Back
I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
George Mercier
GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL INTERESTS
[Pages 532-552]
8.
Under the Law Merchant/Uniform Commercial Code, it is assumed
that all contracts and Persons existent within this defined
geographical kingdom fall under the General Commercial
Jurisdiction of the State. [712]
[712]===========================================================
=
"Whenever an individual enters into a contract, I think his
assent is to be inferred, to abide by those rules in the
administration of justice which belong to the jurisprudence of
the country of the contract."
-
ODGEN VS. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 284 (1827).
============================================================[712]
In a somewhat similar way, Judges have given the King automatic
jurisdiction over everything within the geographical perimeters
of his Kingdom. [713]
[713]============================================================
"...we hold that the Government of the United States is one
having jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its territory,
and acting directly upon each Citizen..."
-
IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, at 599 (1894).
============================================================[713]
Therefore, the Law Merchant (which is the Common Law of contracts
applied to Merchants in King's Commerce), and its codified
organic progeny, the UCC, combine to offer you and your
Commercial contract the important benefit of Government
intervention and enforcement of whatever contract it was that you
negotiated. Assume for a moment that you are a Judge, and so now
ask yourself if that is not a very legitimate benefit to be
offering; so now you can possibly see why reserving the right to
call upon the police powers of the State to enforce your
contracts, as everyone automatically does by their silence, is a
very powerful instrument in its attachment of King's Equity
Jurisdiction, and properly so. Hiring the collection services of
the State (reserving the right to sue someone in a court) and
getting the Government to seize the assets or otherwise assist
you in remedying the breach of contract that is on your hands, is
the same type of advantage and benefits enjoyed, for example,
when shopping centers hire private security guards, in the sense
that your are using someone else's muscle to do your dirty work
for you. Yes, calling on the Contract Enforcement Benefits of
the State is a very quiet type of benefit acceptance; it is a
benefit that attaches automatically, and is presumed in effect
unless explicitly and bluntly waived, in advance; it is a benefit
to game players in Commerce that attaches in ways reminiscent of
the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE. Remember back some time ago, when you
possibly once signed a lease with a landlord, did that lease
state that "the parties hereto submit to the Commerce
Jurisdiction of the State of New York?" No, no such
jurisdictional submission statements are generally made on any
contracts we would be likely to enter into in the course of
business, from buying a television on time payments to mortgaging
a house. Commercial Jurisdiction is simply assumed, and
threatening to sue the other party is generally deemed to be not
very cordial in business, so silence invokes the police powers of
the State.
That UCC is the contemporary organic growth of the old unwritten
Law Merchant of our Fathers ["old" in the sense of its impressive
chronological age, not inferentially suggesting its contemporary
inappropriateness], and so when statutes exist that state "all
contracts", and "all persons", then since those statutes possess
an important attribute of PRIOR PUBLIC NOTICE, then by your
silence you have consented to their enforcement against you,
under Principles related to the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, if by the
nature of the grievance you happen to fall on the debtor's side
of the line. Those UCC contract enforcement statutes are Public
Records, and Public Records can only be countermanded with Public
Records, so when did you file your...
"Notice of Waiver of Recourse Benefits to the UCC, Rejection of
Judicial Contract Enforcement"
...and in what public county recorder's office?
Before closing this discussion of the Uniform Commercial Code and
of King's Commerce, a few words need to be said as instruments of
elucidation on a few key points of interest; this is a very
important juristic benefit and needs to be understood for the
high-powered benefit that it really is -- and thinking about it
for a while might just cause a PERSON to view state judges in a
more favorable light when they incarcerate and seize assets of
Protesters snickering at State income and sale taxes. [714]
[714]============================================================
Appreciating the benefits of viewing a scenario from someone
else's position is a Principle well known to many people, who
have seen the benefits derived therefrom. Negotiators are taught
and trained the application of this Principle explicitly as they
are instructed to listen very carefully and figure out what they
call the other person's PERCEPTUAL MODE, so your ideas then make
good sense to the other party. [There are many books published
on the ART OF NEGOTIATION, see generally THE BUSINESS OF
NEGOTIATION by Jerry Richardson, Avon Books, New York (1981)].
"Recently two of my sons were squabbling over some leftover apple
pie, each insisting that he should have the larger slice.
Neither would agree to an even split. So I suggested that one
boy cut the pie any way he liked, and the other boy could choose
the piece he wanted. This sounded fair to both of them, and they
accepted it. Each felt that he had gotten a square deal. This
was an example of PERFECT negotiation."
-
Gerald Nierenberg in THE ART OF NEGOTIATION, at 7 [Simon and
Schuster (1968)].
Being able to see the grievance from the eyes of the other party
was the key that unlocked the slice of pie confrontation; and use
of this same Principle by Tax Protesters will unlock the
mysterious nature of the King's adhesive Income Tax grab.
Although this Principle [of not judging yourself until we have
first tried to see things from the eyes of our adversaries] has
escaped the attention of Tax Protesters, the Sioux Indians
plainly saw the obvious benefits that inured to its users, by
incorporating this Principle into a prayer of theirs:
"Oh Great Spirit, let me not judge my neighbor 'till I have
walked in his moccasins."
For many Protesters I have seen, there is a procedural attribute
of Negotiations in the area of the handling of impending
confrontations with juristic adversaries in taxing jurisdictions
that needs refinement. All too often, the typical Tax Protester,
when given a Notice, some Summons, some Letter, on hearing some
termite's voice beckoning for some money, the typical Protester's
reaction is to turn around, toss aside, and then ignore the
Notice, the Summons, and the voice. In distinction to that
deflection MODUS OPERANDI, in all Federal taxing districts of the
IRS that I have had to approach the IRS for some reason, I find
those federal termites to be more than receptive, cooperative,
and reasonable in speaking to me [but in a few cases I had to
threaten judicial Mandamus relief in the form of demanding a
Contested Case Administrative Hearing to get their attention],
since the Taxpayer (my client) typically slams the door in their
face and hides in the closet. In the context of a discussion
about IRS JEOPARDY ASSESSMENTS, a senior federal termite once had
a few words to say about the easy accessibility of this junior
termites to converse with [however biased this termite is, there
is some merit in what he is saying]:
"At any point in the collection process under a jeopardy
assessment, we stand ready to meet with the Taxpayer, discuss the
situation with him, and, with his cooperation, work out
arrangements for conversion and maintenance of his property,
discharge of any appropriate part from the efforts of the tax
lien, and liquidation of the balance due over such a period of
time as will enable him to avoid undue hardship to himself and
still protect the Government's interests [by LIQUIDATING THE
BALANCE, this termite is also referring to the standard IRS
practice of entering into installment contracts with Taxpayers
who spent the tax money before the IRS collected it].
"We are aware that our collection efforts, in jeopardy cases, or,
more particularly, our initial collection efforts, may have great
impact on the Taxpayer. The recording of a NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX
LIEN may impair his ability to borrow. Seizure of property in
his possession may put a stop to one or more of his business
ventures. Levy on third parties may divest him of all or nearly
all of the ready cash which would otherwise have been available
to him at the time the levy was served. However, as a practical
proposition, we doubt that any Taxpayer is left penniless and
without the means to live as a result of our efforts to collect a
jeopardy assessment. Typically, in jeopardy cases the Taxpayer
will have complex financial interests, numerous sources of
income, and a variety of assets. We seldom, if ever, have full
knowledge of all his financial dealings and holdings. Nor are we
able, as a general rule, to locate all assets, even when we have
knowledge that they exist. Based on experience and observation
we would say that no jeopardy assessment has placed a Taxpayer in
such straitened circumstances that he was unable to provide the
necessities for himself and his family. If any such hardship
cases should arise, we would certainly attempt to reach an
appropriate resolution [but the IRS cannot do that when the
Taxpayer hides in a closet, or otherwise declines to tell the
termites of the serious impairment in providing for his family
that this Jeopardy Assessment will bring to pass]."
-
William Smith, Deputy Commissioner, in CONSTITUTIONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS OF ENFORCING INTERNAL REVENUE STATUTES,
in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice
and Procedure, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,
90th Congress, Second Session (January, 1968), at page 75.
Although his statement that no IRS JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT ever
seriously damaged a Taxpayer is factually defective, his open
door policy pronouncements are an accurate presentation of IRS
accessibility in general and I would suggest that Tax Protesters,
and others simply stuck, might benefit themselves greatly when
they stop exhibiting reluctance to converse with adversaries. By
simply asking the QUESTION: What, termite, do you intend to do
next? strips the termites of their tactical advantage of
surprise, and shifts the balance of power over to you, since now
you know exactly what is impending [remember that in any setting,
the quality of judgment exercised always escalates dramatically
when the basis of factual information that the judgment is
operating on is enlarged]. There can be no negotiating
SAVIOR-FAIRE practiced when hiding in a closet; and ANYTHING LESS
than dropping what you are doing, going down to the marble
kingdom that those termites are nestled in, and speaking to the
little termite face-to-face, is in fact the functional equivalent
of HIDING IN A CLOSET.
============================================================[714]
In a sense, the King and your regional Prince are actually in a
weaker position in the negotiation and subsequent enforcement of
contracts that we enter into with them, then you and I are in
private contracts we enter into amongst ourselves as we go forth
in this Life in pursuit of Commercial enrichment. The reason is
because the Commercial contracts we enter into down here between
ourselves always carry penal (incarceration) consequences for
default, even though that contract nowhere says something like...
"...the undersigned hereby agrees to be incarcerated on default
on any term or provision of this contract..."
When the King enters into a contract with someone, the exact
penal consequences, and the duration of the incarceration, are
always spelled out in those little statutes of his, and there is
no Common Law right of the King to perfect contract enforcement
by incarceration like you and I have. Our Common Law right to
get a defaulting party incarcerated originates in getting the
poor fellow CITED into a CONTEMPT OF COURT corner, which follows
the Court's Ordering of the contract's SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE by
the Party in default. Most generally used in real estate
transactions, Specific Performance is available as a remedy under
other contracts where at least some performance has already been
initiated. [715]
[715]============================================================
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE is a very common remedy for breach of
contract. In general, see:
-
Kronman in SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 45 University of Chicago Law
Review 351 (1978);
-
Alan Schwartz in THE CASE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 89 Yale Law
Review 271 (1979);
-
Thomas Ulen in THE EFFICIENCY OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: TOWARDS A
UNIFIED THEORY OF CONTRACT REMEDIES, 83 Michigan Law Review 341
(1984).
============================================================[715]
For example, signing a contract to paint a house, with, say, some
continuing feature of the work to be started within 30 days, will
very much place the poor defaulting contractor in jail if, after
the 30 days has elapsed, the painting contractor refuses to
commence painting. Your MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE, followed by the contractor's continued
recalcitrance, is all that is needed for a PETITION TO CITE IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT to be granted. Now summary incarceration
follows, without any trial, without any jury, and all under
chronologically compressed circumstances. That is the very same
abbreviated procedure that Tax Protesters hate and resent so much
-- and it turns out to be an invisible benefit they can use for
themselves as well in their daily pursuit of Commercial
enrichment. The King and the Prince with their juristic kingdoms
are not in any special privileged status to use hard
incarceration to perfect the enforcement of Commercial contracts
-- you and I can use the guns and cages of the State to do our
dirty work for us when others jerk their performance of a
contract on us. Yet, nowhere on that house painting contract
that the poor defaulting contractor signed, did the contractor
agree anywhere to terms that call for his Encagement if he should
ever default; but the contractor does not have to say that or
anything else relating to Judicial enforcement, as all PERSONS
entering into contracts are assumed to have a good working
knowledge of the laws and types of legal recourse that may be
exercised by the other party. [716]
[716]============================================================
"...since a knowledge of the laws, policy and jurisprudence of a
state is necessarily imputed to every one entering into contracts
within its jurisdiction, of what surprise can he complain, or
what violation of public faith, who still enters into contracts,
under that knowledge?
-
OGDEN VS. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 285 (1827).
============================================================[716]
Where did Government get the power to pull off that fast
incarceration trick? Government got the power to enforce a
contract under those terms because both parties went into that
contract yielding some of their Natural Law rights to be
otherwise left alone, to each other, as they accepted some
benefit the contract offered. [717]
[717]============================================================
"Right and obligation are considered by all ethical writers as
correlative terms. Whatever I, by my contract, give another a
right to require of me, I, by that act, lay myself under an
obligation to yield or bestow. The obligation of every contract
will then consist of that right or power over my will or actions,
which I, by my contract, confer upon another. And that right and
power will be found to be measured by neither moral law alone,
nor universal law alone, nor by the laws of society alone, but by
a combination of the three -- an operation in which the moral law
is explained and applied by the law of nature, and both modified
and adapted to the exigencies of society by positive law."
-
OGDEN VS. SAUNDERS, 25 U.S. 212, at 281 (1827).
============================================================[717]
And when they entered into contracts by accepting a benefit, the
duty to honor the contract necessarily infers the consequence to
pay damages if a default surfaces. [718]
[718]============================================================
"The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction
that you must pay damages if you do not keep it..."
-
Oliver W. Holmes in THE PATH OF THE LAW, 10 Harvard Law Review
457, at 462 (1897).
Oliver Holmes felt deeply about this RECIPROCAL OBLIGATION DUTY
being handled firmly and properly by the Judiciary, and he was
later appointed to the Supreme Court, his concern surfaced again
in one of his first Supreme Court Opinions that he wrote [see
GLOBE REFINING COMPANY VS. LANDA COTTON OIL, 190 U.S. 540
(1903)].
============================================================[718]
This story about the poor painting contractor is exemplary of the
invisible Commercial contract enforcement benefits that
Government is offering to private parties: A gun, a cage and
asset seizure. [719]
[719]============================================================
And a gun being drawn is exactly what you will be seeing, when
you defy a CONTEMPT OF COURT Order.
============================================================[719]
Most folks view the consequences of contract default as being
just asset seizure, which is not true. Incarceration is a remedy
available at the discretion of the other Party. So now we need
to ask ourselves a question: Is it moral, ethical, proper and
reasonable for Government to be financially compensated for doing
the dirty work of enforcing our Commercial Contracts for us?
Certainly.
Do you believe that the old Debtor's Prisons that our Fathers had
in the old days are actually gone? [720]
[720]============================================================
"...and if the debtor have no movables whereupon the debt may be
levied, then his body shall be take where it may be found and
kept in prison until that he have made agreement or his friends
for him..."
-
THE STATUTE OF MERCHANTS, 11 Edward the First (1283); [Also known
as the STATUTE OF ACTON BURNELL].
============================================================[720]
Not true. There are very much Debtor's Prisons here in the
contemporary United States, and the King or your Prince does not
need to be a facial Party to the contract in order to get someone
jailed because of an unpaid debt. For example, I once worked for
a real estate syndication company that managed a large volume of
apartment projects. When those apartment rental leases the
tenants signed went into a delinquency status and then default,
Petitions were filed by the Landlord seeking to Compel the
Specific Performance of the Lease, and thereafter, Contempt of
Court. When the Sheriff came around with either an Arrest or
Bench Warrant to serve on the poor Tenant for Contempt of Court,
all of a sudden back rental payments mysteriously made an
appearance. But in some cases, the poor folks just did not have
any money at all, and they were incarcerated for failure to pay a
debt, and they sat there until friends and family coughed up the
money (that's right, a Debtor's Prison in the United States of
America in 1980). So there very much still remains a Debtor's
Prison today, and contracts we enter into should not be
indifferently tossed aside with the erroneous belief that the
Debtor's Prisons no longer exist: As there are automatic penal
consequences for any prospective type of contract default, when
that contract falls under the General Commercial Jurisdiction of
the State. And unless specifically waived by one of the Parties,
the assertion of an attachment of King's Commerce Jurisdiction is
simply assumed absent explicit disavowal. Only the other Party's
specific waiver of Recourse to King's Commerce (which means that
prospective Judicial Enforcement is waived), can spare you from
the lonely Encagement that always characterizes contemporary
incarceration.
Those are examples of the type of power you are dealing with when
writing contracts that fall under the General Commercial
Jurisdiction of the State. Nature means serious business when
contracts are signed (and if Nature means business in that
Department, then so does Heavenly Father, who created Nature.)
And since the State is offering rather strong contract
enforcement services for contracts written in King's Commerce, it
is very reasonable, moral, and proper that a profit or gain
equity participation tax be levied on Commercial incomes acquired
under the enforcement benefits the States offers. [721]
[721]============================================================
"Income is necessarily the product of the joint efforts of the
state and the recipient of the income, the state furnishing the
protection necessary to enable the recipient to produce, receive,
and enjoy it, and a tax thereon in the last analysis is simply a
portion cut from the income and appropriated by the state as its
share thereof..."
-
The Mississippi State Supreme Court, in HATTIESBURG GROCERY
COMPANY VS. ROBERTSON, 126 Miss. 34, at 52 (March, 1926).
============================================================[721]
Yes, INCOME, so called, is in fact the joint product of the
combined efforts of you with your Commercial Contracts, and of
Government; since Government is offering to enforce your
contracts for you, INTER ALIA. [722]
[722]============================================================
INTER ALIA means "among other things."
============================================================[722]
If, for example, you are a medical doctor with Accounts
Receivables outstanding from your patients who turned out to be
deadbeats by refusing to pay, then the Collection Agency you turn
the debt over to for collection very much is participating in
creating the "income" that they succeeded in collecting from your
deadbeats, even though you first originated the work. And so
when you enter into Commercial Contracts with other folks, you
are leaving the other person in such a STATE OF MIND that leads
him to believe that you are going to sue and bring down
Government if he defaults -- and so now the State is very much
participating in creating whatever income that Contract pulls in
for you, since you have no evidence that his payment to you was
not out of fear of Government intervention. Whether or not you
actually had to start an action in the Courts and sue the fellow
who went into default or not, is not relevant; what is relevant
is that when the defaulting Party went into that Contract with
the knowledge that he was up against a lawsuit upon his breach.
Remember the RATIFICATION DOCTRINE: There are many legitimate
situations where a person's silence can be reasonably assumed to
give approval to a proposition, or to "Ratify," the proposition
that was made. And now that we have come to grips with this
invisible benefit of Contract Enforcement, which also creates an
invisible contract for us Commercial Contract beneficiaries to
pay state taxation reciprocity, fighting its existence really
isn't very appropriate: Because it is actually very easy to
exclude the State from being an invisible "partner" with you in
that Commercial Contract. The State is stripped of its status as
an Equity Partner when you first descend upon your local
Courthouse and record a WAIVER OF JUDICIAL CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
Public Notice of some type; making note of the Liber and Page
Number the Clerk recorded it at in the Clerk's Miscellaneous
Documents section; then in the future by telling the people that
you enter into contracts with from that time forward, of your
filed Waiver and Notice that if they default for any reason, then
there will be absolutely no lawsuit or Government intervention
thrown at them at any time. That's right, if they default, then
you are simply going to turn around and walk away from the
contract. That Notice to your Parties in Contract, synchronous
with the Execution of the Contract, is what it will take to slice
Government out of your daily contracts and away from having
Juristic Institutions be that silent background Equity Partner
that appellate Judges talk about. A lot of folks reading these
lines will make a business judgment and refuse to waive Judicial
Contract Enforcement, and for good reasons: Because you know
that if Government is not brought to bear on your behalf, that is
if you pre-emptively waive the right to file property liens and
Court collection actions on that Contract, then you will never
get paid by the other fellow; and that is fine -- if Government
is your silent background Partner, then pay your reciprocating
taxes due for juristic benefits having been accepted, and stop
defiling yourself. [723]
[723]============================================================
You will find that as we change settings away from using
Government benefits, and into an ecclesiastical setting where
Divine benefits of prosperity down here were accepted by you,
then the application of cheap TAX PROTESTING reasoning of
withholding expected reciprocity because of philosophical
disapproval with some Government Special Interest Group
enscrewment going on, over into ecclesiastical settings where
similar expectations of reciprocity exist (and exist also by
contract), will prove to be self-damaging in ways that are
difficult to correct.
============================================================[723]
Still, other folks will not want to file the Courthouse Waiver
and then specifically notify their Parties in Contract that there
will not be any Government enforcement intervention, because they
will perceive of themselves as being looked upon as some type of
oddball, which is also correct. But those are business
assessment questions you have to make for yourselves
individually, and cannot be related to your liability to pay the
QUID PRO QUO of state sales and income taxes once these special
juristic benefits have been accepted by you. Overall, by now you
should be beginning to see why I don't have a lot of sympathy for
those types of Tax Protesters that snicker at Judges when the
Judge is trying to explain error to a Protester who is not
listening; the Protester's enemy is not the Judge, as the
Protester believes, but rather himself, as he refuses to even
consider the remote possibility that there may have been some
error in his own reasoning.
The acceptance of both general protection benefits and contract
enforcement benefits are that QUID PRO QUO exchange of valuable
reciprocity that Nature wants to see, when King's Equity excise
taxes are laid on Commercially acquired sources of profits and
gains. The State Socialists of the Rothschildean Dynasty on a
National level, and assorted domestic Gremlins like Nelson
Rockefeller as Governor of the State of New York with the state
teacher's unions on a state level, and numerous other Special
Interest Groups who initiate the enabling legislation to levy
taxes on Commercial incomes are not perverting our Father's
Common Law at all: They are merely using that Law to enrich
themselves while secondarily perfecting our Enscrewment in the
practical setting (although not all Special Interest Groups seek
our express Enscrewment as a primary objective).
That is representative of the powerful attachment of Commercial
Jurisdiction, and is an indicative exemplary model of the
underlying strength of the UCC as an operating appendage to
King's Commerce, and represents the strength of contracts written
under the Commercial Jurisdiction of your regional Prince. Under
the UCC and General Commerce Jurisdiction of Government, both the
King and the Prince are presumed to be an APPLIED Party to the
contract, even though nowhere on that contract is the King or
Prince mentioned FACIALLY, and for good reason: Because by your
silence, you have left the distinct impression on the other Party
that if they default on you, you will be seeking the gun, cages
and asset seizure services of the Judiciary to enforce your
contracts for you. But what if you are different? What if you
have filed a WAIVER OF RECOURSE TO THE UCC'S BENEFITS? What if
you came out into the open and bluntly told the PERSON you are
contracting with that if, for any reason, they default, then you
simply intend to turn around and walk away from the contract, and
no Government enforcement action will be commenced? [724]
[724]============================================================
I personally have told Persons that I had entered into contracts
with this line (that if they don't pay me, I don't care), and
they go right ahead and pay me anyway -- even though I gave them
explicit prior Notice of my waiving any possible judicial
enforcement (prior Notice meaning synchronous with the execution
of the contract). They have absolutely no fear of any recourse
of any type on my part -- none, but they go right ahead and pay
me anyway. There have been other situations where, acting as a
broker with people unacquainted with me, and where a large amount
of money was involved, I was reluctant to waive calling out the
guns and cages of the State to help me collect my money. So
discretion needs to be exercised based on:
1.
The willingness of the other party to pay you;
2.
Just how difficult a situation you have them into (in some
brokerage transactions, I have such control over one of the
parties that if a last minute enscrewment attempt is made, I can
kill the deal); and
3.
Whether or not your services are needed by them on a recurring
basis (even unethical vultures are less reluctant to take
advantage of others when they know that a future benefit of some
type is impending from this fellow); Employers who pay biweekly,
for example, never need to be threatened with judicial contract
enforcement; when they default, simply leave.
Where Government has been invoked to participate in enforcing
COMMERCIAL contracts and collecting money from that contract,
then your failure to reciprocate is immoral, and your encagement
for broken income taxation reciprocity expectations in contracts
-- as a reminder that NATURE is serious when Covenants are in
effect -- is provident before the Eyes of Heaven.
============================================================[724]
So what if you, too, are different? What if you are not
interested in using the police powers of the State to threaten
other Parties that you have entered into contracts between, with
a gun if they default? What if your daily livelihood contracts
state that, as it pertains to you as a Party, that they are
written outside of King's Commerce, outside of the Commercial
Jurisdiction of your Prince, and that the other Party understands
that your recourse to Judicial Enforcement is being waived as an
Election of your Remedies? What if those contracts you sign for
a livelihood state that you are waiving Commercial enforcement
benefits, even though the other Party may not be waiving such
enforcement benefits? Is that portion of the contract written
outside of the General Commercial Jurisdiction of the state
really enforceable by state Judges? [725]
[725]============================================================
The judicial enforceability of a contract depends upon the law
which the parties intend to be governing at the time the contract
was first executed. This GOVERNING LAW DOCTRINE is supported by
early English Cases and colonial American Cases heard under
Britannic jurisdiction, and now American Cases; this election
decision is also known to lawyers, writing their contracts under
the COMMERCE JURISDICTION of the States; as CHOICE OF LAW [see
CHOICE OF LAW TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF CONTRACTS:
A COMPARISON OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN APPROACHES TO THE CONFLICT
OF LAWS by John Prebble in 58 Cornell Law Review 443 (1973)].
Other commentators have suggested that this free selection of
Government Law came out into the open with Lord Mansfield's
opinion in ROBINSON VS. BLAND, 2 Burr 1077 (1760), who quoted
from a Roman Civil Law that allowed Roman Citizens to freely
select governance by Roman Law or governance by their local
provincial law, and then applied that doctrine to a Commercial
Contract Law setting. See Professor Beale in WHAT LAW GOVERNS
THE VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT in 23 Harvard Law Review, at page 1
(1909). The Case written by Lord Mansfield is English Common
Law, and in every American state that I have searched, I find
that there is a trial court designated to be a court that
possesses all of the Common Law jurisdiction that was in effect
at the time of Independence in 1776. Here in New York State, for
example, the Supreme Trial Courts have been designated as courts
of General Jurisdiction:
"The general jurisdiction in law and equity which the supreme
court possesses under the provision of the Constitution includes
all of the jurisdiction which was possessed and exercised... by
the court of chancery in England on the fourth day of July,
1776..."
-
NYS JUDICIARY LAW, Section 140-b, as extracted from the New York
State Constitution.
So the selection of governing law that the Robinson Case
represents is inherently available to you. Expressed in other
words, the States lack jurisdiction to force individuals to write
their contracts under the gun barrel, encagement, and asset
seizure enforcement benefits of King's Commerce. In the 1970s,
when phony tax shelters were in vogue, many of them featured
"non-recourse" notes as part of the financial loss image they
tried to create. I am unable to recall any Judge that enforced
such a note in favor of a party who initially waived potential
recourse through a King's Commercial Jurisdiction enforcement
services.
Once a contract falls under the COMMERCE JURISDICTION of the
States, then there are some Constitutional limitations in effect
on CHOICE OF LAW election decisions that can be made [see
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON CHOICE OF LAW, 61 Cornell Law
Review 185 (1976) by James Martin, who uncovered an obscure line
of CHOICE OF LAW Cases in the Supreme Court].
============================================================[725]
Now that you have Elected your own Remedies should a default
occur, and Government enforcement benefits have now been waived,
what right does the King or Prince have to levy an equity
participation tax on profits or gains he did not assist in
creating? Now what?
So now, before snickering at state or federal magistrates tossing
out your Tax Protesting arguments, you need to ask yourself a
question first: If my Employer stopped paying me for my wages,
do I have the right to sue him for damages? If you have reserved
the right to sue, then that Employment contract you entered into
some time ago fell under the enriching penumbra of the Commerce
Jurisdiction of the State, and so all the money you have pulled
out of that contract is very much taxable; and there is nothing
immoral, unethical, or even unreasonable about the Income Tax, so
called, as it contributes reciprocating money back to Government
that once participated in creating it (by leaving the other party
in contract [your Employer, for instance] with the impression
that guns, cages, and asset seizure power of Government will be
brought to bear if that contract goes into default). Yes, the
Income Tax is politically distasteful, and being engineered by
demons, Gremlins, and Bolsheviks the way it was to accomplish
proprietary social wealth transfer objectives, it carries many
secondary adverse national economic consequences along with it;
but as a matter of Law the underlying moral and ethical basis for
it are very much legitimate, since voluntary contracts are in
effect. We may not sense that the percentage amount Royalty
wants is reasonable from a benefit/cost perspective, but such a
determination is a business question and risk assessment that you
need to make for yourself individually, and this is not a
question for magistrates to come to grips with after you
previously accepted and experienced contract enforcement
benefits. Unless you specifically waived contract recourse to
the Uniform Commercial Code/Law Merchant/Federal "Consumer
Protection" Statutes, etc., and have told other Persons that you
are contracting with of your irrevocable wavier, it then becomes
immoral and unreasonable for you not to compensate Royalty for
Employment contract enforcement benefits and miscellaneous
services rendered (minimum wages, maximum working hours per week,
etc.), when such QUID PRO QUO reciprocity is expected back in
return by Government. Yes, King's Commerce is very much a
closed, private domain for all those who enter therein seeking to
enrich themselves, and invisible contracts between the Gameplayer
in Commerce and Royalty are automatically in effect, as
protection and contract enforcement benefits conditionally
offered by your regional Prince were accepted by you, in your
state of silence, and by refusing to disavow Government contract
intervention rights. [726]
[726]============================================================
Not all States expect reciprocity on money acquired under
Commercial contracts; off-hand Florida, Alaska, New Hampshire and
Texas come to mind as States that have no expectations of Income
Tax reciprocity on contract enforcement benefits accepted at the
present time, so in this Kingdoms there is no reciprocal State
Income Tax due absent special licensing. However, don't fool
yourself, as King's Commerce is very much a closed private domain
of financial conquest, and the mere failure by a Prince to ask
for this type of State Income Tax reciprocity does not vitiate
the existence of your Commerce Contract, as other reciprocity of
a different nature is often expected from businessmen, such as
some variation on a personal property tax like an inventory,
franchise, or asset tax.
============================================================[726]
Generally speaking, state judges are much more interested in this
Waiver of Contract Enforcement and UCC Benefits as a defense line
in a tax prosecution Case than defenses centered around the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (even though state courts have
jurisdiction to hear Employer/Employee grievances arising under
this Act). State judges show little interest in the invisible
contracts in effect when Federal Reserve Notes are recirculated,
or when the benefits of Debt Liability Limitations in Admiralty
were accepted, and the like. And inversely, Federal Judges have
little interest in this UCC/Contract Enforcement Benefits Waiver
as a defense line in a Federal Tax Case, and show great interest
in your acceptance of the benefits of the National Citizenship
Contract. [727]
[727]============================================================
The United States does possess the requisite jurisdiction to
operate directly on its Citizens:
"...we hold that the Government of the United States is one
having jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its territory,
and acting directly upon each Citizen..."
-
IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S., at 599 (1894).
Since the King can operate directly on the Citizenry, he can also
directly expect reciprocity back in return from the Citizenry.
============================================================[727]
Let us contemplate something for a moment: Notice how when you
sue someone for a typical breach of contract, you do not cite or
quote any state or federal statutes. If the contract was reduced
to a written statement, then the defaulted covenants in the
contract are recited within the body of the Complaint for relief,
but no averment of statutory infraction is made.
For example, after having sold a car to someone on time payments,
the buyer's default in making the payments would be merely
recited within your state court Complaint as being merely that on
such and such a day, a contract was entered into, that payments
of $XX.XX per month were due and payable on the first of each
month, and that now the car's purchaser has defaulted, starting
on payment number 8. Therefore, a judgment is demanded.
At no place within that everyday type of breach of contract
Complaint did we ever cite a statute. Quoting a statute is not
necessary to seek judicial relief in a state court, and quoting
(or invoking) statutes is not necessary to perfect a judgment
against someone -- and with that background information in mind,
we turn now and address a very important correlative point of Law
that Patriots and Protesters are totally missing: That the mere
use of just the Judicial Branch of Government is your acceptance
of a juristic benefit, and may give rise to a reciprocal taxing
liability on your part (if the political jurisdiction is
operating on such an expectation of reciprocity, such as a state
income tax). It is important to understand that by the mere
omission of quoting a Legislative statute to invoke your
courtroom relief, you in no way absolve or detach yourself from
the taxation liability that follows PERSONS around who use and
accept such judicial juristic benefits. The reason why I am
spending the time to explain this concept of attaching tax
liability by sole use of the Judicial Branch to pursue Commercial
enrichment is because the same identical Tax Protesters, and the
same identical Highway Contract Protesters (who snicker at Judges
holding them attached to Income Tax statutes), try and use the
mere omission of reciting Legislative statutory pronouncements as
grounds for evading the payment of taxation reciprocity.
Specifically what I am referring to is perhaps best elucidated by
commentator Lysander Spooner:
"The author claims the copyright of this book in England, on
Common Law principles, without regard to acts of Parliament; and
if the main principle of this book itself be true, viz., that no
legislation, in conflict with the Common Law, is of any validity,
his claim is a legal one. He forbids any one to print the book
without his consent." [728]
[728]============================================================
This quotation from Lysander Spooner appears in his work entitled
ESSAY ON TRIAL BY JURY (Jewitt and Company, Cleveland, 1852).
============================================================[728]
That's right, Lysander Spooner is claiming a "Common Law
Copyright;" like a large number of Tax and Highway Contract
Protesters today in the 1980s, these folks today are also now
claiming "Common Law Copyright" on their newsletters, books,
magazines, and miscellaneous periodicals. But here is where the
Protesters are in serious error: Remember the breach of contract
example -- you do not need to cite any Legislative statutes to
seek Judicial contract enforcement relief. And so accordingly,
the mere use of the Judicial branch of Government, all by itself,
is your acceptance of a juristic benefit. [729]
[729]===========================================================
For those of you who are interested in calling on the guns and
cages of Government to assist you in protecting the Commercial
interests in your intellectual creations, a notice of "Common Law
Copyright" places the world on Notice, and threatens to all
readers that use of the guns and cages of Government will be
invoked to protect your intellectual property for you by Judicial
Order and Judgment without any reliance on Legislative
pronouncements. But for those invoking Federal statutory
pronouncements, such Federal intellectual protectorate statutes
have their situs in the COPYRIGHT STATUTES, which are resident in
Title 17, which in turn is broken into 8 chapters:
1.
Subject Matter and Scope of Jurisdiction.
2.
Copyright Ownership and Transfer.
3.
Duration of Copyright.
4.
Copyright Notice, Deposit, and Registration.
5.
Copyright Infringement and Remedies.
6.
Manufacturing Requirement and Importation.
7.
Copyright Office.
8.
Copyright Royalty Tribunal.
============================================================[729]
And so now you "Common Law Copyright" Protesters are accepting
the use of the gun barrel and asset seizure services of
Government, when claiming a "Common Law Copyright"; Protesters
are in fact threatening to use the guns, cages and asset seizure
services offered by Government, and so now Protesters owe back in
return the financial compensation reciprocity expected in the
nature of Enfranchisement, Income Taxes, or anything else
Government wants: Because special juristic benefits were
accepted by the "Common Law Copyright" Protester. By reason of
Protesters using the police powers of Government to pursue
financial enrichment (and Protesters claiming "Common Law
Copyright" very much are pursuing financial enrichment by
threatening to use Government to try and prevent other persons
from redistributing their intellectual property), "Copyright"
Protesters are using the police powers of Government to pursue
Commercial enrichment with the same identical full force and
effect as if the Protester had formally entered into a Government
created shared monopoly, such as the Bar Association created for
Attorneys. [730]
[730]============================================================
To some extent the phrases INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and INTELLECTUAL
CREATIONS are interchangeable. Intellectual Creations means
everything imaginable, such as writings, inventions, processes,
designs, methods, formulas, systems, ideas, data, information,
and any other matter; however, state law claims to Intellectual
Creations are quite distinct from true property rights. For
example, see DOWLING VS. UNITED STATES 473 U.S. 207, at 216
(1985). As for the King, he gets his jurisdiction to offer his
Bouncers, guns and cages to enforce certain Intellectual
Creations under the PATENT AND COPYRIGHT CLAUSE of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 8; but at a Federal Judicial Level, only a
certain selected profile of Intellectual Creations are actually
available for protection under the Federal guns and encagement
security services offered by the King. For example, the use of
TRADEMARK protection is actually beyond the power of the Congress
to offer universally under the Constitution's PATENT AND
COPYRIGHT CLAUSE, so the Federal protection available for
registering Trademarks is of a statutory origin, and limited to
only restrain other PERSONS who participate in INTERSTATE
COMMERCE [see the TRADE-MARK CASES, 100 U.S. 82 (1879)]. Where
there are other INDIVIDUALS, who are not involved in INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, have been found violating your Federal Trademark
interests, then prospective Federal enforcement does not protect
your Trademarks. The development and commercialization of new
products and processes is one of the objectives behind Federal
Copyright statutes; see INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION AND PATENT AND
COPYRIGHT LAW AMENDMENTS in Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 96th
Congress, Second Session, Serial Number 61 (April, May, June,
1980).
============================================================[730]
So I might suggest to those "Common Law" Protesters out there
that they explore the possibility of re-evaluating their
protesting relational status with their regional Prince, as they
erroneously and immorally try to weasel, twist and squirm their
way around the reciprocal taxation liability due in return back
to Government, as Protesters try and deflect the attention of
their police power enforcement benefits grab off to the side by
not quoting from legislative statutes; for if I were a Judge
presiding over your State Income Tax incarceration ceremonies, I
too would order your commitment to a cage: The Protester
accepted the special Government protectorate benefit offered to
exclude unauthorized intellectual property distribution -- the
fact that the Protester used only the Judicial Branch to protect
his intellectual property by Noticing out a "Common Law"
Copyright, and not the Legislative and Judicial Branches combined
by citing statutes, does not vitiate anyone's adhesive reciprocal
liability for either financial compensation taxation or perhaps
Enfranchisement expectations retained by Juristic Institutions.
[731]
[731]============================================================
Anything a judge does to you, including incarceration, in order
to get you to think twice about the propriety of dishonoring
contracts, can only inure to your Everlasting Blessing and
Benefit -- but with their noses immersed in statutes, judges
generally never bother to identify the existence of contracts for
what they really are [as I mentioned in the Armen Condo Letter],
as they rarely ever openly state at the Sentencing Hearing that
the Defendant was caught in defilement under contract.
============================================================[731]
Back