ent type='GPE'>City</ent> Bank of <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Frank Vanderlip</ent>'s
invectives that were thrown at the proposed <ent type='ORG'>Federal</ent> Reserve System were so
puzzling that Senator Robert <ent type='PERSON'>Owen</ent>, Chairman of the Senate Banking and Currency
Committee, expressed publicly his feelings that misrepresentation was in the
air -- but an impending <ent type='ORG'>World</ent> <ent type='EVENT'>War</ent> I was also in the air, and <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s wanted
the immediate benefits that <ent type='ORG'>the Federal</ent> Reserve System would be generating for
them.
...<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> made a distinct and protracted habit of pretending
to be opposed to ventures that he secretly owned or controlled. In A
ROCKEFELLER FAMILY PORTRAIT by <ent type='PERSON'>William Manchester</ent> [Little Brown &amp; Company,
<ent type='GPE'>Boston</ent> (1958)], starting at page 80, there lies numerous examples of how
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> selectively incorporated deception into his business
dealings in order to experience the immediate enrichment benefits such
deception assisted in creating; also discussed is how he also used rigged
enterprises as TROJAN HORSES to entrap those whom he wanted to destroy, by
pretending to be sincerely interested in acquiring those enterprises.
...The <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> nest of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s are also very good at this deception
game as well. In 1981, the <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> announced the nationalization of
36 <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> banks and other <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> industrial properties. President
<ent type='PERSON'>Francois Mitterrand</ent> said the grab was "just and necessary to serve the national
interest" [WALL STREET <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> ["<ent type='ORG'>Mitterrand</ent> Calls Nationalization 'Just,
Necessary'"], page 36 (September 25, 1981)]; but imp <ent type='ORG'>Mitterrand</ent> was lying, and
conveniently failed to mention the fact that he once worked in a <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent>
bank as an officer, and continued to be under their thumb down to the present
day as an administrative nominee planted in a political jurisdiction. Baron Guy
de <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent>, senior <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> of the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> nest, claimed that he "...was
embittered by [the] pending takeover of his family's metal, mining, hotel and
other businesses." Even the BANQUE ROTHSCHILD headquarters the family had
owned for 170 years was scheduled to be grabbed by the <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. [See
the WALL STREET <ent type='ORG'>JOURNAL</ent> ["For Baron Guy de <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>France</ent>, Expropriation
is a Nightmare Relived"], page 30 (November 17, 1981)]. When the Baron was
asked, very appropriately, why he did not oppose this asset grab idea when
<ent type='ORG'>Mitterrand</ent> had publicly proposed it in the 1980 <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> Presidential Election,
the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> Baron retorted with a pathetic little lie: "...We aren't cleverer
than anyone else" [id., at 30]. Meanwhile, no one concluded the obvious: That
the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> wanted the <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> purchase to take place, and had quietly
told <ent type='ORG'>Mitterrand</ent> specifically what businesses they wanted to sell to the
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> in one lump group, and then, with that rare gifted <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> genius of
deception, publicly pretended to oppose the grab [had Baron <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> really
opposed the grab, <ent type='ORG'>Mitterrand</ent> would have soon been resident at the bottom of the
English Channel]. But the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s are super brilliant in pursuing
commercial enrichment, and they are very wise to the cyclic nature of business;
and so when the <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> nationalized their extensive network of
railroads back after the turn of the Century, the <ent type='PERSON'>Rothschilds</ent> wanted the sale
["nationalization"] to take place, as they knew that the great and grand era of
railroading was over with. For a good technical discussion of the cyclic nature
of business and of entire industries, see the 6 volume set called THE DECLINE
OF COMPETITION by <ent type='PERSON'>Arthur Burns</ent> [McGraw Hill, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> (1936)]. In <ent type='GPE'>Pittsburgh</ent>,
there is a research institute that does nothing but study cycles:
Foundation for <ent type='ORG'>the Study</ent> of Cycles, Inc.
124 South Highland Avenue
<ent type='GPE'>Pittsburgh</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Pennsylvania</ent> 15206 The <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI
cycle of deception/benefit/deception/benefit is a continuation of the operant
training they received in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate by their mentor, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent>. Back in
<ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s there made the mistake of listening to the
high-powered promptings of <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> with his attractive exemplary modelling for
prompt advancement and accomplishment, even if deception had to be used as a
tool to achieve the desired objective; under this doctrine, acquiring the
objective itself was much more important than some silly little righteous
advisory from Father -- after all, there were no consequences for side stepping
Father's advice a few times, and it was just ADVICE at that time, as we were
without <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent> back then. Over and over again, <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s back then who
listened to Lucifer's counseling to circumvent Father's advice by the selective
use of deception (and other devices) found themselves experiencing immediate
benefits for having done so; and with such incentives, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> became very
popular -- but many <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s later deeply regretted listening to Lucifer's sugar
coated lies, including <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> himself, for invisible reasons they never
contemplated at the time the recurring deception and benefit cycle was in
motion: The time came when Father called together the first of many <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>
Sessions and we were all presented with a sketch outline of the PLAN OF
SALVATION, and <ent type='ORG'>this Second</ent> Estate was diagrammed to us. We all participated in
creating this <ent type='ORG'>World</ent>; then the <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> was reconvened again and highly detailed
presentations of the PLAN OF SALVATION was made to us. This would be a
freewheeling world where anything goes, but without any factual memory of the
past we would be adrift, so navigation would be difficult and only those
persons sensitive to the promptings of the <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent> would achieve the end
destination of returning to Father's presence, and soon thereafter inherit his
Celestial Status and powers. Like having amnesia, we would not be able to
recall <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, other than to have warm feelings about it when
mentioned; but our habits and psychological conditioning that we had ingrained
within ourselves during our protracted sojourning in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate would
carry on largely transparent to the momentary loss of factual knowledge. Now
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> realized, too late, the special significance of the memory retention
profile of the mind that Father designed into his offspring; this memory keeps
accumulating factual information, knowledge, and judgments from out of the
past, and keeps drawing on these past experiences to influence and often
control the judgment exercised in the present time. Now <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> understood very
clearly that the judgments he had been exercising up until that point of time
would actually be influencing and even controlling his navigation down in this
Second Estate -- and <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> didn't like that; he was smart -- he knew that
based on what Father had outlined in <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>, his circumvention and tossing
aside of what was then Father's ADVISORIES would also continue on down here,
and so he would not be returning to inherit Father's Celestial Glory. Now
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> really saw that through his past psychological conditioning of himself,
he would never return to Father's presence, nor obtain Father's Celestial
Status that he had craved for so much in passionate emulation. Suddenly, after
it was too late, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> himself now saw the wisdom of listening to Father
(that it was listening to Father that had been the real important judgment to
make all along). At the height of his popularity, a large percentage number of
the <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s of Heaven had been listening to <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent>, and soon they too realized
that they had been taken in and mislead, and so now while still in <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> the
invectives started flying: Many blamed <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> directly for the garbage advice
he had given, while other smarter <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s realized that the true source of
their error had actually been within themselves, and that <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> had simply
been feeding a want. Those who had been snickering at those dumb stupid
unmotivated <ent type='ORG'>GOY</ent> supporters of <ent type='PERSON'>Michael</ent> -- wasting their time concerning
themselves with the trivia of what Father had to say about this or that when
such grand and important conquests were so imminent -- now saw that it was the
Last who were now First, and that what they thought had been <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> in
importance was now the Last. Now that their mentor <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> had nothing to lose,
he offered himself to be the <ent type='PERSON'>Savior</ent> for mankind, subject to certain
qualifications designed to insure that he would return to Father's presence --
but Father declined his invitation. With no possible way to ascend to Father's
Celestial Status, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> was not about to let this get any farther without
putting up a good fight, and so he then openly rebelled against Father: <ent type='EVENT'>The War</ent>
in Heaven was on, but only about a third of the <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s participated with
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> in trying to pull off this incredibly stupid grab for power act;
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> was cast out, and was locked onto the domain of this planet (which had
been created before the <ent type='EVENT'>War</ent> took place, and the <ent type='EVENT'>War</ent> itself is actually very
recent). Many of the <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s who had listened to and had emulated <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> in
<ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate switched sides at the last minute and valiantly fought against
Lucifer's Rebellion; as viewed from Lucifer's perspective, these <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s
betrayed him when he thought he needed them most. After the Rebellion was
quashed, these <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s who had switched at the last minute accepted Father's
PLAN OF SALVATION, entered into <ent type='NORP'>Covenants</ent> with Father regarding what will and
will not be adjudged at the Last Day, and were promised bodies down here.
Although they did switch sides at the last minute, they nevertheless continued
to retain their deeply ingrained devilish intellectual orientation, as amnesia
only blocks out factual knowledge and not personality or habits [which is why
Mothers can often discern noticeable differences in her offspring's
personalities from one baby to the next within a few hours after birth -- sorry
collegiate <ent type='ORG'>Heathen</ent> <ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent>, but variations in personality are not
"genetic" -- a favorite catch-all word fraudulently used by clowns to explain
away what they have no knowledge of].
...Today in 1985, those <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s that once admired <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> so much are
now down here among us; and like their mentor they can be collectively
characterized by several key indicia: They are highly motivated, intellectually
strong people and can be found in any profession where intellectual knowledge
is important, such as in the law and in scientific research; their driving
themselves in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate to go after one successive hard won benefit
after another, as frequently as possible, makes them razor sharp in the pursuit
of business and commercial enrichment -- and they have a sparkle in their eyes
for the gold and silver of this world (both juristic and physical), as that is
what induced them to lay aside Father's advisories and acquire benefits at any
cost, and without regard to moral or ethical values or the consequences of
deception or damages. They also developed a reputation back then for going just
too far. And like their mentor <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent>, they have an intimate affection in
their hearts for music and musical instruments, and no interest in agriculture,
horticulture, plants, or farming of any nature. Today, these <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s are
friendly, they smile, and they are easy to talk to; but whenever <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> Christ
is mentioned, they subconsciously draw anything from a blank to outright hatred
-- and yet, they do not know why they possess such a disposition. Today in
1985, these <ent type='ORG'>Spirit</ent>s -- one level above demon -- are all around us; and now,
just like yesterday, they like to think of themselves as being pretty cute and
smart when they pull off a business deal laced with lies and deception; they
have no adverse concern for running someone else into the ground while getting
what they want, politically or commercially -- it feels very natural to them.
Having been trained by <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> to selectively incorporate deception into their
<ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI for purposes of experiencing strategic conquest, they now
continue on with the same old formula since it appears to be working so well
and feels so natural to them; and the primary reason why Father let them come
down to this <ent type='PERSON'>Adam</ent>ic world is because of their valiant display in one of the
final Sessions of <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> -- but even that judgment of theirs, as correct as it
was, was just an isolated fluke [fluke or no fluke, this judgment stands as
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that these little <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s can exercise correct judgment in
matters concerning their relational standing before Father -- WHENEVER THEY
FEEL LIKE IT]. Having had a protracted working relationship with them before,
<ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> is very well acquainted with these people, and he is now using these
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s as expendable meat to do his dirty work for him; and at the Last Day
we are told that <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> will be there, too -- and he fully intends to get
even.
...Today, we are in the Second Estate for a short while, and everyone
is starting over from scratch, even up, and at point zero; and nothing has
changed as the world Gremlin's, and a good many <ent type='NORP'>Heathens</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>Christians</ent> along
with them, are falling for the same line again for the second time over. That
Commercial enrichment and other forms of worldly conquest are very important,
and so at a minimum, an occasional deceptive act here or there in business
carries no adverse significance along with it. Meanwhile, Father has said NO to
deception, and no exceptions.
=============================================================[113]</p>

<p>Sadly so, deception has the appearance of being contagious, unless efforts are
made to deflect the onslaught of its occurrence, and its prevalence throughout
<ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States today could be exemplified perhaps in the dynastic corridors
of corporate power, where Commercial executives busy themselves by being
constantly fixated on their own self enrichment objectives. [114]</p>

<p>[114]============================================================= The reason
why <ent type='ORG'>IBM</ent> chose to move its headquarters out of <ent type='GPE'>Manhattan</ent> in 1961 was shrouded
behind a veil of secrecy and deception, a <ent type='ORG'>MODUS</ent> OPERANDI faithfully replicated
later on by other corporate executives while trying to explain away why their
offices were being transplanted out of <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent> in the latter 1960's and
1970's. Starting on page 28 in COMPUTER DECISIONS MAGAZINE for March of 1977,
<ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Thomas</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Mechling</ent></ent> explains the reason why <ent type='ORG'>IBM</ent> packed their bags and left
<ent type='GPE'>Manhattan</ent> for a hill top orchard in Armonk, 30 miles <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> of <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent>. In
explaining away the relocation, <ent type='ORG'>IBM</ent> Vice President J.J. Bricker tried to peddle
the bleeding heart line that <ent type='ORG'>IBM</ent> employees were unhappy with life in <ent type='GPE'>NYC</ent> and
wanted the suburbs:
"We have a belief that if the people can spend more time with their
families and have easier commuting, there is a certain plus for the employees
and their families. The plus is indicated by the attitude of everybody."
-[COMPUTER DECISIONS, id., at 30]. But J.J. Bricker was silent on the
fact that internal <ent type='ORG'>IBM</ent> polls had revealed an aversion to move to the suburbs --
just the opposite as reported; later, secretarial and clerical employees would
actually refuse to make the relocation to Armonk [id., at 30]. It turns out
that the real reason why <ent type='ORG'>IBM</ent> left <ent type='GPE'>Manhattan</ent> is because <ent type='PERSON'>Thomas</ent> J. <ent type='PERSON'>Watson</ent>, Jr.,
had been briefed by <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> on the planned "likelihood" of a
controlled nuclear war taking place in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, with <ent type='GPE'>NYC</ent> standing as
a certain target; and so hearing that, <ent type='PERSON'>Watson</ent> wanted out of <ent type='GPE'>NYC</ent>.
"The real, unwritten, and unspoken reasons that <ent type='PERSON'>Thomas</ent> J. <ent type='PERSON'>Watson</ent>, Jr.
wanted to get his top management the hell out of mid-<ent type='GPE'>Manhattan</ent> in 1961 was to
escape and survive a nuclear bombing of <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent>, a likelihood seen by the
most influential, inside-information sources he was uniquely privy to..."
-[COMPUTER DECISIONS, id., at 28] The war <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> was
referring to had been planned to occur far in the future -- in the late 1970s
[see RECON057/58], timed immediately after certain long range military
objectives were expected to have been accomplished by then (such as a base on
the <ent type='LOC'>Moon</ent>). The ability to control the direction of the staged "war" by having
superior and redundant hardware recourse over pretended <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> adversaries was
deemed very important by <ent type='ORG'>the Four</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Brothers. But the planned war
never came to pass as unexpected factors surfaced like <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> military
intervention and reversals by numerous allies of <ent type='ORG'>the Four</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Brothers
(who had started pulling off their own assorted double crosses in 1976); so out
of weakness in the late 1970's, <ent type='ORG'>the Four</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Brothers then shifted to a
F<ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>T STRIKE Nuclear <ent type='EVENT'>War</ent> posture, a posture our adversaries took very astute
notice of. It is important to realize that when we are formally invaded under
<ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> supervision [TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: Although the mass media is constantly
informing us that the "cold war is over," don't be too surprised to one day
realize in the not too distant future how far from reality that deceptive (and
intentional) presentation of "facts" truly was, and as always, this particular
slice of deception upon the public is one of the most important of all, if not
THE TOP OF THE <ent type='ORG'>HEAP</ent>, as the successful conveyance and acceptance of this
particular deception is expected to bear the greatest fruit in all of history
for the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s perpetrating it on an unsuspecting <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> populace.
Remember, that when dealing with the subject of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, you are necessarily
going to bump up against layers upon layers upon layers upon layers of
deception. Just remember that the designer of a trap has, as his overriding
objective, the goal that the trap will fool the intended victim and thus
achieve its purpose of creating damages, while inversely resulting in some form
of benefit to the designer], they will be believing in part that they are doing
the right thing in order to save the world from Nuclear <ent type='EVENT'>War</ent> [the other parts
involve SET UP combined with a deep <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> allure for grand scale conquest];
yes, some folks who never gave it any thought will view that line as being
ridiculous -- however, that is not important; what is important is that the
impending military seizure of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, without any damages, if
possible, is viewed by our adversaries, for whatever their reasons are, as
being both justified, morally necessary and even compelling. This is why the
impending invasion itself is actually very feasible, with both momentum and
motive being present. However, the prospect of an invasion remains remote to
most folks (to those who have even bothered to think about it) as they dismiss
the likelihood of such circumstances ever transpiring. However, an enlarged
basis of factual knowledge on the incentives the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent>s are operating on now
makes this impending invasion very attractive on their part, and an objective
assessment would reveal that, yes, they actually do have strong and hard
motives for at least trying to do so.
...And as for <ent type='ORG'>the Four</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Brothers, by the end of 1979, each
of <ent type='ORG'>the Four</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rockefeller</ent> Brothers had been introduced into the world of
<ent type='PERSON'>Rothschild</ent> double cross under violent and unplea<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>t circumstances -- an
interesting look ahead glimpse into the magnitude of the consequences of
Lucifer's planned Tort Law double cross at Father's Last Day. [See generally,
<ent type='PERSON'>Thomas</ent> B. <ent type='PERSON'>Mechling</ent> in 9 COMPUTER DECISIONS MAGAZINE, page 28 ["Gimme Shelter:
Why <ent type='ORG'>IBM</ent> Fled the <ent type='GPE'>City</ent>"], (March, 1977)].
=============================================================[114]</p>

<p>Why are such <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, impressive by appearances, so freely willing to work
damages on other folks? The answer lies in the fact that they believe,
superficially, that they are doing the right thing (remember what they went
through in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate). For example, in a <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> attack on Father's
jurisprudential structure here in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States, the disintegration of our
jurisprudence (or "legal system") is considered by <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s to be a goal worthy
of achieving:</p>

<p>"The disintegration of our legal system... would end in a revival of
justice, due to the restoration of the authority of the people which constitute
the living, vital principle of the law; and by restoration of prosperity due to
the confidence of the people in the disposition and capacity of their own
<ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> to protect them in modern conditions of life. That system, fought as
being inadmissible for 13 small States, has survived expansion across the
continent; and, in its form and substance, is, if any human institutions can
be, equal to the conquest of every economic and moral frontier." [115]</p>

<p>[115]============================================================= <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>James</ent> E. Lawson, attorney for <ent type='ORG'>the Federal</ent> Power Commission, testifying before
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in WORKER'S RIGHT TO WORK in Hearings before a Subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, at page 51; 72nd <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>,
Second Session, discussing Senate Bill 5480 (February, 1933).
=============================================================[115]</p>

<p>So too do <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s apply this same planned disintegration reasoning to propose
that there be a continuous succession of wars and other military damages
operations, specifically for the purpose of bringing about a quiescent
tranquility that will, they believe, be the result of a world tired from wars.
Yes, <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> is slick in his justification of damages. [116]</p>

<p>[116]============================================================= One of the
neglected <ent type='PERSON'>Leit Motifs</ent> of <ent type='EVENT'>the New Testament</ent> [LEIT MOTIF means dominate or
recurring theme] is the Adversarial nature of this <ent type='ORG'>World</ent> being an enlarged
continuation of the heated feud between <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> that took place back
in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate; each recognizes the other as his old opponent and rival
[see the true Status recognition of <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> by devils in MARK 5:7 and LUKE 4:34
to 35; and the recognition is mutual in LUKE 10:18]. The Adversarial contest
between <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> that had its genesis in <ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate was once
continued down here in a desert battle [MATTHEW 4:1]; with that inflated bag of
hot air -- <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> -- claiming the lead role and challenging prominent
Personages, nothing changes on this stage either, because the bouts that
Lucifer's imps and <ent type='PERSON'>Jesus</ent> once exchanged as Adversaries are now being handed
down to us all as Lucifer's imps throw one good Tort drubbing after another at
us, with many folks having no sensitivity even to the existence of the
drubbings or their origin. The invisible <ent type='EVENT'>War</ent> we are involved in down here
[EPHESIANS 6:12] is a continuation of the conflict in the beginning [HYPOSTASIS
OF THE ARCHONS 134:20]; with those actors on this stage largely following the
same mentor now that they had found attractive once before on the previous
stage [JOHN 8:44; and ODES OF SOLOMON 24:5 to 9]. And just like once before in
<ent type='ORG'>the First</ent> Estate, today there is also now a large group of folks just idly
sitting on the sidelines watching it all go by; they associated nothing of
importance to what they were watching then, and they now continue to associate
nothing of importance to the movements of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s today.
=============================================================[116]</p>

<p>And just as <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent> is slick [meaning effective while remaining largely
invisible] with his justification of damages reasoning, so too do his
assistants down here need close scrutiny in order to figure out what they are
up to nowadays. [117]</p>

<p>[117]============================================================= Remember
that deception takes three separate steps to be successful [C<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>TION,
<ent type='ORG'>CONVEYANCE</ent> and ACCEPTANCE]. If any one of those steps individually falls apart,
then the deception stops right then and there. As it pertains to the C<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>TION
stage of deception: Well known to a few selected legal circles (and in
particular <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States Department of Justice) are the words of United
States Special Judge Advocate <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> A. Bingham Jr., who made arguments at the
criminal prosecution of <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> H. Surratt and other conspirators who were
involved logistically with the assassination of President <ent type='PERSON'>Abraham</ent> Lincoln. This
Trial took place in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, D.C. in 1865:
"A conspiracy is rarely, if ever, proven by positive testimony. When a
crime of high magnitude is about to be perpetrated by a combination of
individuals, they do not act openly, but covertly and secretly. The purpose
formed is known only to those who enter into it. Unless one of the conspirators
betrays his companions and give evidence against them, their guilt can be
proven only by CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE... It is said by some writers on
evidence that circumstances are stronger than positive proof. A witness
swearing positively, it is said, may misapprehend the facts or swear falsely,
but that circumstances cannot lie... It is reasonable that where a body of men
assume the attribute of individuality, whether from commercial business or the
commission of a crime, that the association should be bound by the acts of one
of its members, in carrying out the design."
-<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> A. Bingham Jr. in TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRATORS FOR THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT <ent type='ORG'>LINCOLN</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>ETC</ent>., at page 52; in arguments before a
<ent type='ORG'>Military Commission</ent>, delivered June 27 and 28, 1865 [<ent type='ORG'>GPO</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> (1865);
quoting on part UNITED STATES VS. COLE, ET AL., 5 McLean 601]; {University of
<ent type='GPE'>Rochester</ent>, RUSH RHEES LIBRARY, Rare Books Room ["Lincoln File -- Seward
Pamphlets"], <ent type='GPE'>Rochester</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>}]. Notice how Conspirators may be proven: Only
by one of the INSIDERS talking (not very likely), or by watching their
movements and observing the train of circumstances they leave behind them. One
of the ways to observe <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> movements is to observe the more visible people
that they necessarily associate with in <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> [<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s have to associate
with those irritating non-<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> vermin, since there are just not enough
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s to go around]. And then watch for the circumstantial fallout resulting
from the relational activities by their more visible associates in <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> to
signal something grand impending in the air... something originating with
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s themselves. One example of someone, not a <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>, who associated
circumstantially with <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s and learned in advance of the intended outcome
of some of their sneaky maneuverings for conquest and damages, was an Episcopal
Minister by the name of <ent type='PERSON'>Edward</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Welles</ent>. Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Edward</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Welles</ent> was Rector of the
CHRIST CHURCH in <ent type='GPE'>Alexandria</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> [the <ent type='ORG'>Church</ent> of George <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>]. In his
autobiography published in 1975, Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Welles</ent> had a few words to say about his
brief interfacing with <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Franklin</ent> D. <ent type='PERSON'>Roosevelt</ent>, immediately prior to
<ent type='LOC'>Pearl Harbor</ent>:
"Another of my friends was <ent type='PERSON'>Norman</ent> H. <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent>, president of the <ent type='ORG'>AMERICAN</ent>
RED CROSS, who was elected to our <ent type='GPE'>Parish</ent> vestry. He was very close to President
<ent type='PERSON'>Franklin</ent> D. <ent type='PERSON'>Roosevelt</ent>, and saw him frequently. On November 6, 1941, I had lunch
with Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, and learned of the approaching war with <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent>,
which would begin within five weeks. I was shaken, and asked Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent> to urge
the President to appoint a <ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL DAY</ent> OF PRAYER, and handed Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent> a
letter I had written to President <ent type='PERSON'>Roosevelt</ent> on the subject. Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent> did hand
my letter to the President, who did appoint the following <ent type='EVENT'>New Year</ent>'s Day as a
<ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL DAY</ent> OF PRAYER. I was so moved by the luncheon revelations that later
that very day, I sent out mimeographed postal cards to the congregation,
stating:
'The Rector is preaching a Sermon at 11am service <ent type='LOC'>Sunday</ent>,
November 9th, which he feels is sufficiently important to call to your
attention. The Sermon will assess the desperate situation that confronts
<ent type='GPE'>America</ent> this Armistice Day, and suggests basic <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> attitudes and
actions.'
"On <ent type='LOC'>Sunday</ent> in the course of that Sermon, I said:
'Few people realize how great is the possibility that we shall
actually be at war with <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent> within 30 days.'
"The congregation was deeply shocked. And in response to many requests
my booklet of <ent type='PERSON'>Sermons</ent> was reprinted with this Sermon added. 28 days after that
Sermon came December 7th, the <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent>ese attacked <ent type='LOC'>Pearl Harbor</ent>, and the war was
on."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Edward</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Welles</ent> in his autobiography THE HAPPY DISCIPLE, at 62
[Learning Incorporated, <ent type='ORG'>Massette</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Maine</ent> (1975)]. Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Welles</ent>, at that time,
had no way of knowing that President Roosevelt's advance knowledge of Pearl
Harbor was due to FDR's diligent and extended efforts to bring about that
attack. Like others brought in from the outside, Bishop <ent type='PERSON'>Welles</ent> was snared in a
Gremlin's web of intrigue by innocent circumstantial association. Deception is
very important to <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s, as they continue on with their deception down to
the present day, by wanting folks to believe that no one could possibly have
known anything was afoot in 1929:
"In the Summer of 1929 a few prophets foresaw the coming stock market
crash. Only one gifted with second sight could have foreseen the sequel -- a
world depression historians would single out by calling G<ent type='ORG'>REA</ent>T. In <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States at any rate, most of the businesses community continued to believe in
permanent prosperity, until the bottom fell out."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Harold van Cleveland</ent> and W.H. Brittain in A <ent type='ORG'>WORLD</ent> DEPRESSION?,
Foreign Affairs, page 223 (January, 1975). Contrary to what those two gentlemen
would like you to believe -- that NO ONE could have known what was impending,
in fact the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s knew, and they took steps to immunize themselves from the
unplea<ent type='PERSON'>san</ent>t circumstances they were planning to bring down on us all; but not
everyone was caught off guard by their manufactured depression: Those
individuals who had been tipped off by <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s also went about their work
buttoning down the hatches. We turn now back into early October, 1929; into a
bank in <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent>, where a young banker was about to be introduced into the
eerie world of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> intrigue:
"I was impressed when Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Henry</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Morganthau</ent> Sr., a retired banker and
former ambassador, called on the bank in person, and directed it to dispose of
every stock, security, and bond then held in his <ent type='ORG'>Trust</ent>, and to reinvest the
proceeds in Bonds of the U.S. <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>. Gratuitously, he added that he wished
these bonds remained so invested until he directed otherwise, a step which he
said he did not contemplate taking for at least 15 years... To me it seemed as
if he knew what he was doing and why. He did not appear to be following a
hunch... The impression he gave was one of confidence in his judgment. It was
this impression which convinced me that there was a basis for that judgment,
that what he knew others could know."
-Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Norman</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Dodd</ent>, in a <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent> speech in 1946 [Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Dodd</ent> later
went onto be <ent type='ORG'>the Director</ent> of Research for <ent type='ORG'>the Reece Committee</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in
1953, investigating the role played by <ent type='ORG'>Tax Exempt</ent> Foundations in furtherance of
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> objectives. See <ent type='ORG'>HOUSE</ent> SPE<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>L COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE TAX EXEMPT
FOUNDATIONS, <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> Report 217; 83rd <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, Second Session (May, June, July,
1953); Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Dodd</ent> is identified on page 5 as being <ent type='ORG'>the Director</ent> of Research
[which in itself produced another chilling successive seriatim of factual
accounts in well organized <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> mischief]. A few weeks after Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Morganthau</ent>
took that action directing the reinvestiture of his family <ent type='ORG'>Trust</ent> money, the
advisory memoranda that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s had been quietly circulating among their
intimates began to jell, and the Great Stock Market Crash was on, as planned
[as I will discuss later].
...Now it is 1985, now quite some time has lapsed since the first great
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> <ent type='EVENT'>Depression</ent>, and now another <ent type='EVENT'>Great Depression</ent> is once again scheduled
to make its appearance; and as before, individuals transacting business with
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s are once again dropping CIRCUMSTANTIAL indicia that <ent type='EVENT'>Great Depression</ent>
II is impending:
...In 1979, planning for a large regional mall to be located on
an abandoned airport in southern <ent type='GPE'>Rochester</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, was in its advanced
stages by a consortia of <ent type='ORG'>the Wilmorite Group</ent> (of <ent type='ORG'>the Wilmont Family</ent> who
previously built numerous large shopping centers) and <ent type='PERSON'>Emil Mueller</ent> (who owned
the land underneath the abandoned airport). The Mall would be called
MARKETPLACE MALL, and the very extensive and impressive research and market
studies on the <ent type='GPE'>Rochester</ent> area demographic and retail purchasing power had been
completed. This mammoth Mall would be a magnet, bringing in shoppers from far
away <ent type='GPE'>Syracuse</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Buffalo</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, and even <ent type='GPE'>Toronto</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Canada</ent>. Having done its
homework, <ent type='ORG'>the Wilmorite Group</ent> sent its leasing scouts out to search for
tenants; they needed a few heavy anchors [ANCHOR tenant means the big well
known national chain stores who draw large crowds with their large advertising
budgets], and quite a few small tenants as well. They managed to line up Sears
Roebuck, JC <ent type='ORG'>Penney</ent>, and small regional department store chains like McCurdy's
and Sibley's [owned by Associated Dry Goods Corporation in <ent type='GPE'><ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> <ent type='GPE'>City</ent></ent>]. They
made a preliminary inquiry at a Canadian department store chain called THE
HUDSON BAY COMPANY, based in <ent type='GPE'>Toronto</ent>, but the <ent type='ORG'>Wilmorite</ent> invitation to lease
space in <ent type='GPE'>Rochester</ent> was politely declined. The HUDSON BAY COMPANY chain is
exclusively Canadian, and does not have any store anywhere in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States, but that meant nothing to the <ent type='ORG'>Wilmorite</ent> MALL pushers; so several
<ent type='ORG'>Wilmorite</ent> leasing executives paid a personal visit to the HUDSON BAY COMPANY
administrative offices in <ent type='GPE'>Toronto</ent> to try and convince those Canadian fellows
that this <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> mall was going to be special, and that they might want to
reconsider this one. That is a normal everyday business proposition, and the
<ent type='ORG'>Wilmorite</ent> executives were in <ent type='GPE'>Toronto</ent> on a normal everyday business trip -- but
they were not prepared for the shock that they would be receiving, as they
found themselves entering into the closed private world of international
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> intrigue; they would be leaving <ent type='GPE'>Toronto</ent> bewildered that day. While
trying to make their leasing presentation to HUDSON BAY COMPANY officials, the
<ent type='ORG'>Wilmorite</ent> Group was told that the HUDSON BAY COMPANY would be unable to lease
space in that proposed Mall, as well as any other Mall in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States --
because <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> exclusion orders had come down from upstairs, from advice by
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Edgar</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Bronfman</ent></ent> himself [of <ent type='ORG'>HOUSE</ent> OF SEAGRAMS in <ent type='GPE'>Montreal</ent>], that a major
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> depression was in gestation, and that your proposed Mall would one day
be desolate, and that the HUDSON BAY COMPANY would be unable to participate in
your venture. Needless to say, such blunt rebuffment is very rare in business
on the <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Continent, where common business rejection practice
nowadays is to deflect the real reason off to the side and point attention over
to something else nice. [A toned down and less grandiose MARKETPLACE MALL
opened to the public in late 1982].
...Now in 1985 it is some five years later with some industries
stagnant and others showing modest growth, but no real prosperity in the air.
Now word has come down from another business associate of <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Edgar</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Bronfman</ent></ent> who
works for FAIRVIEW-CADILLAC, LTD., a large Canadian real estate development
firm (who speaks to <ent type='PERSON'>Edgar</ent> frequently on the phone), to watch for a period of
large corporate mergers in the news, as the management, acting on INSIDE
information, starts to button down the hatches; generally, about 1990 or so is
the year planned for the planned erosion in the economy to start to appear
widespread due to the wide ranging number of industries that will have reached
hat long awaited <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> day of a STATIONARY STATE, or stagnation. The computer
industry will likely never recover from its doldrums of 1983; discretionary
retail purchases will slow down first, then followed by a slowdown in necessary
items like food and clothes, so watch for inventory statistics by retail
chains, as they accelerate their personnel and inventory trimming. <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent>
unemployment and <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> statistics should be disregarded, together with the
planned assurances for the media and <ent type='ORG'>Government</ent> to make: THAT ALL IS WELL.
[TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: Can't you just remember <ent type='PERSON'>George Bush</ent> speaking soothing
words to that effect during the debates and elsewhere during his campaign?
..."Yes, everything is just fine <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>, now please go back to sleep..."]
Personal moves to be made to deflect the effect of the <ent type='EVENT'>Depression</ent> should be to
replicate for yourself the PRINCIPLE OF NATURE manifested by certain mammals
like chipmunks and squirrels, as they accumulate a personal reservoir of
storage items to hold them through known impending lean seasons. This impending
<ent type='EVENT'>Depression</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States off in the 1990's will be unique in the sense
that <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States will also be simultaneously finding itself engaging in
military defense operations internally; and the disruptions to <ent type='ORG'>Commerce</ent> such
military intervention created will cause regional areas of where there are
literally no commodities available for purchase at any price (unlike the
somewhat quiescent domestic scene in the 1930's and <ent type='ORG'>World</ent> <ent type='EVENT'>War</ent> II where the
stores had merchandise to sell and the problem then was lack of purchasing
money).
...No, <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Edgar</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Bronfman</ent></ent> will never publicly say anything revealing, as
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> Conspirators, like <ent type='PERSON'>Lucifer</ent>, do not operate in the open; but having our
EARS CLOSE TO THE GROUND and by watching people who interface with Mr.
<ent type='PERSON'>Bronfman</ent>, those CIRCUMSTANCES tell us more than what we need to know: That the
world's <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s have a few surprises; planned for us. And today, just like in
the 1930's, the next <ent type='EVENT'>Depression</ent> is also being brought to you courtesy of
international <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent> intrigue -- and not by some confluence of market factors
that collegiate <ent type='ORG'>INTELLIGENTSIA</ent> economist clowns, and others sponsored into
positions of prominent administrative power would like you to believe, such as
this little imp:
"The problem of controlling booms and depressions is a major part of
any country's economic problem, at its broadest... The problem of preventing
booms and depressions has to do mainly with the question of utilizing our
resources as fully and continuously as possible."
-<ent type='PERSON'>Marriner</ent> S. Eccles, Chairman of <ent type='ORG'>the Federal</ent> Reserve Board, in
CONTROLLING BOOMS AND <ent type='ORG'>DEPRESSIONS</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Fortune Magazine</ent>, page 88a (April, 1937).
Sorry <ent type='PERSON'>Marriner</ent>, depressions originate with the massaging of the economy under
the plans of <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s; a situation made technically feasible since the economy
is under the central control of an instrumentality of <ent type='ORG'>the King</ent>. Giving the
<ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s more control of <ent type='ORG'>the house management</ent>, FULLY AND CONTINUOUSLY, will not
end the depressions, as <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s have been more than competent to manufacture
depressions with less than the degree of control they now have. Only getting
rid of the <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s themselves will end depressions -- but this is not the kind
of talk that <ent type='ORG'>Gremlin</ent>s want to hear propagated.
=============================================================[117]</p>

</xml>