I N V I S I B L E   C O N T R A C T S
                         George Mercier

                          BANK ACCOUNTS
                         [Pages 131-193]

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

Some years preceding his multiple prosecutions in 1984, Mr. Condo
went down to a bank, and initiated an Equity relationship with
that corporation and the King.  Yes, Commercial contracts in
effect with banks are invisible juristic contracts in effect with
the King.  In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that banks are
in a special Status with the King, and likewise so are the
individual people who experience profit and gain from any
Commercial contract they enter into with a bank.  This relational
effect of doing business in King's Commerce is pronounced quite
clearly in the INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE the Supreme Court
initiated publicly with DAVIS v. ELMIRA SAVINGS:

     "National banks are instrumentalities of the Federal
Government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily
subject to the paramount authority of the United States."  [170]

DAVIS v. ELMIRA SAVINGS, 161 U.S. 275, at 283 (1896).
The factual setting giving rise to DAVIS was a Bankruptcy
proceeding.  In the many quotations from the United States
Supreme Court and other judicial forums in this Letter, sentences
were rearranged and then quoted out of original order for
enhanced logical continuity; and in other places I made nominal
punctuation and capitalization changes.  Therefore, please refer
to the original citations before requoting.

This Instrumentality Doctrine is very significant, and the word
INSTRUMENTALITY means an Equity Relationship that is quite strong
in American Jurisprudence.  As nationally chartered banks are the
Instrumentality of the Congress, consider the subordinate Party
(the banks) as being the "right hand" of the Master (the
Congress).  This is a very powerful Doctrine indeed, and it needs
to be understood for what it really means.  In the Armen Condo
Letter, I mentioned that, from a Judicial Perspective, any profit
or gain experienced from a bank carries with it the same
identical full force and effect as if the King himself created
the gain.  Consider, for a moment, the application of the
Instrumentality Rule to corporations:

     "Under this Rule, corporate existence will be disregarded
where a corporate subsidiary is so organized and controlled and
its affairs so conducted as to make it only an adjunct and
instrumentality of another parent corporation."  [171]

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, under the "Instrumentality Rule [case
cites deleted].

Now think what happens if the King is substituted for the parent
corporation, and your local bank is substituted for the
subsidiary corporation.  Under the Instrumentality Doctrine, the
local bank as a Person and a legal entity fades away in
significance as if it was transparent, and the King and the
Secretary of the Treasury then appear as the real contracting
Persons you are entering into Commercial agreements with.  Are
you beginning to see the legal significance of this Doctrine?
Are you beginning to appreciate the deeper meanings of the bank
account in that it is the King that you are really contracting
into Commerce with, and the bank is just the King's local agent?
That bank is literally the private personal property of the King.
Entrepreneurs who go out and capitalize a new bank from scratch
do not own that bank.  The bank is owned by the King who created
the corporation, and his Comptroller of the Currency later issued
out a banking charter to; and the individual shareholders only
hold an equitable interest in the bank's operations.  [172]

"The corporation is the legal owner of all of the property of the
bank, real and personal; and within the powers conferred upon it
by the charter, and for the purposes for which it was created,
can deal with the corporate property as absolutely as a private
individual can deal with his own.  This is familiar law, and will
be found in every work that may be opened in the subject of
corporations.  A striking exemplification may be seen in the case
of THE QUEEN v. ARMOUND, 9 Ad. & Ell. N.S. 806.  The question
related to the registry of a ship owned by a corporation.  Lord
Denman observed:
     "It appears to me that the British corporation is, as such,
the sole owner of the ship.  The individual members to the
corporation are no doubt interested in one sense in the property
of the corporation, as they may derive individual benefits from
its increase, or loss from its decrease; but in no legal sense
are the individual members the owners."
     -    THE BANK TAX CASES, 70 U.S. 573, at 584 (1865).

The shareholders are only entitled to a limited withdrawal of
some of the bank's net earnings, under some limited
circumstances.  [173]

"The interest of the shareholder entitles him to participate in
the net profits earned by the bank in the employment of its
capital, during the existence of its charter, in proportion to
the number of his shares; and, upon its dissolution or
termination, to his proportion of the property that may remain of
the corporation after the payment of its debts."
     -    THE BANK TAX CASES, id., at 584.

Many incarcerated Protestors were unaware of the existence of the
Commercial contract that they were into, and so having the strong
political views that they do, their political feelings, skewing
off on a defiant tangent, retained the upper hand over their
better judgment -- an inquisitive judgment that would be
searching for answers to questions.  So although the Protestors
was at one time unaware of the existence of a contract being in
effect, the King was very much aware, and so the Protestor's
defiant behavior is increasingly improvident when viewed from the
perspective that the Commercial contract was written to strongly
favor the King, and is interstitially dispersed throughout with
penal clauses IN ESSE for no more than mere administrative
negligence and default, and any outs that exist for persons in
default are the unintended default technical errors that the
King's LEX statutes can correct at the discretion of the

Today, great Tax Protesting Patriots like Condo, Schiff, and
Saussey -- who have established themselves in forward political
positions -- have the strong advantage of learning in advance the
single most important fundamental starting point in this Life; a
starting point that most other folks won't even know of until it
is too late; a starting point that bifurcates the Law of Judgment
into two great subdivisions; Tort and Contract.  Unknown to the
world at large, Heavenly Father has invisible Celestial Contracts
operating on us all, just like the King had multiple layers of
Commercial and invisible political contracts operating on Schiff,
Condo, and Saussey (I will discuss those layers later on).  Maybe
I am missing something somewhere, but I wish someone would
explain to me the prudence of Armen Condo's MODUS OPERANDI, as I
cannot find any; when presented with such valuable information
(that invisible contracts were actually in effect) Armen Condo
summarily rebuffed that information without any inquiry being
made into its authenticity.  I had told Armen something he did
not want to hear in his non-teachable state of mind; and in ways
similar to those invisible juristic contracts the King has on us
that so few people know much about, likewise our previous
existence First Estate Contracts with Father cast a regulatory
contract jurisdiction over us all, and all contract jurisdictions
always call for our being self damaged by our own mere neglectful
technical default, nonchalant indifference swirling in carefree
insouciance, and miscellaneous compliance deflection Tort Law

     "... yea, I lived with her for a while -- she was NICE, but
there was no damages nowhere and everyone consented -- so Father
can't hold that against me."

And just as Schiff, Condo, and Saussey were given unpleasant
advance introductions into what a contract Star Chamber is all
about, so too will the Last Day be a Contract Star Chamber -- the
worst imaginable to those who have used Tort Law behavioral
defense arguments down here, as a well sculptured slice of meat
was repetitively bewitched into an elevated state of enchantment
("Gee, I didn't damage anyone").  [174]

Not that Father is throwing us all into a LAKE OF FIRE AND
BRIMSTONE to scorch us thoroughly (Heathens really get a good
kick out of that foolish idea of being roasted in a scorcher by a
revengeful god for a few little impish smatterings); but the Last
Day Judgement will actually be the WORSE IMAGINABLE because of
knowledge we will then posses of the magnitude of the lost
benefits involved, and how stupid it was to lose it down here
over some interesting feminine musculature, and other
inappropriate adventurism into peripheral areas that are defined
as being illicit by First Estate Covenants, but are not really
illicit practically due to the omission of damages.  The LAKE OF
FIRE AND BRIMSTONE analogy that the Prophets of old were
referring to is their characterization of this state of mental

But the Last Day will also be transparent for those who entered
into, and were successfully tried under, Father's NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANT; for these, the Last Day will be a smooth
procedural formality, nothing that should be of any impending
concern.  [175]

The NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT has been of particular interest
with all of our Patriarchs and Prophets of old, right back down
the line, clear back to Adam:
Answer:  Without referring to anyone's commentary or explanation,
the name of this particular Celestial Covenant reveals a slice of
history by itself, as the words NEW AND EVERLASTING possibly
imply that other Covenants exist that might be just the opposite:
OLD AND TEMPORARY.  Are there in fact such Covenants floating
around?  Yes, there are, but they are invisible; Father extracted
them out of us in the First Estate before we came down here, and
by their nature those temporary First Estate Covenants were
designed to be replaced with NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANTS,
Covenants that would never again be replaced, Covenants that are
EVERLASTING.  The anonymous author who once wrote a Letter now
known as HEBREWS in the New Testament, once had a few words to
say about OLD Covenants and NEW Covenants, average Covenants and
better Covenants, FIRST Covenants and SECOND Covenants:
     "... now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how
much also he is the mediator of a better Covenant, which was
established upon better promises.  For if that FIRST COVENANT HAD
SECOND [Covenant].  For finding fault with them, he saith,
'Behold, the days come,' saith the Lord, 'when I will make a NEW
Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah.'
... In that he saith, 'A NEW Covenant,' he hath made the first
old.  Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to varnish
     -    HEBREWS 8:6, et seq.
The next chapter in HEBREWS talks about the HOLY OF HOLIES,
Temples, the ARK OF THE COVENANT, and First and Second Covenants,
which is advanced material I will talk about in another Letter.
I do not know who wrote this LETTER TO THE HEBREWS; within its
content the text contains little information about either its
author, its original readers and their circumstances, its date,
its overt purpose, or its theological background.  HEBREWS
commences immediately by laying on the heavy stuff, while the
greetings appear at the end.  Even its literary form is somewhat
mysterious in the sense that by probing into dimensionally deep
Christian doctrines, the left the other Commentators behind him
biting the dust; words and phrases appearing in HEBREWS appear no
where else [for example, the phrase JESUS, THE MEDIATOR OF THE
NEW COVENANT -- (see 12:24, 9:15, and 8:6) -- does not appear
anywhere else in either the Old or New Testaments].  Martin
Luther once made the suggestion that Apollos of Alexandria was
the writer [APOLLOS is described in ACTS 18:24-28 as being a
caliber of a fellow who would and could write HEBREWS].  Suffice
it to say that the doctrinal ideas and ecclesiastical commentary
presented in HEBREWS will feel very comfortable to folks today
after they have first been steeped in the DOCTRINES OF THE NEW
COVENANT for a while, as both originated from the same Source
(the significance of HEBREWS will be appreciated once you have an
enlarged basis of factual knowledge on the successive organic
nature of Covenants serving their purpose and then replacing
previous Covenants, and in turn being replaced by still other
Covenants).  While calling itself a WORD OF EXHORTATION [13:22],
the LETTER TO THE HEBREWS contains some of the most eloquent
writings and sermons in the New Testament, and whoever its author
was, had to be a gifted Christian thinker who probed into the
deeper doctrines of Christianity where few others did.  I will
have more to say about HEBREWS in some other Letter.
... I said that this NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT has been a
source of interest to all of the great Patriarchs back down the
line -- and I meant what I said -- so here are the citations:
     "... and I will look upon it, that I may remember the
EVERLASTING COVENANT between God and every living creature..."
     -    GENESIS 6:18
     "... I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and
thy Seed [SEED meaning offspring] after thee in their generation
for an EVERLASTING COVENANT, to be a God upon thee, and to thy
Seed after thee."
     -    GENESIS 17:7
     "... my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an EVERLASTING
     -    GENESIS 17:13
     "And God said 'Sarah, thy wife, shall bear thee a son
indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac:  And I will establish
my Covenant with him for an EVERLASTING COVENANT, and with his
Seed after him."
     -    GENESIS 17:19
     "Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord
continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an
     -    LEVITICUS 24:8
     "And he shall have it, and his Seed after him, even the
     -    NUMBERS 25:13
     "Although my house be not so with God, yet he hath made with
me an EVERLASTING COVENANT, ordered in all things, and sure:  For
this is all my Salvation, and all my desire..."
     -    II SAMUEL 23:5
     "He is the Lord our God; His Judgements are in all the
Earth; be mindful always of His Covenant; the word which He
commanded to a thousand generations; even of the Covenant He made
with Abraham, and of his Oath unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the
same to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an EVERLASTING
     -    I CHRONICLES 16:14 et seq.
     "He is the Lord our God; His Judgments are in all the Earth;
He hath remembered His Covenant for ever; the word which He
commanded to a thousand generations; which Covenant He made with
Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same to Jacob
for a Law, and to Israel for an EVERLASTING COVENANT..."
     -    PSALM 105:7 et seq.
     "... the Earth is also defiled under the inhabitants
thereof; because they have transgressed the Laws, changed the
Ordinance, broken the EVERLASTING COVENANT."
     -    ISAIAH 55:3
     "... everlasting joy shall be unto them.. and I will direct
their work in Truth, and I will make an EVERLASTING COVENANT with
     -    ISAIAH 61:8 et seq.
     "... and I will make an EVERLASTING COVENANT with them..."
     -    JEREMIAH 32:40
     "... nevertheless, I will remember my Covenant with thee in
the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an
     -    EZEKIEL 16:60
     "Moreover, I will make a Covenant of peace with them; it
shall be an EVERLASTING COVENANT with them; and I will place
them, and multiply them..."
     -    EZEKIEL 37:26
     "... now the God of peace... that great shepard of the
sheep, through the blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT."
     -    HEBREWS 13:20
     "For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken
     "Wherefore, I, the Lord... gave commandments to others, that
they should proclaim these things unto the world... that mine
EVERLASTING COVENANT might be established."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 1:17 et seq.
     "Behold, I say unto you that all old Covenants have I caused
to be done away with in this things; and this is a NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANT, even that which was from the beginning."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 22:1
     "Wherefore I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine
EVERLASTING COVENANTS, even that which was from the beginning."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 49:9
     "Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine
EVERLASTING COVENANT... sent forth unto the children of men, that
they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which
are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the
Prophets and Apostles in days of old."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 66:2
     "... in the telestial world... [there will be goofs;]...
these are they who say they are some of one and some of another -
- some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of
Elias, and some of Esaisis, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch
[by being of Moses, of John, of Jack, of Pete, of Harry, of Bob,
of Ted -- they are spiritually disorganized in that they are OF
anyone except the right One]; but received not the Gospel,
neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the Prophets ["... it's
all the same God -- I just don't need me none of that Contract
stuff"], neither the EVERLASTING COVENANT."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 76:98 et seq.
     "Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, to prepare and
organize yourselves by a bond or EVERLASTING COVENANT that cannot
be broken."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 78:11
     "He that is appointed to be president, or teacher,... let
him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token
or remembrance of the EVERLASTING COVENANT."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 88:128 et seq.
     "I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token
or remembrance of the EVERLASTING COVENANT, in which Covenant I
receive you to fellowship, in a determination that is fixed,
immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother
through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to wait in all the
commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 88:133
     "When men are called unto mine Everlasting Gospel, and
Covenant with an EVERLASTING COVENANT, they are accounted as the
salt of the Earth and the savor of men..."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 101:39
     "For behold, I reveal unto you a NEW AND EVERLASTING
COVENANT, it was instituted for the fullness of my Glory, and he
that receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the Law,
or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.  [Yes, those are
pretty strong consequences; but where there are high powered
benefits, there will always be found correlative high powered
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 132:6
     "... verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my
word, which is my Law, and by the NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT...
ye shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers
dominions, all heights and depths... they shall pass by the
angels, and the gods, which are set there, to the exaltation and
Glory in all things... and the angels are subject unto them."
     -    DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 132:19

To Heathens and agnostics, who spent their time playing with
their own salvation down here by fighting and resisting what they
will then view as something as simple as giving Father what he
wanted, there will be no opportunity then to throw multiple
exploratory defense lines at Father by going through multiple
judgements, but much to our advantage we can have all the
prosecutions thrown at us that we want down here, to repetitively
argue our defense lines before Judges over and over again; and it
is for this reason that incarcerated Protestors will one day look
back and be ever grateful that the consequential significance of
being in mere technical default on invisible contracts was driven
into them, under such strong circumstances.  [176]

"The object of our earthly existence is that we may have a
fullness of joy, and that we may become the sons and daughters of
God, in the fullest sense of the word, being heirs of God and
joint heirs with Jesus Christ, to be kings and priests unto God,
to inherit glory, dominion, exaltation, thrones, and every power
and attribute developed and possessed by our Heavenly Father.
This is the object of our being on this Earth.  In order to
obtain unto this exalted position, it is necessary that we go
through this mortal experience, or probation, by which we may
prove ourselves worthy, through the aid of our elder brother
     -    Joseph F. Smith, in a Funeral Service delivered over
the daughter of Daniel H. Wells, on April 11, 1878; 19 JOURNAL OF
DISCOURSES 258, at 259 [London (1878)].

Yes, today, Condo, Schiff, and Saussey are either in a cage, or
close to being thrown into one, because of their default in
juristic contracts; tomorrow - after they have OPENED THEIR EYES,
they will go forth and inherit, create, and preside over Thrones,
Dominions, and WORLDS WITHOUT END, also by Contract.  Having
known the bitter Agony, they can cleave to the Celestial Ecstasy;
in both cases, contracts were the initiating catalytic

This banking INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE is a pretty strong
relational status for the Judiciary to take cognizance of, so
when we probe back down the line to uncover why chartered banks
are in such a status, we should not be too surprised to uncover
our old friend:  A contract.  [177]

"A charter is certainly in form and substance a contract; it is a
grant of powers, rights, and privileges;
     "... A charter to a bank... is certainly a contract, founded
on valuable consideration."
at page 258 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1833).
This Joseph Story, who I will be quoting from throughout this
Letter, was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts in September of
1779.  He entered Harvard College and graduated in 1798.  When
leaving Cambridge, he immediately entered into the study of Law
in the office of Mr. Samuel Sewall, then an advocate at the Essex
bar.  In 1801, Joseph Story was admitted to the Massachusetts
bar.  He was elected to the Massachusetts Commonwealth
Legislature in 1805, and was then elected to the Congress in
1808, and was soon Speaker of the House of Representatives.  In
1810 he argued the great Georgia case FLETCHER v. PECK, which
involved contracts, before the Supreme Court.  He edited a book
others.  On November 18, 1811, Joseph Story was commissioned to
be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court to
fill the vacancy left by Mr. Justice Cushing.  He was then 32
years of age, the youngest man ever to be called to such a
position in either England or America, except for Justice Buller.
While on the Supreme Court, Joseph Story wrestled down questions
on Admiralty and Maritime regarding the rights and duties of ship
owners, insurance companies, and mariners.  He was a major
architect of, and wrote extensively about, Patents and their role
AMERICAN PATENT LAW by Frank Prager in 5 American Journal of
Legal History, at 254 (January, 1961)].  He created a doctrine to
settle frictional disputes between the Federal-State layers of
Government, called the COMITY DOCTRINE, which is still quoted by
the Supreme Court down to the present day [see JOSEPH STORY'S
Naddleman in 5 American Journal of Legal History, at 230
(January, 1961)].  And he also dealt with the banditry of PRIZE
JURISDICTION, which was still in vogue.  Back at a time when
banking in the United States was operating under a LAISSEZ-FAIRE
relational status to Government, Joseph Story wrote that banking
affects a public interest [very significant words], and that
banking involves that most ancient prerogative of national
Sovereignty, THE MONEY POWER, which our Framers never restrained
or abated in the Charter they created for our King.  [namely, the
BANKING by Gerald Dunne, in 5 American Journal of Legal History,
at 205 (January, 1961)]; and this is a dominant theme in American
Jurisprudence remaining in effect down to the present day with
George Mercier enlarging on what Joseph Story started.  While
studying his COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, I have been able
to uncover only a few of Justice Story's opinions and legal
statements that were later reversed or otherwise toned down in
subsequent Federal rulings, and none of the reversals were really
on-point factual settings.  Down to the present day in 1985, many
of Joseph Story's statements of Law that he applied to the
hypothetical factual scenarios which he created in 1833 for his
COMMENTARIES were actually made with great foresight, as they
would later be coming to pass long after he returned Home in
1845.  [For detailed biographies on all of the early Supreme
Hampton Carson [John Huber Company, Philadelphia (1891)]; and
also worthwhile is Morgan David's JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY:  A STUDY
Law Review, at 643 (March, 1965).

Originally applicable only to nationally chartered banks, the
INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE has since been expanded under the
enlarging regulatory penumbra of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913
to include all state and Federally chartered member banks of the
Fed.  During the Depression, banks who became members of the FDIC
and FSLIC insurance programs were deemed Instrumentalities, and
this doctrine is now applied in the United States to include all
financial institutions where there is any Federal regulatory
interest in them.  This now includes stock brokerage houses,
credit unions, insurance companies, and pension funds.  (For
example, people acquiring a Merrill Lynch Cash Management
Account, which is a negotiable withdrawal instrument, are in the
same Juristic Personality Status (in King's Commerce) with a
Merrill Lynch checking account that they are with a checking
account from any conventional depository banking institution,
such as Manufacturer's Hanover.)  When a person initiates such a
bank account relationship with the King, an examination of Fourth
Amendment Search and Seizure cases relating to account records
that banks send to depositors reveals that the Federal appellate
judiciary considers the Fourth Amendment to be non-applicable to
Seized bank account records.  [178]

Exemplary perhaps would be two EXCLUSIONARY RULE based cases from
the Supreme Court:
     -    UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).  A
criminally accused person made a pre-Trial Motion to Suppress of
copies of checks and other bank records which federal agents had
gotten a hold of.  HELD:  That the Motion to Suppress was
properly denied since the accused person possessed no Fourth
Amendment interest that could be vindicated by a challenge to the
bank accounts; and any infirmities or deficiencies in the bank
account record acquisition process, by way of a defective
Subpoena or Search Warrant, were irrelevant arguments since
Subpoenas and Search Warrants were unnecessary document
acquisition tools to begin with; those bank account records are
the property of the Government, and they are available to the
Government under administrative devices (meaning an
investigator's phone call or letter inquiry); and
     -    UNITED STATES v. PAYNER, 447 U.S. 727 (1979).  A
criminal defendant had been charged with falsifying his income
tax return by denying that he held a foreign bank account.
Federal agents in Florida had broken into an apartment and then
surreptitiously copied bank records that a bank manager from the
Bahamas had brought with him on a trip, under circumstances that
you or I would be incarcerated for.  Later on, detective work
back at the office uncovered the fact that the poor defendant did
indeed maintain foreign bank accounts, so the Government then
threw a criminal prosecution at the fellow caught in the act of
defilement.  Since the Government had violated the Constitutional
rights of a third party [the bank manager from the Bahamas], and
not the criminally accused, the Fourth Amendment offered no
protection to the Defendant, since the Defendant had no rights
State in other words, perhaps more explicitly, emphasizing the
consequences of maintaining bank account records:  When
Government obtains your bank account records, regardless of how,
through whom, when, or under any circumstances, then arguing
Fourth Amendment rights defensively will likely not produce any
sympathy from Federal Appellate Forums.

In those cases, the Supreme Court will talk about how Courts
cannot exclude evidence under the Fourth Amendment unless that
Court finds that an unlawful Search or Seizure violated the
defendant's own Constitutional rights.  But that the
Constitutional rights of criminal defendants, who are being
hanged with their own bank account statements, are violated only
when the Search and Seizure conduct violated the defendant's own
legitimate expectation of privacy, rather than that of a third
party.  [179]

Paraphrased from UNITED STATES v. PAYNER, id., at 731.

Since the "zone of privacy" inherent in the Papers Clause of the
Fourth Amendment does not facially protect information you have
deposited into the hands of third parties, like banking
institutions, [180]

"... no interest legitimately protected by the Fourth Amendment
is implicated by governmental investigative activities unless
there is an intrusion into a zone of privacy, into 'the security
a man relies upon when he places himself or his property within a
constitutionally protected area.'"
     -    HOFFA v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 293, at 301 (1966).

Federal Courts find it unnecessary to probe any deeper and
explicitly tell you the real underlying reason why bank accounts
fall outside the protective penumbra of the Fourth Amendment;
Because a Commercial contract is in effect, and the Bill of
Rights cannot be held to interfere with or obstruct the
contemporary execution of Commercial contracts, for either party
(and properly so).  But wait, as those Supreme Court cases dealt
with bank accounts Seized from a bank itself, and banks as
regulated Commercial establishments have no Fourth Amendment
rights whatever.  So there are no privacy rights in any
information you deposit with those banks, and this remains true
whether or not there was a Commercial contract in effect or not.
Hmmm.  But what if those bank account records were Seized from a
person's home where the Fourth Amendment does apply?  Now what?
The Fourth Amendment still does not apply, and properly so.

"Respondent [bank account holder] urges that he has a Fourth
Amendment interest in the records kept by banks because they are
merely copies of personal records that were made available to the
banks for a limited purpose and in which he has a reasonable
expectation of privacy...  Even if we direct our attention to the
original checks and deposit slips [that the bank account holder
kept in his home], rather than to the microfilm copies actually
viewed and obtained by means of a subpoena, we perceive no
legitimate 'expectation of privacy' in their contents.  The
checks are not confidential communications but negotiable
instruments to be used in commercial transactions.  The lack of
ANY legitimate expectation of privacy concerning the information
kept in bank records was assumed by Congress in enacting the BANK
SECRECY ACT, the express purpose of which is to require records
to be maintained because they 'HAVE A HIGH DEGREE OF USEFULNESS
[12 U.S.C. Section 1829b(a)(1)]."
     -    UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 442 (1976)
The ITALICS were added here to underscore the extreme
significance of those statements; the Law in this FOURTH
contracts are in effect, and challenging it is improvident.
Notice how the Congress is playing cutesy by calling a sequential
family of statutes the BANK SECRECY ACT, freely conveying the
initially impressive image that these statutes protect or
otherwise enhance the public's secrecy in banking accounts and
related records -- but in reality the BANK SECRECY ACT is a high-
powered statutory device, as the Supreme Court here exemplifies,
to promote the usefulness of those bank records in criminal
prosecutions that the Government will one day be throwing at you.
Among other things, this Act empowers the Secretary of the
Treasury to adopt broad regulations compelling banks to record
their customer's transactions and requiring that the banks, as
well as private persons using banking services, also report a
broad range of financial transactions TO THE GOVERNMENT [now
where is the "Secrecy"?]  Pursuant to this grant of statutory
jurisdiction, the Treasury Secretary then turned around and
created his own multiplying slice of LEX by administrative
promulgations directing that each bank report each and every
single deposit, withdrawal, and transfer that took place in
domestic transactions of $10,000 or more [see 31 CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS Section 103.22].

This is what is really meant when the bank account evidence taken
from a patently unlawful residential Search and Seizure in a
person's home is deemed admissible, even though the Fourth
Amendment's Exclusionary Rule would otherwise attach if the
property that was seized did not belong to the King (guns,
cocaine, etc.).  Federal Judges will skew their Seizure of bank
accounts annulment justifications off to the side and talk about
the "special facts in this case" when annulling Fourth Amendment
rights on bank account records unlawfully Seized from a
residence.  [182]

Banking records seized from residences merely contain the same
information that other documents located in public places
contain; and so although those seized records are "private
papers," all the Government has to do is go down to the bank [now
that they know which bank to go to, and which account to sift
through], obtain duplicate copies of banking records, and then
throw those copies that were obtained directly from banks at
     "On their face, the documents [bank accounts] subpoenaed
here are not respondent's 'private papers.'  Unlike claimant in
BOYD v. UNITED STATES [116 U.S. 616 (1886)], respondent [bank
account holder] can assert neither ownership nor possession.
Instead, these are the business records of banks.
     -    UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 440 (1976).

And now we are finally getting down to the one real reason why
the Bill of Rights in general, and the Fourth Amendment, in
particular, means absolutely nothing when a bank account is
involved with a contested Search and Seizure; this special reason
is never talked about by law schools; and this reason is not to
be found anywhere in any law book in any library that I am
acquainted with:  But the reason is, as stated, because a
Commercial contract with the King is in effect, and so as a point
of beginning, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant from the scratch,
and properly so; but you will never hear that explicit
explanation from anyone else, other than George Mercier.  Never
in any Court Opinion is there any blunt discussion of Commercial
contracts being in effect; rather, Judges will continue to focus
distracting attention and discussions around the Fourth
Amendment, creating the potential image, in some peripheral
factual setting cases, that the Fourth Amendment is the center of
gravity here, rather than the Commercial contract itself.  Yet it
is very proper and correct that the Bill of Rights should not be
allowed to interfere with, obstruct, intervene, or otherwise
restrain the execution or operation of contemporary Commercial
contracts -- for either party; but getting an official admission
like that from a Federal Judge will result in a can of worms
being opened up (as they perceive it), a can of worms they don't
want to talk about and deal with in the future.  [183]

As I mentioned in the Armen Condo Letter, Federal Judges have
been asked not to let the "cat out of the bag" by discussion the
special and very quiet relationship between bank accounts and
Income Tax statute liability (although bank accounts are not
exclusive Equity Jurisdiction attachment instruments, they are
air-tight instruments of CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE whenever the King
has a burden of proving the defendant's entrance into Interstate

Additionally, but to a lesser extent, those bank account records
are the private personal property of the King, and so it is
irrational that the King cannot reclaim his own property whenever
he feels like it, all pursuant to the terms of the bank account
contract.  [184]

"The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to
another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to
the Government...  This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth
Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed
to a third party and conveyed by [the third party] to Government
authorities, even if the information is revealed on the
assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and
the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed."
     -    UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 443 (1976).
If you don't know what contract I am referring to that gives the
King the right to simply reclaim his own property, then ask a
bank for a copy of their bank rules that all depositors and
borrowers have agreed to be bound by.  Under normal
circumstances, banks are reluctant to give depositors copies of
Bank Rules those depositors have agreed to be bound by.  Sounds
irrational, doesn't it?  Withholding the terms of contracts those
depositors have just taken upon themselves criminal compliance
liability for?  Yet, numerous attempts by people associated with
me have attempted to obtain a copy of these Bank Rules, and all
attempts resulted in the banking officer clamming up tight,
deflecting attention over to the "irregular and unusual" nature
of the request, and then telling the requesting person to go see
MR. SO AND SO at the Federal Reserve Board, who in turn also
clammed up tight.  So much for domestic American bank accounts.

Those are the real reasons why the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
are irrelevant in bank account Administrative Seizures and in
judicial prosecutions evidentiarily based on bank accounts.
Within the same line of Fourth Amendment cases, those Federal
Judges will also refer to bank accounts as being interstate
merchant and Commercial instruments, but never is there any
discussion to be found anywhere on the special Equity
Relationship in effect between Persons entering into such
Commercial contracts, and the King.

Some folks have taken the position that if they entered into
Equity with the King by signing a bank account card under
Objection on the grounds of necessity, that Objection somehow
will vitiate future liability; but there is an inherent defect in
that reasoning.  Unlike signing Driver's License applications
under Objection and Notice of Duress to avoid incarceration, the
Supreme Court has ruled that the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a Substantive
and Fundamental Right that cannot be infringed upon, absent very
strong and compelling state interests; and there are state
statutes which criminalize the act of an unlicensed driver
operating a motor vehicle down the road.  Taking that Driver's
License scenario as a model and applying it to justify possessing
bank accounts just does not cut it.  Bank accounts are not
entered into to avoid incarceration, and banking is not a
Substantive Right, and direct personal financial profit and gain
enrichment is experienced when possessing bank accounts that is
without parallel with a Driver's License.  So, all factors
considered, the likelihood of escaping an Excise Tax liability by
arguing bank account possession by necessity, is remote.  This
remains true even though the California Supreme Court ruled once

     "For all practical purposes, the disclosure by individuals
or business firms of their financial affairs to a bank is not
entirely volitional, since it is impossible to participate in the
economic life of contemporary society without maintaining a bank
account.  In the course of such dealings, a depositor reveals
many aspects of his personal affairs, opinions, habits and
associations.  Indeed, the totality of bank records provides a
virtual current biography."  [185]

BURROWS v. SUPERIOR COURT, 13 Cal 3rd 238, at 247 (1974).

The California Supreme Court is not a Federal Tribunal, and
statements to the effect that bank accounts are necessary for
practical economic survival, and perhaps are not purely
volitional [VOLITIONAL means freely choosing or will to do so, as
in making a decision], although an interesting perception of the
passing scene, will in no wise vitiate your legal liability to
the adhesive Federal taxation reciprocity expectations resident
in Title 26.  Notice how the California Supreme Court did not say
that possession of bank accounts under a documented factual
setting of economic survival annuls Title 26 liability.  So let's
not read out of that state court what it does not say; and even
if that state court did state inferentially that possession by
necessity annuls expectation of reciprocity liability in areas of
taxation, then the California Supreme Court is still not a
Federal Judicial Forum.  Federal Judges are taught and trained
certain things in those Seminars of theirs, and that BENCH BOOK
of theirs makes the Government's position sound more than
reasonable, and so as a result, Federal Judges are collectively
sensitive towards certain things [such as the significance of a
Commercial contract] that State Judges are indifferent to.

This DAVIS v. ELMIRA SAVINGS Instrumentality Doctrine
occasionally surfaces in Supreme Court rulings, by sometimes
being lightly mentioned in passing in OBITER DICTUM, such as in

321 U.S. 233, at 252 (1943).

and on other occasions, this Instrumentality Doctrine is bluntly
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, as in MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK
v. FIRST OF OMAHA.  [187]

439 U.S. 308 (1978).

But if the Law of King's Commerce is correctly understood, there
is no need for the Supreme Court to reaffirm anything, as the
circulation of paper money, notes, or the circulation of any
juristic currency, even carrying intrinsic value, in King's
Commerce (as distinguished from privately minted coins and
notes), has always been the closed private domain of the King of
England.  And it has been the exclusive domain of the King ever
since paper money was first printed and circulated by King
Richard II to finance an offensive war against France that
Parliament declined to levy taxes to wage.  [188]

Gremlins have had a few words to say about the utterly heinous
issuance of paper currency:
     "Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes
of mankind, none is so effectual as that which deludes them with
paper money.  It is the most perfect expedient ever invented for
fertilizing the rich man's fields by the sweat of the poor man's
brow.  Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation, these
bear lightly on the happiness of the community compared with
fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated
paper.  Our own history has recorded enough, and more than
enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice and
intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well disposed, of a
degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way
countenanced by Government."
     -    Gremlin Nelson W. Aldrich, United States Senator, at a
New York City dinner speech on October 15, 1913 (two months
before his pet Federal Reserve System was passed by the Congress
to create the very conditions he fraudulently represented to
at 38 [Columbia University, New York (1914)].

So the circulation of paper money by Gremlins through the
instrumentality of kings, was born in tortious fraud intended to
damage people, and was designed to accomplish in the practical
setting (the damages of taxation by Inflation) what was not
accomplished legally on the Floor of Parliament by common
consent.  [189]

When the United States Congress removed the last remaining
attachment of paper Federal Reserve notes to gold reserve
requirements in 1968 -- the Gremlins were there.  From out of his
nest on the 17th Floor of the Chase Manhattan Bank descended one
David Rockefeller on Congress, taking his jet and making his
attack sortie on Washington with Gremlin enscrewment in mind --
whose very appearance itself at a Committee Hearing was designed
to make an important Statement:  That we Gremlins now hold the
upper hand in the United States, and our grand plans for monetary
enscrewment will no longer be restrained on account of some
lingering silly little anachronistic gold ratio requirements left
over from another era.  This is the modern age with computers,
Congress, and you just don't need to concern yourself none with
that old medieval stuff.  See the "Statement of David
Rockefeller" in the GOLD COVER HEARINGS ["Hearings Before the
Committee on Banking and Commerce of the United States Senate"],
at page 141, 90th Congress, Second Session ["Repeal of Gold
Reserve Requirement"] (January, 1968)].

So paper money has been designed from the outset to damage
people, and the unnecessary circulation of paper money today in
the United States carries along with it identical underlying
enscrewment objectives.  [190]

The Legal Tender Acts, enacted during the Civil War, were billed
as a war measure:
     "... to handle the vast amount of means necessary for the
prosecution of this war, to enable the people to pay in and the
Government to pay out, we must have a larger and more abundant
currency that we have heretofore found to be necessary.  The
accustomed currency is wholly inadequate.  The Government has for
many years used only gold and silver for this purpose...  The
business of the Government and the business of the country
require some substitute for coin.  We must therefore create a new
[paper]... currency.  We must therefore create a public debt,
establish a currency, and impose new taxes."
     -    Speech by Representative John Crisfield of Maryland,
favoring enactment of the Legal Tender Statutes [CONGRESSIONAL
GLOBE, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 43 et seq.
(February 5, 1862)].

Back in an era when the United States was the American Colonies,
the Framers to our Constitution never abated or restricted the
King's standing right to issue out his own money or to declare
that someone else's money or notes are legal and tender for those
debts existing under the King's General Commerce Jurisdiction;
and neither did the Framers ever restrict the King's right to
delegate any or all of the circulating process to a third party
The Supreme Court has ruled often that the Constitution of the
United States must be applied today in light of English Common
Law then in effect at the time the Declaration of Independence
was executed, and properly so.  [191]

     -    UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649, at 645
     -    VEAZIE BANK v. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533 (1869);
     -    LOCKE v. NEW ORLEANS, 71 U.S. 172 (1866), etc.

     "... Congress possesses all of the powers which existed in
the States before the adaption of the National Constitution, and
which have always existed in the Parliament in England."  [192]

GILMAN v. PHILADELPHIA, 70 U.S. 713, at 725 (1865).

So let us briefly examine English Common Law and see just what
type of monetary powers the King of England had.  Consider the
following words from a landmark case in 1604:  [193]

I call this a "landmark" case because it was later cited by the
Supreme Court of the United States in the LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79
U.S. 457, at 548 (1871).

     "as the king by his prerogative may make money of what
matter and form he pleaseth, and establish the standard of it, so
may he change his money in substance and impression, and enhance
or debase the value of it, or entirely decry and annul it...
     "And so it is manifest, that the kings of England have
always had and exercised the prerogative  of coining and changing
the form, and when they found it expedient of enhancing and
debasing the value of money within their dominions; and this
prerogative is allowed and approved not only by the common law,
but also by the rules of the imperial law."  [194]

CASE OF MIXED MONEY, Sir John Davies Reporter, at page 48 (1604).

And so if the King of England had the right to invoke Sovereignty
Jurisdiction to circulate debased currency, then so also does the
Congress of the United States now have similar Sovereignty
Jurisdiction, absent an explicit and blunt jurisdictional
restraining mandate to the contrary in this charter, the
Constitution -- paper currency restrainment language which does
not exist.  [195]

Yes, the Congress can do whatever it feels like with issuing
currency, as an attribute of its sovereignty:
     "Congress, as the legislature of a sovereign nation, being
expressly empowered by the constitution to lay and collect taxes,
pay the debts, and provide for a common defense... [and also] to
charter national banks, and to provide a national currency for
the whole people in the form of coin, treasury notes, and
national bank bills, and [also has] the power to make the notes
of the Government a legal tender in payment of private debts
being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other
civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress by
the Constitution..."
     -JULLIARD v. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421, at 466 (1884).

Nowhere in our Constitution did the Framers state that "no paper
currency shall issue out of Congress," or "circulating currency
is required to physically contain gold and silver," and Patriot
arguments to the effect that Article I, Section 10 constitutes
such a restrainment are defective, as I will explain later on.
Nor did the Framers state that "monetary matters reside
exclusively within the Congress, and cannot be delegated..."  Are
you beginning to see what happens when some agreement is reduced
into writing?  With the passage of time, oral expectations in
effect at the time the agreement was executed diminish away into
nothingness, and only the exact, literal content of the
agreement, as written, means anything.  [196]

Earlier, I mentioned that Contracts we enter into now down here
with Heavenly Father overrule and supersede our First Estate
Contracts, and that the First Estate Contracts then fade away in
significance.  The Principe of Law that this is based on is
called by business lawyers in Commerce as the MERGER DOCTRINE,
contracts that we enter into today overrule and extinguish
contracts entered into in a previous era; in other words, the
most recent contract absorbs previous contracts.  The application
of this MERGER DOCTRINE is found in many settings.  For example,
in real estate transactions, just as the old prior oral
negotiations between a Seller and a Purchaser are washed out by
the Deed [23 AM JUR Deeds Section 261], so too do oral
precontract negotiations loose their identity and existence as
those negotiations later unite in the confluence of the written
contract [PRICE v. BLOCK, 124 F.2nd 738].  This MERGER DOCTRINE
is a correct Principle of Nature I touched on in the Armen Condo
Letter [that Commercial contracts we enter into today with the
King overrule the restrainments resident in the Constitution of
1787], and this Principle now operates, and has operated, in all
factual settings.  The MERGER DOCTRINE recognizes that there are
different levels of importance or priorities in NATURE, and what
is done in the past is always of less significance than what is
done in the present (which is simply reason, logic and COMMON
SENSE); so lesser important contracts from out of the past,
together with their lingering oral expectations and the like,
fade away in significance as they are MERGED into contracts of
greater importance:
     "Whenever a greater Estate and a less [Estate] coincide and
meet in one and the same person, without any intermediate estate,
the less is immediately annihilated; or, in the law phrase, is
said to be merged, that is, sunk or drowned in the greater."
When corporations are said to MERGE, what actually happens is
that the two independent corporations lose their existence
altogether as separate entities having separate assets,
liabilities, franchises, legal rights, and powers; and are
totally absorbed into the new single corporation [see MORRIS v.
INVESTMENT LIFE INSURANCE, 272 N.E.2nd 105, at 108].
And since NATURE, so called, merely replicates the mind, will and
intention of its great Creator, the Principle of Nature that
lawyers practicing Commercial Law call the MERGER DOCTRINE, also
applies to have our great contemporary Celestial Contracts with
Father overrule and wash out our lessor previous existence First
Estate Contracts.  Yes, when you know the Law in one setting, you
know the Law in all settings, as nothing changes from one factual
setting to the next.

Today when we enter into contracts with one another down here, as
unforeseen circumstances surface later on, regrets are always
quietly expressed about how this or that should have been
originally included into the agreement.  It was that way with
Moses and the Ten Commandments, it was that way with the United
States Constitution of 1787, and this attribute of Nature [of
people enlarging their basis of factual knowledge over time, and
therefore also changing their desires] remains in full force and
effect down to the present day with Commercial contracts.  An
honest assessment of the Framers would suggest that they were
unable to guard against all possible evils, since they simply did
not have, then, the exposure to the magnitude of evil that we
have had thrown at us today.

But as for currency, [197]

When words have several different meanings, the word is said to
be an ENTENTE.  In Law, the word CURRENCY is such an ENTENTE.
Over a period of time, words change meaning as new factual
circumstances surface to alter the use or perspective of
     "The meaning of words changes.  It is curious to note how
many words wholly lose their original or etymological meaning,
and from usage and change of circumstances acquire sometimes an
opposite and often a different meaning...  The common legal word
INDORSE, from the Latin IN, upon, and DORSUM, the back.  It used
to be applied literally and strictly to a writing upon the BACK
of a paper.  It is now well settled that a good instrument may be
made on the FACE of a bill or note."
     -    PILMER v. STATE BANK, 16 Iowa Reporter 321, at 329
And on one hand, speaking like an economist, CURRENCY has been
defined to be:
     "Currency is capital seeking investment.  While invested, it
takes the form of money, or of promises to deliver money on
demand, but so soon as it is invested, it loses its character of
currency, and assumes that of stocks, houses, or commodities."
     -    Hugh Carey in ANSWER TO THE CURRENCY QUESTION, at page
6 [Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia (1840); RARE BOOK COLLECTION,
University of Rochester, Seward Collection #410].
Before the Civil War there were actually few United States
Treasury Notes floating around the Countryside, as Currency at
that time, because the King's LEGAL TENDER ACTS had not yet been
enacted, and the King had not yet decided that the time had come
to pull another grab and enact penal statutes to create a
national exclusive monopoly on currency instruments for himself.
Privately minted coins, bank notes, and mining company script,
and the like, then constituted the nation's currency.  With that
in mind, the Illinois Supreme Court once defined CURRENCY as:
     "By the term currency is understood bank bills, or other
paper money issued by authority, which pass as and for coin...
In the case of JUDAH v. HAINS [19 J.R. 144], the Court decided
that a note, payable in bank notes current in the City of New
York, was a valid note.  The Court said they will take notice
that notes current in the City of New York are of cash value
throughout the State, and are distinguished by those words from
other bank notes, which are received at a discount, and hence it
is immaterial whether the notes of banks of other States might be
tendered in payment, provided they are current in the City of New
York; in that case they are considered cash, equally with the
current bills of this State.
     "From those authorities, it would seem that current bills,
or currency, are of the value of cash, and exclude the idea of
depreciated money.  If, then, currency is taken as and for coin,
it follows that such is its value..."
     -    RICHARD SWIFT v. JAMES WHITNEY, 20 Illinois 144, at
146 (1840).
The Supreme Court of Iowa once wrestled with a definition of
     "Currency is bank bills or other paper money which passes as
a circulating medium in the business community as, and for, the
constitutional coin of the country.  The term 'current funds'
means currency money, par funds, or money circulating without any
     "The word CURRENCY is, as we have seen, far from having a
settled, fixed and precise meaning.  And even if it had such a
meaning in general, it might acquire in certain localities, or
among certain classes, a different signification."
     -    PILMER v. STATE BANK, 16 Iowa Reporter 321, at 328
And in more recent times, the King, having sealed up with his gun
barrel muscle tactics a national monopoly on circulating currency
instruments, an Appellate Court in Illinois now changed the
meaning of CURRENCY once again:
     "Currency has been defined as funds or money circulating in
the business community without any discount, excluding the idea
of depreciated paper money."
     -    JAKE LESS v. S. ALPORT, 217 Illinois Appellate 14, at
17 (1920).
Here in the 1980's, the editors of BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY,
functioning as the Government Billboards in the sense that the
focus point of everything is always juristic:  Some slice of LEX
over here, or some Case over there.  Continuing on with their
Government center of gravity on everything the way they do,
BLACK'S defines CURRENCY as only to include those coins,
banknotes, and paper money that the King has officially
recognized in his Legal Tender LEX [as if either we or our
Fathers in the 1800's really needed the King]:
     "CURRENCY:  Coined money and such banknotes or other paper
money as are authorized by law and do in fact circulate from hand
to hand as the medium of exchange.  See... LEGAL TENDER [no cases
are cited]."
     -    BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Edition.
When those cases from the 1800's stated that CURRENCY meant Notes
[and NOTES are promises to pay] that are exchanged AT PAR, what
they mean is that those paper Notes carry an immediate or CURRENT
maturity date.  To redeem a Note AT PAR meant to receive 100%
exchange for the Face Value that was stated on the Note; if the
Note stated the Face Value of 10 Gold Eagles, then if the Note
was redeemed AT PAR 10 Gold Eagles would then be your's; if
redeemed at 90% of par, then 9 Gold Eagles would be your's.
Therefore, when the Maturity Date was current (immediate), the
Note could be exchanged for gold or silver AT PAR, if in fact you
wanted the coin instead of the Note.  If the Note was
exchangeable for hard coin say, one or five years out in the
future, then such a Note was not CURRENT, and would only be
exchanged for coin at below par (the percentage differential
between the par and the sub-par negotiated was the interest
carrying cost the new Note holder had to bear while he sat and
waited for the Maturity Date to arrive).  But today, BLACK'S has
done away with all of this, we have Legal Tender statutes now in
the modern era, and you just don't need to concern yourself with
none of that privately minted stuff.

itself as we now have it, synchronous with King Richard II's
unsuccessful conquest against France in the 1300's (and long
before the King of England's chartering of the Bank of England in
1694 under Gremlin prompting and intellectual guidance), [198]

The King modeled his bank after the BANK OF AMSTERDAM.  Before
the Bank of England was established, English mercantile writers
such as Sir Josiah Childe and Thomas Yaranton placed the Crown on
notice that "... the Amsterdam bank was of so immense advantage
to them..." because Dutch Government Debt Instruments "... go in
Trade equal with Ready Money, yea, better in many parts of the
World than Money." [quoted by Dickerson in THE FINANCIAL
CREDIT, 1688-1756, at page 5 (MacMillian Company, London, 1967)].
The Bank of Amsterdam had begun as a Warehouse for the safe
storage of gold and silver belonging largely to Merchants.  A
Merchant would deposit his precious metal for safekeeping, with a
receipt given in return; and the banker charged a fee for the
safekeeping.  But soon a few Merchants wanted the receipts to be
divisible, because they wanted to negotiate just the receipt
itself, without having to bother making arrangements to
physically arrange an exchange of the gold or silver.  While the
Merchants were looking at ways to save time here and there, the
bankers themselves were developing a few ideas of their own; the
bankers noticed that only some small percentage of the gold and
silver actually came and went in and out the doors, so they
started to loan out gold that was not theirs.  Now this was
getting interesting -- charging both for the storage and also
collecting interest on the property of others; and its allure
attracted the attention of a Gremlin, Mr. John Law, who used this
concept as a basis for developing a Government monetary theory
similar to what Gremlin John Maynard Keynes would be writing
about two centuries later:
     "This theory [of John Law's] was that the economic system of
that day was being starved because of insufficient supplies of
money.  And using the Bank of Amsterdam as a model, he had a
scheme for producing all the money a nation needed."
     -    John Flynn in MEN OF WEALTH, at 51 [Simon and Schuster,
New York (1941)].
For nearly two decades, John Law shopped his theories around
European Juristic Institutions, with his plans falling on death
ears, but one day a window opened for his intrigues to be used.
After King Louis the 14th of France had depleted his Treasury
funds in 1716, he turned to John Law who he had previously
rebuffed.  John Law established the BANQUE GENERALE with himself
at the top; soon it was named the ROYAL BANK with a monopoly
charter granted on the issuance of money -- and John Law issued
bales of paper money, and so, not surprisingly, prosperity was
     "It is not to be wondered that for a few brief months Paris
hailed the magician who had produced all these rabbits from his
hat.  Crowds followed his carriage.  People struggled to get a
glimpse of him.  The nobles of France hung around his anteroom,
begging a word from him."
     -    MEN OF WEALTH, id., at 75.
John Law followed the Gremlin script for enscrewment right down
the line; all gold and silver was accumulated in the hands of his
ROYAL BANK; public ownership of gold was outlawed; devaluations
transpired; inflation mounted and illiquidity was in the air as
debt instruments began to be difficult to service.  John Law fled
France in 1720, with the mobs who had once hailed him for being a
financial genius now calling for his head.  If this economic
scenario sounds at all familiar to you, it should, because
Gremlins find it unnecessary to change, alter, modify, or
rearrange their MODUS OPERANDI with the passage of time, as they
go about their work running one civilization into the ground
after another:
     "As a NEW DEALER [John Law] was not greatly different in one
respect from the apostles of the mercantilist school -- the
Colberts, the Roosevelts, the Daladiers, the Hitlers and
Mussolinis... who sought to create income and work by state-
fostered public works and who labored to check the flow of gold
away from their borders.  He introduced something new, however,
that the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Roosevelts, the Daladiers
and the Chamberlains have imitated -- the creation of funds for
these purposes through the instrumentalities of the modern bank.
Law is the precursor of the inflationist redeemers."
     -    MEN OF WEALTH, id.
So the Bank of England was modeled after the Bank of Amsterdam
which had been created early in the 1600's, and the Dutch bank in
turn had been modeled after the Bank of Venice [as reported by
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, at page 25; McGraw Hill, New York (1968)].
The Bank of England became so successful at selling Government
debt instruments that it soon became the prototype for public
banks where looters in other nations sought similar objectives of
grabbing more money for themselves without having to ask their
subjects for it.  Under the direction of a series of astute
financial moves, England's new Bank quickly created investor
confidence in Government funded debt instruments, enabling the
Crown to borrow large sums of money at steadily declining rates
of interest, rather than go through the nuisance and irritation
of raising taxes dramatically.  Writing in THE SPECTATOR, Joseph
Addison once compared Government credit loans to:
     "... a beautiful Virgin seated upon a throne of Gold
possess'd of the powers of a Croesus to convert whatever she
pleas'd into that precious Metal [CROESUS was a King of Lydia in
the 6th Century, B.C., and possessed vast wealth; hence CROESUS
means any fabulously wealthy man.]
     -    quoted by Dickerson in THE FINANCIAL REVOLUTION IN
inside the front page [MacMillian Company, London, 1967)].

The special SUB ROSA relationship that was developed between the
circulation in King's Commerce of paper money by the King and a
grand Tort the King intends to work, still remains in full force
and effect down to the present day in the United States.  [199]

"The history of the law of money evidences a constant struggle
between the customs of trade and the doctrine of freedom of
contract, on the one hand, and on the other, the exercise of the
political power for the needs of Government or the relief of
private debtors [meaning banking Gremlins]."
     -    Phanor J. Eder, writing in "Legal Theories of Money,"
20 CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY 52, at 53 (1934).

Anglo-Saxon Kings have a long history of never bothering to stop
pulling off whatever they can get away with.  [200]

There is some value in turning around and looking back at the
past to uncover the movements of men in other ages, because once
their behavior in that setting is known, then the real meaning of
the movements of men today are exposed:
     "If we consider the shortness of human life, and our limited
knowledge, even of what passes in our own time, we must be
sensible that we should be forever children in understanding,
were it not for this invention, which extends our experience to
all past ages, and to the most distant nations; making them
contribute as much to our improvement in wisdom, as they had
actually laid under our observation.  A man acquainted with
history may, in some respect, be said to have lived from the
beginning of the world, and to have been making continual
additions to his stock of knowledge in every country."
     -    David Hume in PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS ["Of the Study of
History"], at page 390; [Longmans Green, London (1898); Greene
and Grosse, Editors].
But Anglo-Saxon Kings are not the only looters to play this game.
For a discussion of Monetary Debasement being pulled off in B.C.
times, see the writings of Phanor J. Eder in THE GOLD CLAUSE
CASES IN LIGHT OF HISTORY, 23 Georgetown Law Journal 369, at page
722 (Part II) (1935).

For example, in the 1500's, the King of England (actually Queen
Elizabeth) ordered a debasement of Britain's national currency
for the express purpose of working a Tort on rebels in Ireland.
This carefully planned currency debasement was explicitly
designed to damage these Irish adversaries of the Crown as an act
of war.  When these debased coins were issued out all over
England to the public at large, they became known as MIXED MONEY
due to the novel alloy composition in the coins, meaning a hybrid
of part precious and part ordinary metals.  This degenerate mixed
money was then sent by the King of England to Ireland as a covert
war military measure against the rebels there.  The rebels were
buying supplies abroad, and they were making their purchases by
using valuable Britannic gold and silver coins, which always had
an international allure to them, and properly so.  So the King
decided that the best way to stop the rebels from making their
arms purchases would be by making their money unattractive to
their suppliers, foreign gun runners.  In making their purchases
of guns and armaments, the rebels had been obtaining their gold
and silver English Crown coins from loyal British subjects in the
course of ordinary dealings, and those subjects in turn had
received it from Queen Elizabeth's soldiers and others
functioning as Crown distribution agents.  So the King, knowing
what he does about using both devalued coin and soft paper
currency to damage adversaries, simply reduced the value of the
money the rebels were getting, by clever debasement.  Although
debasing the currency to damage a rebel out in some remote place
carries the secondary consequence of damaging loyal subjects who
mean the Crown no harm; so as to not offend the Crown's subjects,
the Queen promised to redeem this debased money at face value
later on [sound familiar today?]  [201]

The Queen died shortly after making this promise to her subjects,
but her successor honored her commitment.  See Simon, HISTORICAL
ACCOUNT OF IRISH COINS, at page 38 (1749).

But as for the rebels in Ireland, now the debased Crown coins
were being rejected by the foreign gun runners as payment for
goods they had been selling to the rebels, and so, as the
supplies to the rebels were cut off at the source in this slick
and clever way, the plans for conquest by the rebels was
frustrated.  [202]

For additional Commentary on the use of debased currency against
the Irish rebels, see generally, John Hannigan, THE MONETARY AND
LEGAL TENDER ACTS OF 1933-34 AND THE LAW, 14 Boston University
Law Review 485, at 504 (1934).

The English Case of 1604 that I had quoted from above called THE
MIXED MONEY CASE was a challenge to the authority of the King of
England to pull off what he did against Irish rebels, and as you
read above in a quotation from the Case, the Judiciary has
declared that it is a Sovereign prerogative of the King to debase
his own currency, whenever and however the King feels like it.
[And rather than snicker at Judges today for tossing aside your
challenges to paper money, the correct remedy lies in writing
explicit and blunt restraining language into the King's Charter
(the Constitution), but our Framers in 1787 never did that; and
the Framers of 1787 did not write in such explicit and blunt
restrainments for a very good reason; Because there was strong
reservations expressed on the floor of the Convention on whether
such proposed restrainments were really provident.  [203]

"Once the Convention was under way, proposals that the Federal
Government be given the power to coin money and fix its value and
that both the Federal and State Governments be vested with
authority to emit bills of credit triggered heated debate over
the appropriate limits of governmental monetary power."
XLII Brooklyn Law Review 479, at 489 (1976).  See generally, Max
[Yale University Press (1937)], 4 volumes.
So what we are left with today is the milktoast of Article I,
Section 10.

That Mixed Money Case was a sleeper, as our Framers never
correctly designed the Constitution to repel this special type of
quiet SUB ROSA political aggression; and 250 years later, that
Mixed Money Case surfaced in the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the context of justifying the Civil War era Legal
Tender Acts.  [204]

THE LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U.S. 457, at 548 (1871).

Down to the present day, the excitement of war is used as a
justification to either initiate or continue one more turn in
Gremlin enscrewment objectives.  [205]

Professors Peacock and Wiseman correctly point out that a
Government's call for a spirit of sacrifice leads to the general
acceptance of a higher tax rate at the end of a major war, rather
than at the beginning of the war [see A.T. Peacock and J. Wiseman
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1961);] but as is the
caliber of collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA, never is there any
discussion of the quiet movements of Gremlins in the shadows
directing the administrative operations of their nominees that
they had previously planted and placed in political
jurisdictions; and so as a result, the true illicit nature of the
LEX designed to create Special Interest benefits and damages not
related to legitimate juristic police power operations, remains
obscured.  The last annulment institution in the United States
for illicit LEX, the Supreme Court, is moving in the right
direction generally, but they still need some fine tuning:
     "The requirement of a legitimate public purpose guarantees
that the State is exercising its police power, rather than
providing a benefit to special interests."
     -    ENERGY RESERVES v. KANSAS POWER, 459 U.S. 400, at 412

So now we should have some minimum discernment to see why
contemporary representations to the effect that gold is just too
unsuitable by its heavy bulk weight to be a modern circulating
denomination of currency, as both fraudulent and factually
defective.  Paper money is characterized by its depreciating
nature.  [206]

"But the history of paper money, without any adequate funds
pledged to redeem it, and resting merely upon the pledge of
national faith, has been in all ages and in all nations the same.
It has constantly become more and more depreciated; and in some
instances has ceased from this cause to have any circulation
whatsoever, whether issued by the irresistible edict of a despot,
or the more alluring order of a republican congress."
page 225 ["Prohibitions - Paper Money"] (Cambridge, 1833).

Fraudulent because people with sinister intentions use debased
currency (and non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes that quietly
lose a little decremental value with each passing year are
debased currency) for political conquest and to damage their
adversaries.  [207]

"... the reader should note especially the 'striking parallels to
modern times' [in comparison to King Solon in 594 B.C., when he
pulled off currency debasement acts by]... military adventures
draining treasuries, threats of national bankruptcy, inflations,
massive liquidations of debt, debasement of all coinage, disputes
over sovereign prerogatives concerning money..."
     -    Henry Holzer, GOVERNMENT'S MONEY MONOPOLY, page 15
[Books in Focus, New York City (1981)].

And such representations are factually defective because the
King's new proposed money (which the Treasury Department has
already quietly circulated prototypes of) has thin strips of
metal imbedded in between layers of paper, and those strips of
metal could just as easily have been alloyed with gold and silver
if our King wanted it -- but no, our King is not quite through
with his MAGNUM Tortfeasance, not just yet.  [208]

Down to the present day, pleas and petitions for a reinstatement
of the Gold Standard, of just some type, continuously falls on
death ears in Congress [maybe because that is not OUR Congress].
In December of 1981, the House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs
Committee entertained such a petition [see GRASSROOTS HEARINGS ON
THE ECONOMY, PART III, "Petition for Hearings on HR 391 -- Rhode
Islanders for a Gold Standard," 97th Congress, First Session,
starting at 499 (GPO, 1981)], but the petition was tossed aside
and ignored.

And just as Patriots go right ahead and argue defective reasoning
based on the milktoast language in Article I, Section 10, so too
do Patriots go right ahead and try to argue the line, that well,
since the United States has no express grant of jurisdiction to
create corporations, therefore, the Federal Reserve Board is
unConstitutional for this reason.  I have concluded that if I
were on the Supreme Court, I would uphold the inherent
jurisdiction of the King to organize corporations (or any other
instrumentality that had its own separate treasury, with the King
calling that instrument whatever he feels like).  [209]

"A strange fallacy has crept into the reasoning on this subject.
It has been supposed, that a corporation is some great,
independent thing; and that the power to erect it is a great,
substantive, independent power; whereas in truth, a corporation
is but a legal capacity, quality, or means to an end; and the
power to erect it is, or may be, an implied and incidental power.
A corporation is never the end, for which other powers are
exercised; but a means, by which other objects are accomplished."
131, ["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).

That idea of a separate treasury is important to the Supreme
Court, since that is the determining logic behind their rulings
making municipalities exempt from the 11th Amendment, which
otherwise operates to immunize actions against states.  [210]

LAKE COUNTY ESTATES, 440 U.S. 391, at 401 (1978).

My reasoning comes from a confluence of factors.  First, getting
a feel for the lack of specificity in the Framer's drafting of
the Constitution; for example, no where is the King given
permission to hire employees, to excavate sites for office
buildings, to sign leases, or to purchase assets or land in
foreign lands, etc.  In examining those areas where the Supreme
Court has ruled on inherent meanings of Clauses, they have ruled,
for example, that the "Adversary Nature" of criminal prosecutions
is inherent in the Sixth Amendment [MIRANDA v. ARIZONA and the
counsel cases], and that Courts created by the United States have
inherent Contempt jurisdiction, regardless of the absence of the
conferment of any such jurisdiction.  [211]

IN RE:  RUSSO, 53 Federal Rules Decisions 564 (United States
District Court, 1971).

And on and on.  For these reasons there is very much a basis for
an implied grant of jurisdiction for the King to do something,
not otherwise specifically denominated in his Charter.  The test
to be applied to see if some jurisdiction claimed operative by
the King, but not exactly specified anywhere in that
Constitutional Charter of his which breathed life into the King
his breath of juristic life, lies in another strata:  First, is
the challenged LEX even inferentially in conflict with any
restraining mandate the Framers wrote into the Constitution?  In
the limited question of creating corporations, the answer is no,
it isn't.  Next, we shift into the broader question and ask:  Is
the creation of corporations even out of harmony with the LEIT
MOTIF of the Constitution to restrain the King from functioning
as a Tortfeasor?  [212]

"The Bill of Rights is the primary source of expressed
information as to what is meant by Constitutional liberty.  Its
safeguards secure the climate which the Law of Freedom needs in
order to exist.  It is true that they were added to the
Constitution to operate solely against Federal power [BARRON v.
BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243, at 247 (1833)].  But the Fourteenth
Amendment was added in 1868 in response for a demand for national
protection against abuses of State power.  A series of decisions
over the last 25 years has held that many rights were indeed
extended against the states by that Amendment.  It is indeed fair
to say that from 1962 to 1969 the very face of the Law changed.
Those years witnessed the extension to the States of nine of the
specifics of the Bill of Rights, decisions which have profound
impact on American life, requiring the deep involvement of State
courts in the application of Federal Law."
     -    Justice William Brennan in REMARKS, 36 Rutgers Law
Review 725, at 727 (1984).
Patriots and Tax Protestors can carry on all they want with
demanding, and believing, that they posses some Constitutional
Rights, and just like Justice Brennan's REMARKS, there are many
high, noble and lofty characterizations of those Rights available
-- but those REMARKS, together with the Tax Protestor's demands,
are all for naught when one tiny little device surfaces in a
grievance:  A Commercial Contract.  By the end of this Letter the
elevated priority in Nature that contracts ascend to in settling
grievances should become apparent, whenever they are in effect; a
doctrinal concept if unlearned now, Mr. May, will be learned in
on uncertain terms before Father at the Last Day.

Does the challenged act of Congress (creating corporations or
other political instruments with separate treasuries), have the
effect, in the practical setting, of allowing or in any way
assisting the King to function as a Tortfeasor against us
countryside folks?  In other words, does the creation of
privately held corporations by the King, such as the Federal
Reserve System, provide the King with a mechanism to damage us
that he would not otherwise be privileged to do, or able to do in
the practical effect with his own direct employees?  In the case
of creating corporations, or in the creation of separate juristic
organizations with their own treasuries, the administrative form
of the corporation (the wording on the piece of paper that is its
charter) offers no possibility of a Tort on us that could not be
otherwise worked by Executive Agencies operating under direct
Presidential administrative jurisdiction.  This is true even in
the case of the Federal Reserve System.  The Fed is very much a
Tortfeasor in its control over the rate of inflation, [213]

Inflation is a Tort, and can be claimed as such in damage awards.
PFIFER, 462 U.S. 523 (1983).  And Inflation is also a tax, and is
treated as income by the Treasury Department; in the ANNUAL
REPORT of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1919, on page 213,
there lies the interesting admission that the large federal
deficits of 1917 to 1919, totaling then some $23 billion, were
financed by money creation, and other devices.

and in its proclivities to do so; and from its being such a
dominate financial market maker and control of re-discount rates
its Open Market Committee can and will fix rates of interest at
whatever level it feels like; and the Gremlins running the Fed
know very much that they posses considerable power to determine
prosperity levels.  [214]

"The purpose of the Federal Reserve System is to contribute, to
the maximum extent that monetary policy can contribute, to the
achievement of sustained high employment, stable values, and a
rising standard of living for all Americans."
     -    William McChesney Martin, Chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, in THE FEDERAL RESERVE AFTER 50 YEARS ["Hearings
before the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd
Session, Volume I, page 16 [GPO Washington (January and February,

By controlling these financial market forces, the Fed single-
handedly controls the relative level of economic prosperity or
decline in the land.  [215]

Economists watch Fed monetary statistics quite closely, as if
they were national policy tools (which they are).  Statistics
generally targeted for close observation are those two monetary
velocity instruments called M-1 and M-2, as they are indications
of the direction of the future percentage advance of the GNP and
Inflation.  See THE VELOCITY OF MONEY by George Garvey and Martin
Blyn, [Federal Reserve Bank, New York (1969)].  The true point of
origin of all directional changes in the economy necessarily
originates with that institution that controls the aggregate
issuance of its circulating instruments; at the present time,
this is the Fed and its OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE, a fact that the
Congress collectively is well aware of but not always
acknowledged publicly.  See CONDUCT OF MONETARY POLICY in
Hearings before the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs, House of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session,
Serial Number 96-22 (July, 1979), which discusses the cascading
effect of decisions of the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE on multiple
macroeconomic indicia.

If the Fed were an administrative agency under, perhaps, the
Comptroller of the Currency, then all of the regulatory
assertions it now makes over member banks would remain in effect,
and it would still control prosperity through its regulatory
mechanisms.  (Incidentally, the mere absence of prosperity, under
such highly managed and tightly controlled monetary
circumstances, is a Tort against us by the Fed).  [216]

An INTELLIGENTSIA clown once hired by Gremlins to do some writing
for them wrote a few words to talk about the Gremlin perception
of prosperity:
     "An economic system does not have to be expansive -- that
is, constantly increasing its production of wealth -- and it
might well be possible for people to be completely happy in a
nonexpansive economic system if they were accustomed to it.  In
the twentieth century, however, the people of our culture have
been living under expansive conditions for generations.  Their
minds are psychologically adjusted to expansion, and they feel
deeply frustrated unless they are better off each year than they
were the previous year.  The economic system itself has become
organized for expansion, and if it does not expand it tends to
collapse [and when it does collapse, it is because the Gremlins
were there]."
     -    Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 497 [MacMillian
Company, New York (1966)].

If the Federal Reserve were an Article II Executive Agency under
Presidential Jurisdiction (which as a privately owned and
independently managed business entity, it is not), then every
single decision made by the Federal Reserve Board and its Open
Market Committee (and its predecessor) down to the present time,
would still have been made and carried out.  [217]

The Federal Reserve Board is a very handy instrument to massage
economies, create depressions, and run civilizations into the
ground with.  For example, in the late 1920's, there was an era
of speculation in the securities markets of the United States;
after a while in any market, what appears to be SPECULATION will
always surface when rising prices and highly leveraged loans make
their institutionalized appearance on the scene.  Economists,
bureaucratic theorists, and other clowns will cast SPECULATION
into an illicit image, but SPECULATION, so called, is nothing
more than a manifestation of strong prosperity -- and Gremlins do
not want you and I to have sustained protracted prosperity, they
want us to experience economic starvation like they wanted
physical starvation for those millions of Ukrainians who were
murdered in the great manufactured Famine of 1932-33.  Easy high
percentage loans are an important ingredient to create
SPECULATION, so one of the devices used by Rothschild Gremlins to
create a balloon of American speculation was to lower the rate of
interest charged by the Federal Reserve Board to member banks:
     "Nothing did more to spur the boom in stocks than the
decision made by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, in the Spring
of 1927, to cut the rediscount rate.  Benjamin Strong, Governor
of the bank, was chief advocate of this unwise measure, which was
taken largely at the behest of Montagu Norman of the Bank of
England [Montagu Norman was a Rothschild nominee planted in the
Bank of England].  Ostensibly, this easy money policy was
designed to stop the flow of gold out of England [as usual,
DECEPTION is present when Gremlins are running the show].  Its
primary effect, however, was to cause a reevaluation of all
securities [upward], and to further inflate our already
inflationary credit system by making large sums of money
available for financing stock speculation."
     -    Bernard Baruch,, in his autobiography BARUCH:  THE
PUBLIC YEARS, at 221 [Holt Rheinhart & Winston, New York (1960)].
The well known Gremlin economist John K. Galbraith dismisses the
view that the action of the Federal Reserve Board authorities in
cutting the rediscount rate in the Spring of 1927 had much effect
on the elevated speculation which followed, on the grounds that
     "... explanation obviously assumes that people will always
speculate if they can get the money to finance it.  Nothing can
be farther from the truth.  There were times before and there
have been long periods since when credit was plentiful and cheap
-- far cheaper than in 1927 to 1929 -- and when speculation was
negligible.  Nor, as we shall see later, was speculation out of
control after 1927, except that it was beyond the reach of men
who did not want in the least to control it."
     -    John K. Galbraith in THE GREAT CRASH, page 16 [Houghton
Mifflin, Boston (1955)].
SPECULATION is actually fueled by the ability to easily obtain
highly leveraged loans in a market characterized by rapidly
rising prices.  Your analogy of 1927, Mr. Galbraith, to previous
eras is defective because other previous periods of cheap credit
was deficient in possessing the twin important structural
SPECULATION requirements of easily obtainable highly leveraged
loans and rapidly rising prices; if both highly leveraged loans
and rapidly rising prices are not present, then cheap credit
loans will not induce SPECULATION.  And so the failure of cheap
and plentiful credit loans in previous eras to trigger
SPECULATION then, is not relevant and does not negate the highly
stimulating effect that such inexpensive credit loans created in
the American securities markets from 1927 to 1929, since
declining rates of interest very much act as an accelerant on
markets already structurally conditioned for SPECULATION by the
twin important indicia of highly leveraged loans and rapidly
rising prices.  You really are not competent to be an economist,
Mr. Galbraith -- and incidentally, managing SPECULATION, so
called, was very much WITHIN the reach of your brothers who very
much wanted to control it, TOTALLY.  Sorry, Mr. Galbraith, but
you don't do a very good job of covering the tracks of your
Gremlin brothers from the First Estate who, like you, are
repeating the same judgment mistakes now that you made then.
Having created something ILLICIT, having created something that
just NEEDS and IS BEGGING for a corrective solution, Gremlins
acting through their instrumentality, the Federal Reserve Board,
in 1929 now had just the right medicine to fix this wicked
SPECULATION, as one visible Rothschild nominee, Mr. Montagu
Norman, once again made his descent sortie on Washington in
vulture trajectory, and told Andrew Mellon what to do next:
     "... the Federal Reserve Board issued a formal statement
today declaring that it conceived it to be its duty in 'the
immediate situation' to restrain the use, either directly or
indirectly, of Federal Reserve credit facilities in aid of the
froth of speculative credit...
     "No information could be obtained from Mr. Norman or
American officials concerning the purpose of his visit [to
Washington] other than he had come here for a general discussion
of international financial conditions with the System and members
of the [Federal Reserve] Board...
     "All efforts to obtain any further interpretation of the
action of the Federal Reserve Board than that contained in its
formal statement were futile...
     "The decision by the Federal Reserve Board to take so
definite a stand in connection with its attitude towards
speculative activities, was made, it is understood, only after a
conference in which Secretary Mellon, as Chairman [of the Federal
Reserve] EX-OFFICIO participated [meaning that Gremlin Andrew
Mellon DIRECTED, after having received his instructions from the
Rothschilds through Montagu Norman]...
     "The frankness of its announcement today therefore added to
the interest it caused in financial circles."
     -    THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Loan Curb Hinted by Federal
Reserve Board; States Duty in 'the Immediate Situation' is to
restrain Speculative Credit"], page 1 (February 7, 1929).
Who is Montagu Norman?  A Gremlin who was recognized as being
very powerful at that time [Carroll Quigley claims the WALL
STREET JOURNAL for November 11, 1927 characterized Montagu Norman
as "... the currency dictator of Europe."]  Like all good
hardworking Gremlins putting in their honest days' labor, they
are answerable to another person up the line [even the
Rothschilds know from whence their benefits originate]; and like
a few other WORLD CLASS Gremlins, Montagu Norman held the high
honor of running an entire civilization into the ground:
     "... Norman held the position [of CHANCELLOR OF THE
EXCHEQUER] for twenty-four years (1920-1944), during which he
became the chief architect of the liquidation of Britain's global
     -    Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 325 [MacMillian
Company, New York (1966)].
He had brilliance, he had genius, he had SAVIOR-FAIRE, and
Montagu Norman tied it all together with slick Gremlin FINESSE
when he so smoothly ran Great Britain into the ground with so
very few people even knowing that he had done so; and so when
Montagu Norman brought his conquests to other continents, for and
on behalf of his Rothschild sponsors, he would also be leaving
the ruins of those once majestic civilizations with little
indication that he had been there.
The year 1929 started out to be a great year, and American
businessmen had positive expectations [see the many businessmen
quoted through the WALL STREET JOURNAL for January 1, 1929]; but
the world's Gremlins had a few ideas of their own:
     "On February 15, 1929, the Federal Advisory Council adopted
the following resolution:
     "The Council believes that every effort should be made to
correct the present situation in the speculative markets before
resorting to an advance in rates.
     "The Council in reviewing present conditions finds that in
spite of the cooperation of member banks, the measures so far
adopted have not been effective in correcting the present
situation of the money market.  The Council, therefore,
recommends that the Federal Reserve Board permit the Federal
Reserve banks to raise their rediscount rate immediately and
maintain a rate consistent with the cost of commercial credit."
     -    Transcript of the minutes of the 3:10pm Meeting of the
FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL in the Federal Reserve Board Room (April
19, 1929) {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"],
Washington, D.C.}.  The Federal Reserve Board's FEDERAL ADVISORY
COUNCIL was abolished in the 1930's.
The FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL had also met twice earlier that day,
at 10:05am and at 12:10pm.  There had been an ominous atmosphere
of excitement in the air that day:
     "The prospect of further developments of importance in
regard to the Government's attitude on the credit situation
appeared today when members of the Federal Advisory Council...
met in a special session and later held a joint conference with
the Board [the 12:10pm meeting].  Resolutions were adopted by the
Council and transmitted to the Board, but their purport was
closely guarded.  ... An atmosphere of deep mystery was thrown
about the proceedings both by the Board and the Council.  No
advance announcement had been made that an extraordinary session
of the Council was contemplated, and in fact that the members
were in the city became known only when newspaper correspondents
happened to see some of them entering the Treasury Department
building.  Even after that evasive replies were given, until it
became apparent that such tactics were futile...  While the joint
meeting was in progress at the Treasury Department, every effort
was made to guard the proceedings and a group of newspaper
correspondents were asked to leave the corridor.  The meeting of
the Council attracted particular attention in view of the fact
that it had met here in regular session on February 14th, a week
following the Reserve Board's warning statement against the
excessive use of Reserve System credit in speculative operations
on the stock market."
     -    THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Reserve Council Confers in Haste:
Atmosphere of Mystery is Thrown About Its Meeting in
Washington"], page 9 (April 20, 1929).
A month later, one more Gremlin turn of the screws was
administered to the economy:
     "The Federal Advisory Council has reviewed carefully the
credit situation.  It continues to agree with the view of the
Federal Reserve Board as expressed in its statement of February
5, 1929 that 'an excessive amount of the country's credit has
been absorbed in speculative security loans.'  The policy pursued
by the Federal Reserve Board has had a beneficial effect due
largely to the loyal cooperation of the banks of the country.
The efforts in this direction should be continued, but the
Council notes that while the total amount of Federal Reserve
credit being used has been reduced, 'the amount of the country's
credit absorbed in speculative security loans' has not been
substantially lowered.
     "Therefore, the Council recommends to the Federal Reserve
Board that the time has come to grant permission to raise the
rediscount rates to six percent to those Federal Reserve Banks
requesting it, thus bringing the rediscount rates into closer
relation with generally prevailing commercial money rates.  The
Council believes that improvement in financial conditions and a
consequent reduction of the rate structure will thereby be
brought about more quickly, thus best safeguarding commerce,
industry, and agriculture."
     -    Resolution approved by the FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, in
its 2:30pm Meeting on May 21, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal
Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.
While the Gremlins controlling the Federal Reserve were busy
raising interest rates, the analytical staff of the Federal
Reserve was cognizant of the extreme economic damages such an
elevated rate of interest was doing to Commerce, Industry, and
Agriculture [directly contrary to the beneficial effect claimed
by the Federal Advisory Council]:
     "The higher money rates do not appear to have restricted
short term commercial borrowings, but in a number of ways the
present high level of money rates is beginning to have a
detrimental effect upon business.
     "1.  The volume of building operations has been declining
largely because of difficulty in obtaining second mortgage money
and loans for building operations and also difficulty in selling
real estate bonds.  Stock financing which has been resorted to in
some cases has only partly met the requirements.
     "2.  A good many state, municipal, railway and other
projects, ordinarily financed through bonds and notes, have been
postponed because of difficulty in securing at reasonable
     "3.  Reduced foreign financing in the United States... are
diminishing the purchasing power of those countries for our
products, a tendency which is likely to be reflected sooner or
later in reduced exports.
     "It thus seems reasonably certain that present money
conditions, if long continued, will have a seriously detrimental
effect upon business conditions, and the longer they are
continued the more serious will be the effect.  The volume of
business now appears to be sustained in part by the production of
automobiles considerably in excess of retail purchases with a
consequent stimulating effect upon the steel industry..."
COMMITTEE ["Effects on Business"]; Prepared for the 5:00pm
Meeting of the Fed's Open Market Investment Committee on April 1,
1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"],
Washington, D.C.}.
In September of 1929, the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE would be warning
     "... there are some indications of a possible impending
Six months earlier in April, the economy was still experiencing
the stimulating effect of surplus automobile production, but by
September, now automobile manufacturing was going to the dogs:
     "Building activity has been reduced still further;
automobile production has been receding, and steel production has
reflected these tendencies."
And as for the claimed STIMULATING effect high rates of interest
would be having on agriculture, in fact Gremlin enscrewment was
beginning to produce its desired objective of damages:
     "The size of the year's crops is expected to be generally
smaller than a year ago.  With higher prices the total return to
the farmer may be not short of a year ago...  The continued
pressure on the credit situation has also been reflected by
increasing reports from some localities of difficulties of
agriculture in securing an adequate supply of credit."
     -    All three quotations are from the MINUTES OF THE OPEN
MARKET INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, September 24, 1929 {National
Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.
That greasy little Gremlin, Paul Warburg, very much had his nose
in all of this.  He slipped into a FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Meeting that was held on May 21, 1929, as the alternate for W.C.
Potter, and he made a Statement and engaged in conversation that
Walter Lichtenstein, Council Secretary, did not feel like
The combined effect of the many manipulative devices pulled by
Gremlins in the Fed in the latter 1920's was a great contraction
in the economy [see generally a protracted chapter called "The
1867-1960 by Milton Friedman [Princeton University Press,
Princeton (1963)].

The only existential reason for the Fed's corporate
organizational legal structure lies in the fact that the Fed was
sponsored, as you know, by a Special Interest Group for their own
private enrichment:  [218]

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect
liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent.  Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of the liberty
by evil-minded rulers.  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
     -    Justice Louis Brandeis in OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES,
277 U.S. 438, at 479 (1927).
Although the Gremlins who sneaked the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT through
Congress were by no means well meaning, they did try to convey
the image that this piece of legislation was so oriented.

A network of Gremlins operating under the intellectual aegis of
Rothschild nominee Paul Warburg and associates, who prodded and
tricked an otherwise reticent and naive Congress into enacting
the initiating legislation in 1913.  [219]

Greasy little Gremlins like Paul Warburg are steeped in the
strategic use of deception as a tool to accomplish their
objectives; and like the mentor from the First Estate, Lucifer,
they find many circumstances come to pass where the use of such
deception has yielded impressive immediate benefits -- yet Father
continues to warn against it.  This deceptive intellectual
orientation of Gremlins has been so ingrained in them from the
First Estate, that Gremlins find the accurate presentation of
facts now to be very difficult to construct.  This deception
surfaced, for example, when one Gremlin was speaking highly of
another Gremlin:
     "... it is known only to a very few exactly how great is the
indebtedness of the United States to Mr. Warburg.  For it may be
stated without fear of contradiction that in its fundamental
features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more
than any other man in the country... the Federal Reserve Act has
frankly accepted the principles of the Aldrich bill; and these
principles... were the creation of Mr. Warburg and Mr. Warburg
alone...  But having set out on the task [to create the Federal
Reserve], there was no stopping [Paul Warburg], and from year to
year essay upon essay flowed from his facile pen, giving more
precision and point to his fundamental principles until he was
recognized as the real leader in the new movement.  The Federal
Reserve Act will be associated in history with the name of Paul
     -    Gremlin Edwin Seligman offering introductory remarks in
[Columbia University, New York (April, 1914)]; there then follows
numerous essays written by Paul Warburg praising the circulation
of paper currency and the Federal Reserve System.
Yet Paul Warburg did not intellectually create the Federal
Reserve System -- the Rothschilds did, but the Rothschilds wanted
to stay in the background and blend themselves into the shadowy
corners of Europe; Paul Warburg was hired by them to take all the
flack among those who could be expected to probe a little deeper
in searching for the Fed's Gremlin sponsors.
     "Paul Warburg is the man who got the Federal Reserve Act
together after the Aldrich Plan aroused such nationwide
resentment and opposition.  The mastermind of both plans was
Baron Alfred Rothschild of London."
     -    Elisha Garrison in ROOSEVELT, WILSON AND THE FEDERAL
RESERVE LAW [Christopher Publishing Housing, Boston (1931)].

Designed by Gremlins the way it was, [220]

The illicit statutory sponsorship of the Federal Reserve Board is
often disputed by collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA clowns who, without
possessing any factual elements to countermand the background
workings of determined Gremlins, continue to point to Congress
itself as the institution responsible for the creation of the
Federal Reserve.  Gremlin Paul Warburg himself has had a few
words to say about just where the true origin of statutes is to
be found:
     "I am told that Congress and the State Legislatures make the
laws...  Instead of saying that legislators make the laws, it
would be far more correct to say that legislatures merely put the
finishing touches on the law.  To say that they "make the laws"
is like saying that the books are made by bookbinders, forgetting
that there are authors, printers, and proofreaders too.
     "... The motive power in lawmaking is all supplied from
somewhere outside the legislative halls...  Some intellect
outside the realm of active politics first conceives an idea.  It
spreads to the minds of other individuals, slowly at first, but
gradually gaining momentum.  Presently there is an organized
movement in its favor; then comes the deluge of propaganda, until
the proposal becomes an issue and the politicians begin to take
note of it.  A law is half made, and more than half made, when a
large body of aggressive support has been mobilized among the
voters; yet during this part of the process the legislative
bodies have nothing whatever to do with it."
     -    Gremlin Paul Warburg explaining himself in Volume I THE
Company, New York (1930)].

and because of its private corporate ownership and lack of public
accountability to the Congress and to the public.  [221]

General Public accountability of the Fed is appropriate to the
extent that the Fed has been endowed by its creator with a
limited juristic mission in monetary areas touching a general
public interest; and one of the most important instruments of
Federal Reserve power lies in the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE.
Numerous attempts just to get some minimal public dissemination
on transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings has
fallen on death ears; shrouding their daily maneuverings behind a
veil of secrecy -- a veil they would like to maintain erected for
as long as possible (time has a way of greatly diminishing the
possible adverse reaction that unfavorable information triggers).
The Congress was once propositioned with the idea of requiring
the FOMC to publish publicly, detailed minutes of their meetings.
In trying to disable the Congress from doing this, an old Gremlin
stratagem was relied upon:  Agree with the necessity for the idea
being expounded (so now your adversary is off guard), but create
impediments to the idea by raising technical reservations that
appear to be difficult to overcome and otherwise discredit the
idea as being infeasible for some technical reason.  And in
overcoming HR 4478, this is just what Gremlins in the Fed did
(Gremlins do not want Government in the sunshine) [see the
testimony of imp bureaucrat Fredrick Schultz as he said he agreed
with the objectives, but then turned around and threw technical
reservations at the idea to try and discredit the idea on its
Before a Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy on HR 4478 of
the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs"], 97th
Congress, First Session (September, 1981)].

The Fed has never been audited by the GAO, [222]

"It is no secret that I have long been concerned about the
aloofness of the Federal Reserve from both the executive branch
and the Congress.  Although the Federal Reserve System is a
creature of Congress, it is not subject to any of the usual
Government budgetary, auditing and appropriations procedures."
     -    Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Committee on
["Hearings before the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance"], 88th
Congress, 2nd Session, Volume 1, page 8 [GPO, Washington, D.C.
(January and February, 1964)].

the Fed as a privately owned corporation is able to provide its
European owners with an exceptionally lush American gold mine
they would not otherwise experience if title to Federal Reserve
stock were ever to be reclaimed by the Congress under EMINENT
DOMAIN JURISDICTION, or simple repeal, or repurchased under a
reservation in its charter.  [223]

But don't expect such a repurchase to ever take place; the
Federal Reserve Board gives the Congress all profits from certain
selected trading activities.  In the latter 1970's, this was
amounting to approximately $10 billion a year; not an easy loss
of revenue for a greedy fat Congress to go without.  So the
Congress does not want to disturb the Fed, and your letters to
them, encouraging them to do so, will continue to fall on death

So the Fed exists as a private independent corporation because it
was created to act as a financial enrichment velocity accelerant
for its owners [I have a hunch that it is also the single most
profitable wealth institution in the world, outdancing and
outdazzling the top Fortune 100, as well as the Vatican and
several "for profit" political jurisdictions].  The Status of the
Federal Reserve System as a Tortfeasor is not related to its
legal charter organization as a corporation, and neither would
its Tortfeasance be changed, either negative or positive at all,
if it ever were to be absorbed into the Executive Presidential
bureaucracy of Article II.  As an Executive Article II agency,
then it would still control inflation since it would still be
controlled by Gremlins; and it would continue to control interest
rates and relative levels of prosperity through its regulatory
mechanisms.  [224]

Those Rothschild Gremlins never stop with their conquests.  After
mentioning the dominance of the Rothschilds in European financial
affairs, a United States Senator once wrote:
     "... it might be... possible for 20 or 30 individuals if
they controlled the United States Federal Reserve Board, the Bank
of England, the Bank of France, and the Bank of Germany, to enter
into a conspiracy to regulate the volume of the world's currency,
thereby resultantly controlling the prices of the world's
commodities, so vitally affecting the happiness, contentment,
occupation, and prosperity of the world's population.  If
successful in effecting such a control, by expanding the world's
currency they could inflate prices of all the world's commodities
and then distribute at fictitious values the securities which
they had accumulated.  After such accomplishments the could then
decrease the volume of money thus resultantly deflating or
diminishing the prices of all the world's commodities with
resultant greatly diminished prices in securities and then buy
back at bargain prices the securities that they had distributed
previously at inflated prices.  If such a conspiracy existed and
continued unchecked this expansion of the volume of money with
increased prices and distribution of securities held by the few
followed by a period of decreased volume of money with resultant
decreased prices of all the world's commodities with
reaccumulation of securities at bargain prices would ultimately
result in all the people outside of the few conspirators becoming
practically vassals and peons with the inevitable result that the
people themselves would rise up in their wrath and take from the
conspirators their wealth and probably their lives."
     -    Senator Jonathan Bourne, Jr. of Oregon, expressing
comments on the Wheeler Bill (S. 2487), in Senate Document #109
First Session, pages 8 and 9 [GPO (June 15, 1932)].
Senate Bill 2487 provided for the free coinage of silver and gold
at a ratio of 16-to-1.

That this Tortfeasance is transparent to its organized form is
true because all Torts originate with people, and at the Fed,
there is now a man as chairman who is uniquely qualified to
operate as a joint Tortfeasor with the Rothschilds and work
MAGNUM OPUS Torts on us all:  Gremlin Paul Volcker.  [225]

After characterizing Gremlin Volcker's politics as being
something of an enigma, the NEW YORK TIMES went on to say that
Paul Volcker:
     "... recognizes 'that Gold and the fates have put him in a
unique position,' a role for which he believes... that he is
singularly well equipped."
     -    THE NEW YORK TIMES ["Sacrificial Way of Life for
Reserve Chairman"], page 26 (Sunday, June 19, 1983).
Yes, Mr. Volcker is VERY well equipped for his mission -- but not
to usher in a generation of prosperity; neither is his Federal
Reserve position attributable to "God and the fates," but
actually to his brother from the First Estate, Lucifer, whom Paul
Volcker once betrayed -- and now Lucifer is going to get even at
Father's Last Day.

This is the same Treasury Department staff member Paul Volcker
who played a supporting role in the theft of American gold
bullion deposits from Fort Knox in the 1960's, [226]

The theft of American gold bullion deposits from the Fort Knox
Depository in Kentucky by the Four Rockefeller Brothers, in which
Paul Volcker participated, was a smooth inside job -- a job which
only duplicated a previous inside Treasury job that was pulled
off earlier in 1943:
     "... 14,000 tons of silver from the Treasury reserve of
American paper money was secretly taken from the Treasury vaults
(although still carried publicly on the Treasury balance
     -    Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 855 [MacMillian
Company, New York (1974)].
[Mr. Quigley wants us to believe that the 14,000 tons of silver
in its entirety went into an Oak Ridge Government building for
electrical wiring].

and the same Paul Volcker who now holds a controlling executive
position in the Fed, a position that when he campaigned for it in
1978, he openly called for the "controlled disintegration" of the
United States.  [227]

During a speech at a FRED HIRSCH MEMORIAL LECTURE at Warwick
University, Coventry, England, on November 9, 1978.

Since the corporate structure of the King's peripheral Commercial
interests, of and by themselves, do not provide the King with a
mechanism to work Torts on us he would be otherwise restrained
from doing through executive agencies, I have no objection to the
King creating corporations, and I would suggest that arguments to
the contrary will likely be rebuffed by the Supreme Court.  [228]

During Constitutional ratification discussions, our Founding
Fathers did not want to even talk about the possibility that a
National Bank might be created someday, due to the possible
rejection the draft Constitution might encounter as it went from
one State to the next for Ratification:
     "The power to incorporate a bank is not among those
enumerated in the constitution.  It is known, that the very
power, thus proposed, as a means, was rejected, as an end, by the
convention [of 1787], which formed the Constitution.  A
proposition was made in that body, to authorize Congress to open
canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to create
corporations.  But the whole was rejected; and one of the reasons
of the rejection urged in debate was, that they then would have a
power to create a bank, which would render the great cities,
where there was prejudices and jealousies on that subject,
adverse to the adoption of the Constitution [Volume 4,
Jefferson's Correspondence, pages 523 and 524]."
at 128 ["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).
However, just because the CREATION OF CORPORATIONS CLAUSE never
made it into the final draft of the Constitution, does not
disable the United States today from creating corporations, since
many other enabling acts were written into the Constitution that,
although sounding nice and making the Constitution look complete
in appearances, were actually jurisdictionally unnecessary.

If at all you question the legal authenticity of my conclusory
statements, then please read M'CULLOCH v. MARYLAND, [229]

17 U.S. 316 (1819).

and tell me that the Congress cannot create corporations or
nationally chartered banks.  In that case, the Supreme Court
specifically talks, at length, about the Constitutionality of
creating corporations, and the implied powers of Congress to do
so.  [230]

"That a national bank is an appropriate means to carry into
effect some of the enumerated powers of the Government, and that
this can be best done by erecting it into a corporation, may be
established by the most satisfactory reasoning.  It has a
relationship, more or less direct, to the power of collecting
taxes, to that of borrowing money, to that of regulating trade
between the states, and to those raising and maintaining fleets
and armies.  And it may be added, that it has a most important
bearing upon the regulation of currency between the states.  It
is an instrument, which has been usually applied by Governments
in the administration of their fiscal and financial operations."
134, ["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).

Also foolish is the line that I hear that no tax could possibly
be due to the King, because the IRS is not an Article II
Executive Agency and functions as a private contracting
corporation.  [231]

The IRS is not a Federal Agency; see:
     -    Title 5, Section 903 [PRESIDENTIAL REORGANIZATION
     -    39 THE FEDERAL REGISTER, Number 62 (26 March 1974),
Section 1111.4, et seq.

I see no general impediment to the King hiring private
contractors to assist him in tax collections.  [232]

Responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the
Revenue Laws is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant
to Title 26, Section 7801(a).  In turn, by one more layer of
delegation, the Internal Revenue Service is vested with the tax
collection responsibilities for the Secretary.  See DONALDSON v.
UNITED STATES, 400 U.S. 517, at 534 (1970), and 39 THE FEDERAL
REGISTER 2417, et seq. (1970).

Private contract bounty hunters have been used to find criminal
fugitives for centuries, so why aren't you Protestors objecting
to that?  Incidentally, in the old days of our Mother England in
the 1700's, there was a practice going around Europe called
PRIVATEERING, which is when small privately owned armed navies
would roam the High Seas in search of prizes to steal for
themselves.  A PRIVATEER, then, is an armed vessel, owned, fitted
out, and manned by private parties with a legal commission from a
political jurisdiction authorizing it to capture the vessels and
cargo's of the enemy.  This legal commission, called a LETTER OF
MARQUE, impressed upon the PRIVATEER'S banditry an aura of
legitimacy in International Law, without which Privateers would
be hung as pirates by any nation's ships fast enough to capture
one.  But back safely at home, the LETTER OF MARQUE also served
as a legal basis for an Admiralty Court to condemn the captured
property, the Prize, and assign it over to the Privateers
themselves who stole it (this was also called PRIZE

PRIVATEERING and all of its associated intrigue of smuggling,
thievery, and pirates, was once quite active on the High Seas
from the 1600's up until the American Civil War.  On the North
Coast of Africa there was once numerous occasions in the early
1800's when American hostages were grabbed and military
engagements were entered into against those little hoodlums
Lane-Poole, State Mutual Books and Periodical Service, New York
(1985)].  PRIVATEERING was somewhat abolished, or perhaps toned
down, by the DECLARATION OF PARIS in 1856; but PRIVATEERING was
extensive during the Civil War, and the United States Congress
soon would be giving President Abraham Lincoln a grant of
jurisdiction to commission Privateers.  [See THE BARBARY COAST by
Henry Field, C. Scribner's Sons, New York (1893); and THE BARBARY
SLAVES by Stephen Clissold, P. Elek Publishers, London (1977)].
For a short story on PRIVATEERS during the Civil War, see the NEW
YORK TIMES for Tuesday, September 29, 1863, page 1, in an article
entitled "Another Privateer Fitting Out," discussing how the
Confederate ship THE FLORIDA was offered French police protection
from seizure from Union ships by France while she was parking at
Brest shipyards for repairs.  Yet, a variation on PRIVATEERING
continued into the 1900's, as Russian volunteer vessels once
seized neutral commerce in the Red Sea [see Edwin Moxen in
(1904)].  For a discussion from a legal perspective on
by Henry J. Bourguignon, page 3 [American Philosophical Society,
Philadelphia (1977)].  Today, PRIVATEERING is a crime for
American Citizens [see Title 18, Section 1654 "Arming or Serving
as Privateers"].

     [In remarkably similar ways today in the United States,
private contracting Privateers are at work in the IRS, acting
under a legal commission, which largely precludes the imposition
of Civil Rights damages because of their operating under the
recourse protective umbrella (color) of Governmental authority;
and like the Privateers of old, today's tax loot is also handed
over to a private party:  To the owners of the Federal Reserve
System, for payment on the King's National Debt.  And even more
astounding in parallel, today's IRS collection of loot and
banditry is also governed under a Federal Court acting under the
rules of Admiralty Jurisdiction, as I will explain later on.]

That analogy between the PRIVATEERS of old out on the High Seas,
and of today's private contracting termites inside the IRS sounds
pretty good, doesn't it?  The requisite blend of comparative
background elements of thievery are present, an underlying tone
of IRS illegitimacy runs throughout the analogy, and that,
generally is the kind of talk Tax Protestors like to hear...
"looters," "theft," "banditry" and the like.  Yes, analogies like
that are music to the ears of Tax Protestors EXTRAORDINAIRE like
Irwin Schiff, [234]

Connecticut (1982)].

and Representative George Hansen.  [235]

[Positive Publications, Washington, D.C. (1984)].

But just one tiny little problem surfaces here which makes the
PRIVATEERS TO IRS TERMITES analogy fall apart and collapse, a
tiny little problem Irwin Schiff and George Hansen do not want to
talk about -- a tiny little problem most folks had better start
to talk about, NOW, before getting in front of Father at the Last
Day:  An invisible Contract.  Today, the Protestor has entered
into a series of invisible contracts with the King, numerous
contracts which are invisible to the Protestors, as I will
explain later on, so now all of those termites in the IRS are
merely collecting monies rightfully due the King by contract,
whereas in contrast the PRIVATEERS of old had no such contract in
effect to grab the property belonging to others.  Therefore, if I
was a Federal Magistrate, I don't know if I would be as patient
as some of the State and Federal Magistrates I have seen in
hearings and trials in trying to explain error to a
Constitutionalist, so called, but whose words were falling on
death ears.  One prime example of how the carefully chosen words
of a Federal Judge falls on death ears, occurs when a petitioner
is being rebuffed when throwing a challenge to the
Constitutionality of either the Federal Reserve System or Federal
Reserve Notes at the Judge.  One of the reasons why Federal
Magistrates and the United States Supreme Court are so reluctant
to declare the Fed or its Notes as being unConstitutional [aside
from the fact that many Federal Judges find the idea to be
philosophically uncomfortable and ideologically irritating] is
because, as a matter of Law, the use and recirculation of Federal
Reserve Notes falls under the governing doctrine applicable to
Commercial Contract Law Jurisprudence, so the Constitution is
largely irrelevant right from the beginning, as the entire closed
private domain of King's Commerce is a benefit/privilege created
by the Congress, and there is nothing in the Constitution to
restrain it.  [236]

Federal Judges took their cue long ago to lay off legislative
prerogatives in this area of circulating paper money:
     "The case of TREVETT v. WELDON, in 1786, in Rhode Island,
is an instance of this sort...  The judges in that case decided,
that a law making paper money a tender in payment of debts was
unconstitutional and against the principles of magna carta.  They
were compelled to appear before the legislature to vindicate
themselves; and the next year... they were left out of office for
having questioned the legislative power."
at 469, footnote 1 (Cambridge, 1833).

Assuming for a moment, ARGUENDO, that the interposition of
Contract Law was irrelevant, then aside from that there are a
large number of separate and distinct sources of jurisdiction the
King can claim as authority to issue out debased paper currency.
But before listing those sources, we need to back up a step.  An
examination of the Federal Reserve's Charter also reveals that,
in Warburg's devilishly brilliant cleverness, the Congress never
recited any specific sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction when
it created the Fed.  Nowhere in its Charter does it say something
like "... the powers of Article I, Section 10 are hereby
invoked..."  An examination of numerous other statutory programs
reveals that the Congress rarely ever bothers to recite its
claimed sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction for those programs
either (in those Acts that I have searched through).  Since the
Congress did not recite any Constitutional sources of authority
when it allegedly passed the Federal Reserve Act, [237]

Whether or not there was a legal minimum quorum in the United
States Senate on that pre-Christmas December day of 1913, is

this now means that whenever a Protestor comes forward today and
throws a Case at a Federal Judge where the Constitutionality of
the Federal Reserve is being challenged, the United States
Attorney General is thereby free to throw any set of defensive
arguments back at the Protestor that the Attorney General feels
like, in order to justify the Constitutionality of the challenged
Act of Congress.  The bottom line is that the Attorney General
can and will claim sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction at some
future date that the Congress never really contemplated when it
originally created the program (if a quorum ever really did exist
to create the Fed).  However unfair this appears to be, would
someone please show me where the Constitution requires the
Congress to recite its enabling Jurisdiction on each Act it
passes?  The Framers were also negligent in this respect, and so
there is no such recital requirement, and so now the Attorney
General is free to come up with a long list of claimed sources of
Constitutional Jurisdiction that the Protestor never ever dreamed
of; a list that the Congress never really considered at the time
of possible enactment; a list that Federal Judges are well
acquainted with; a list that I will be showing you later on.

But first, we need to cover some background material so the
concepts I am about to explain can be understood easily.
Remember that correct Principles of Nature operate across all
factual settings; if the Principle is correct, what works in one
factual setting will work for similar reasons in another setting.
So with that in mind, if we had a power boat built for us, and
that boat had say, 12 gas tanks built into it (perhaps
distributed throughout the hull as ballast to achieve some
desired weight and loading balancing effects), or if we were
piloting an L-1011 jet aircraft with the numerous bladder, wing,
and fuselage fuel tanks that it has located throughout its body,
then in order for the boat or jet to be stopped dead cold, all
fuel tanks individually need to be empty, first.  If so much as
one fuel tank has any fuel in it at all, then the boat or jet
will continue forward at maximum cruising velocity, without any
letup, until all tanks are completely empty.  Only the complete
exhaustion of all fuel from all of the separate fuel tanks,
without any exceptions, will return the jet or boat into that
quiescent state of rest that it once came from.  The fact that
one or several of the fuel tanks may be vacant of fuel will offer
no propulsion impairment or reduction in velocity -- NONE

As we turn from a high-powered machine or aviation setting where
a manufactured product is under propulsion from multiple and
independent sources of fuel, as we turn from that setting to a
setting where a legal product was also manufactured by men, like
the Federal Reserve Board (Incorporated), we found out that its
propulsion also originates from multiple sources of
jurisdictional fuel.  And so in order to return the Federal
Reserve Board to its quiescent STATUS QUO ANTE state of non-
existence, of pre-December, 1913, then a large number of separate
and distinct sources of Constitutional fuel need to be
individually voided.  If so much as one single source of
Constitutional fuel is left remaining -- just so much as one
single Clause -- by having survived the blows of a Protestor in
adversary judicial proceedings, then the Federal Reserve Board
will carry on at maximum cruising velocity with the same
identical full force and effect as if the Protestor had never
thrown anything at the Fed.  Mindful of this background
information, now we can discuss the multiple sources of
jurisdictional fuel that the King has got up his sleeve to
retortionally throw back at pesky little Protestors.

While examining the main Legal Tender and National bank related
cases in the Supreme Court, [238]

     -    M'CULLOCH v. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316 (1819);
     -    HEPBURN v. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870);
     -    KNOX v. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871);
     -    JULLIARD v. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

we see that the right of the Congress to create a bank and have
that bank issue out national currency, as well the right of
Congress to designate anything it wants as Legal Tender, is a
power directly related to the right of the Congress, by both
express and incidental powers:

     1.   To declare war; [239]
     2.   To suppress insurrection;
     3.   To raise and support armies; [240]
     4.   To provide and maintain a navy (notice the words
"maintain" and "support," as they mean financially through taxes
and money);
     5.   To regulate Interstate Commerce; [241]
     6.   To facilitate the laying and collecting of taxes; [242]
     7.   Existing as an attribute of Sovereignty; [243]
     8.   To coin and circulate money pursuant to Article I,
Section 8;
     9.   To pay debts and facilitate the borrowing of money on
the credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8); [244]
     10.  To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

[239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244]===================================

[239]     The Legal Tender statutes were enacted in the Civil War
era, when national resources were stretched thin:
     "... to handle the vast amount of means necessary for the
prosecution of this war, to enable the people to pay in and the
Government to pay out, we must have a larger and more abundant
currency that we have heretofore found to be necessary.  The
accustomed currency [of hard gold and silver] is wholly
inadequate.  The Government has for many years used only gold and
silver for this purpose, and it is deeply lamented that it is
obliged to depart from this desirable standard.  But we are left
with no option."
     -    Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech
before Congress on February 5, 1862 [CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th
Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.].

[240]     "... the National Government [can] exercise... its
powers to establish and maintain a bank, implied as an incident
to the borrowing, taxing, war, and other powers specifically
granted to the National Government by Article I, Section 8 of the
     -    HELVERING v. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 (1937).

[241]     "The power to regulate commerce is general and
unlimited in its terms.  The full power to regulate a particular
subject implies the whole power, and leaves no residium."
at 513 ["Powers of Congress -- Commerce"] (Cambridge, 1833).

[242]     "Here the substantive power to tax was allowed to be
employed for improving the currency."
     -    KNOX v. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 544 (1871).

[243]     "The power to coin money is one of the ordinary
prerogatives of Sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised
in order to preserve a proper circulation of good coin of a known
value in the home market...  In England, this prerogative belongs
to the Crown; and in former ages, it was greatly abused; for base
coin was often coined and circulated by its authority, at a value
far above its intrinsic worth; and thus taxes of a burdensome
nature were indirectly laid upon the people."
at 17 ["Powers of Congress -- Coinage"] (Cambridge, 1833).

[244]     "A bank has a direct relation to the power of borrowing
money, because it is an unusual, and in sudden emergencies, an
essential instrument, in the obtaining of loans to Government.  A
nation is threatened with a war; large sums are wanted on a
sudden [basis] to make the requisite preparations; taxes are laid
for this purpose; but it requires time to obtain the benefit of
them; anticipation is indispensable.  If there is a bank, the
supply can at once be had; if there be none, loans from
individuals must be sought.  The progress of these is often too
slow for the exigency; in some situations they are not practical
at all."
at 139 [footnote -- "Powers of Congress -- Bank"] (Cambridge,

===================================[239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244]

all of which were involved, to a lessor and greater extent, at
the time the LEGAL TENDER ACTS were enacted by the Congress in
the Civil War era of the 1800's.  [245]

"We do not propose to dilate at length upon the circumstances i
which the country was placed when Congress attempted to make
Treasury Notes a Legal Tender.  They are of too recent occurrence
to justify enlarged description.  Suffice it to say that a Civil
War was then raging which seriously threatened the overthrow of
the Government and the destruction of the Constitution itself.
It demanded the equipment and support of large armies and navies,
and the employment of money to an extent beyond the capacity of
all ordinary sources of supply.  Meanwhile, the public Treasury
was nearly empty, and the credit of the Government, if not
stretched to its utmost tension, had become nearly exhausted.
Moneyed institutions had advanced largely of their means, and
more could not be expected of them.  They had been compelled to
suspend specie payments.  Taxation was inadequate to pay even the
interest on the debt already incurred, and it was impossible to
await the income of additional taxes.  The necessity was
immediate and pressing.  The army was unpaid.  There was then due
to the soldiers in the field nearly a score of millions of
dollars.  The requisition from the War and Navy Departments for
supplies exceeded fifty millions, and the current expenditure was
over one million per day.  The entire amount of coin in the
country, including that in private hands, as well as that in
banking institutions, was insufficient to supply the need of the
Government for three months, had it all poured into the Treasury.
Foreign credit we had none.  We say nothing of the overhanging
paralysis of trade, and of business generally, which threatened
loss of confidence in the ability of the Government to maintain
its continued existence, and therewith the complete destruction
of all remaining national credit.
     "It was at this time and in such circumstances that Congress
was called upon to devise means for maintaining the army and
navy, for securing the large supplies of money needed and,
indeed, for the preservation of the Government created by the
Constitution.  It was at such a time and in such an emergency
that nothing else would have supplied the absolute necessities of
the Treasury, that nothing else would have enabled the Government
to maintain its armies and navies, that nothing else would have
saved the Government and the Constitution from destruction, while
the Legal Tender Acts would, could any one be bold enough to
assert that Congress transgressed its powers?  Or if these
enactments did not work these results, can it be maintained now
that they were not for a legitimate end, or 'appropriate and
adapted to that end?' in the language of Chief Justice Marshall?
That they did work such results is not to be doubted.  Something
revived the drooping faith of the people; something brought
immediately to the Government's aid the resources of the nation,
and something enabled the successful prosecution of the war, and
the preservation of national life.  What was it, if not the Legal
Tender enactments?"
     -    KNOX v. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 539 (1871).

And the correlation in effect between the right to enact Legal
Tender Statutes and the various War Powers of the Congress
applies both in times of war, [246]

     -    KNOX v. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871).

and also in times of peace.  [247]

JULLIARD v. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

So what is important for Tax Protestors to understand is that
when they attack either the Federal Reserve in whole or part, or
the designation of its CIRCULATING EVIDENCES OF DEBT at Legal
Tender -- and the Protestor goes through all of the Supreme Court
rulings on the MONEY COIN CLAUSE in Article I, Section 8, [248]

As a point of beginning, Article I, Section 10 limits itself to
the STATES ["No State shall..."], and not to the Congress.
     "The states can no longer declare what shall be money, or
regulate its value."
     -    KNOX v. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 545 (1871).
Protestors trying to argue now that Article I, Section 10
restrains the Congress -- meaning something directly contrary to
what is written, is considerable foolishness.

and all the Constitutional Convention debates on the MONEY COIN
CLAUSE, and the material discussed in secret Convention meetings
back in 1787, and all of the Legislation enacted pursuant
thereto, and all of the quotations from the Founding Fathers,
such as in Max Farrand's works [249]

Press, New Haven (1937); 4 volumes].

or "The Federalist," and numerous other private correspondence,
and all the lower court opinions on CHOSES IN ACTION and coins
and debasement theories, and of their citations on the monetary
disabilities of the United States; after the Tax Protestor goes
through all that work and effort, he has only told the Supreme
Court about 10% of what the Supreme Court needs to hear in order
to invalidate the Status of Federal Reserve Notes as Legal Tender
instruments:  Because the right to create banks and let that bank
circulate Legal Tender is also related to WAR POWERS and the

BANKING SYSTEM, Notes ["Legislation"], 46 Harvard Law Review 143

CLAUSES, and of course SOVEREIGNTY itself -- and they are
independent stand-alone sources of jurisdiction that have to be
attacked individually, just like a jet or boat with several fuel
tanks needs to have each separate tank vacated before the vehicle
will come to a stationary state.  [251]

"It is absolutely essential to independent national existence
that Government should have a firm hold on the two great
Sovereign instrumentalities of the sword and the purse, and the
right to wield them without restriction on occasions of national
peril.  In certain emergencies Government must have at its
command, not only the personal services -- the bodies and lives -
- of its Citizens, but the lessor, though not less essential,
power of absolute control over the resources of the country.  Its
armies must be filled, and its navies manned, by the Citizens in
person.  Its materials of war, its munitions, equipment, and
commissary stores must come from the industry of the country.
This can only be stimulated into activity by a proper financial
system, especially as regards the currency."
     -    KNOX v. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 [Justice Bradley, concurring]

Will someone please tell me how to challenge the Fed based on the

"The power of Congress over interstate commerce is 'complete in
itself, may be executed to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no
limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution'."
     -    UNITED STATES v. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, at 114 (1940).

What grant of intervening and manipulative power is more broad
than the Interstate Commerce Clause?  With that Clause, anything
goes.  How are you going to attack Federal Reserve Notes as being
CLAUSES?  [253]

Remember the Legal Tender statutes were born in the fires of the
Civil War, when there was a great exigency and importance
associated with the idea of raising a lot of money very quickly;
yet, there were also disagreements on the floor of the Congress,
and reservations were expressed then as to the Constitutionality
of the proposed paper money that would be circulating:
     "The sum of the whole argument has been made in favor of the
Constitutionality of the power of Congress to declare the
Treasury notes contemplated by this bill a legal tender in
payment of all debts, public and private, may be stated in these
three propositions:
          "First, Congress may declare these notes a legal tender
because it is not inhibited;
          "Secondly, the Government must maintain itself, and
Congress may exercise all the power and adopt any measure it
judges necessary for that object;
          "Thirdly, that the power to declare these notes a legal
tender is a means necessary and proper to the full execution of
the power to regulate commerce.
     "This provision is as inexpedient as it is unconstitutional.
It is a legislative declaration of national bankruptcy.  It is
saying to the world that this Government is unable to meet its
obligations at their real value; and must compound with its
creditors at a discount...
     "This provision attempts the impossible thing of giving to
paper the value of gold..."
     -    Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech
in Congress on February 5, 1862 [CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th
Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.]

The answer is that you are not going to.  There are some sharp
attorneys like Edwin Vieira (Mr. Solyom's attorney), [254]

Edwin Vieira represented Richard Solyom in a Stated related
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING, and challenged the right of a State to
force the acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes as the QUID PRO QUO
for his land that the State wanted to grab.  Edwin Vieira argued
the monetary disabilities of Article I, Section 10 in an action
against a STATE, which at least is a correct point of beginning -
- a lot more than what I can say for Tax Protestors throwing
Article I, Section 10 arguments at THE CONGRESS.  Edwin Vieira
also wrote a book discussing the monetary powers and disabilities
of the United States Constitution; see PIECES OF EIGHT by Edwin
Vieira, Jr. [Devin-Adair, Old Greenwich, Connecticut (1983)].

and on the other hand there are some INTELLIGENTSIA clowns; and
any judicial rebuffment experienced by attorneys throwing
Protestor caliber arguments at Federal Judges is a FULLY EARNED
ACCOUNT [phrase originated by Ayn Rand], as any flaky arguments
centered singularly around just the GOLD AND SILVER COIN CLAUSE
of Article I, Section 10 are just plain stupid:  You are
misleading your readers, delivering naught to your clients for
your fees, and as attorneys you should know better.  [255]

You lawyers use that license of your's as a tool to impress and
intellectually intimidate people, and since that is your
standard, I would then hold you to it and order your disbarment
if I had any supervisory jurisdictional interest in your license,
just like Jerome Daly from Minnesota was once suspended from the
Practice of Law for his flaky money arguments.  In the JUSTICE OF
THE PEACE COURT for Credit River, Minnesota, on December 7, 1968,
Jerome Daly once scored an impressive victory before a jury, on
what was largely a stipulated factual setting of FAILURE OF
CONSIDERATION on a $14,000 mortgage that Jerome Daly had
defaulted on.  Seemingly, he was off to a good start, but a
continuing series of rebuffments later on before judges cast his
money arguments off on an illicit tangent, and when he refused to
back off, his license was suspended.

Other rulings also affirm the broad application of monetary
powers.  Later on in VEAZIE BANK v. FENNO, [256]

75 U.S. 533 (1869).

the Chief Justice, speaking for the Supreme Court, ruled that it
is the Constitutional right of the Congress to provide a currency
for the whole country; and that this might be done with coin, or
by United States Notes, or by notes of banks chartered by the
Congress.  Other cases replicate the same line.  For example:

     "In VEAZIE BANK v. FENNO [75 U.S. 533 (1869)], decided at
the present term, this court held, after full consideration, that
it was the privilege of Congress to furnish this country with the
currency to be used by it in the transaction of business, whether
this was done by means of coin, of notes of the United States, or
of banks created by Congress."  [257]

HEPBURN v. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870).

So asking a Federal Judge to declare the Federal Reserve System
or its Notes as being unConstitutional based on the MONETARY
CLAUSE of Article I, Section 8 is facially only a small slice of
the larger total argument pie that Judges need to hear.  [258]

When I advocate folks taking cognizance of the fact that the King
has many different independent sources of jurisdiction to pull
from in order to justify the existence of the Federal Reserve
Board and those paper notes that his Legal Tender statutes have
designated to be his currency, please do not construe that with
any philosophical inclination on my part that might appear to
favor the King issuing out such paper based circulating
instruments that excite Gremlins so much in elevated enscrewment
ecstacy; I am different from Protestors only in the limited sense
that I always evaluate both sides of an issue before throwing
something at a Judge.  Refusing to badmouth adversaries does not
mean that you agree with them philosophically, nor does it
inferentially suggest that one is in alignment with the
adversary's objectives; refusing to badmouth means no more than
realizing that the true remedy for correcting these currency
Torts will not lie in a Courtroom.  Therefore, by examining the
case from the adversary's perspective, frequently I uncover real
error in positions taken by Protestors, but by examining the case
from the King's perspective, that does not mean that I am
sympathetic with the King's MODUS OPERANDI or his objectives.
Unlike Protestors, I do not walk into a judicial confrontation
with anyone assuming that I am absolutely right, convinced that
there is nothing the other fellow has to say that is of any
value, and then simply expecting justice to be administered in my
favor -- such a person is necessarily in a very UNTEACHABLE state
of mind -- he will miss many low profile movements going on that
are suggestive of error.  There may very well be some error in my
position that I did not see (or understand the significance of),
so my excursions into judicial arenas are always exploratory in
nature, and I keep myself in a teachable state of mind (a MODUS
OPERANDI Protestors would be wise to consider emulating).

One of the reasons lies in the right of Congress to regulate
Interstate Commerce through its COMMERCE CLAUSE (and arguing
deficiencies in that jurisdiction is foolishness).  So any
Constitutional infirmity or tension in effect between the Federal
Reserve System and Article I, Section 8 offers no reason whatever
for dissolving the Fed; as the COMMERCE CLAUSE neatly picks up
all the loose ends where the restrictive coinage jurisdiction
conferred by Article I, Section 8 might possibly be imperfect,
and renders Judicial dissolution of the Fed inappropriate.  [259]

Some Federal Reserve Protestors I know are planning to throw some
novel protesting arguments at Federal Judges.  Having concluded
that quoting Constitutional restrainments is unlikely to perfect
judicial dissolution of the Federal Reserve System [and correctly
so as a factual matter], these Protestors have decided to step
down one level and just cite judicial reasoning in an attempt to
dismantle a small appendage of the Fed, called the FEDERAL OPEN
MARKET COMMITTEE, or FOMC.  By researching Supreme Court cases
back in the 1930's, an era when Judicial annulment of Nelson
Rockefeller's social welfare LEX [through his public nominee, imp
FDR] was in vogue, these Protestors intend to cite Cases like:
     -    PANAMA REFINING COMPANY v. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388 (1934);
and then pursuant to reasoning in those Cases, argue that the
delegation of regulatory commercial matters by the Congress to a
non-juristic business association of some type, is
     "But would it be seriously contended that Congress could
delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial
associations or groups as to empower them to enact the laws they
deem to be wise and beneficent for the rehabilitation and
expansion of their trade or industry?  Could trade or industrial
associations or groups be constituted legislative bodies for that
purpose because such associations or groups are familiar with the
problems of their enterprises?  And could an effort of that sort
be made valid by such a preface of generalities as to permissible
aims as we find in [this NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT that
the Supreme Court is about to run into the ground]?  The answer
is obvious.  Such a delegation of legislative power is unknown to
our Law and is utterly inconsistent with the Constitutional
prerogatives and duties of Congress."
     -    SCHECHTER POULTRY v. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, at
537 (1935).
No where in the Constitution does it state that "... the Congress
shall not delegate any of its regulatory powers over Commerce to
business associations..." -- as there are numerous negative
restrainments and positive requirements deemed binding on the
Congress, but no where appearing in the Constitution; many are
reasonably inferred as existing incidental to what the
Constitution otherwise expressly mandates.
By going after just the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE appendage
within the Fed, and not the Fed itself, these Protestors are
emulating a successful MODUS OPERANDI used extensively by
Gremlins themselves -- by selectively hacking away at something
here a little, and there a little -- slowly and patiently.
Whether or not these Protestors will ultimately succeed is
inconclusive at the present time.  There is some merit to their
DELEGATION QUESTION arguments as limited just to the FEDERAL OPEN
MARKET COMMITTEE itself within the Fed; and these arguments are
not overruled by the other wide ranging fundamental sources of
jurisdictional fuel the King has to create the larger Federal
... And for Protestors searching for something to throw at the
Gremlin's enrichment Goliath, that's enough.
I am concerned about whether or not these Protestors can create a
sound JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, which is another question; to the
extent that the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE massages around and
regulates with juristic force banks and related financial
institutions, STANDING is necessarily limited to the affected
parties absent an evidentiary presentation of the cascading train
of damages originating within the inner sanctums of the FOMC,
that were eventually experienced by the Plaintiff.  I would feel
more comfortable with the probable outcome of this impending Case
if an FOMC regulated institution itself appeared as the
Plaintiff.  Nevertheless, these Protestors will find that
judicial reaction will be mixed -- there are Federal Judges who
are sympathetic with their arguments (as there is merit to them),
while there are other TOUGH COOKIE Federal Judges who will take
advantage of the factual opportunity this impending Case presents
to them, by throwing snortations at the Protestors.

Yes, Virginia, Paul Warburg knew what he was doing.  But even
that is not the full story.

QUESTION:  How are you Protestors going to attack Federal Reserve
Notes on the floor of the United States Supreme Court?  How are
you going to attack Sovereignty itself?  Are you going to try and
attack the essence of Sovereignty itself by quoting from the
devil himself?  If you can't find a quotation from Lucifer
slicing down Sovereignty, then maybe a quotation from one of his
hard working Gremlin assistants might be a point of beginning.

Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski writing in BETWEEN TWO AGES:
fiction of Sovereignty must be replaced with reality:
     "The doctrine of sovereignty created the institutional basis
for challenging the secular authority of established religion,
and this challenge in turned paved the way for the emergence of
the abstract conception of the nation-state.  Sovereignty vested
in the people, instead of Sovereignty vested in the king, was the
consummation of the process which in the two centuries preceding
the French and American revolutions radically altered the
structure of authority in the West and prepared the ground for a
new dominant concept of reality...
     "The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organized
life has ceased to be the principal creative force:
'International banks and multinational corporations are acting
and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political
concepts of the nation-state.'  But as the nation-state is
gradually yielding its sovereignty, the psychological importance
of the national community is rising, and the attempt to establish
an equilibrium between the imperatives of the [Corporate
Socialist Rockefeller Cartel's] new internationalism and the need
for a more intimate national community is the source of frictions
and conflicts."
     -    Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES:
Press, New York City (1970)].

Well, an attack on Sovereignty like that, although a majestic
goal for Gremlins as they tear down our existing Constitution and
the Juristic Institution it created, and try and replace it with
their own, is not much.  So now just how does an inherent
prerogative of the Sovereign, of this right to issue out money
any way he feels like it, violate the King's Charter?  Answer:
There is no violation -- there is no express Clause restraining
the Congress to circulate only that currency that physically
contains gold and silver -- and you are not going to get the
chance before the Supreme Court to attack it.  [261]

Juristic institutions descend to the level of Commercial game
players whenever they enter into the world of Commerce; so it can
be argued that Sovereignty takes a back seat under some
circumstances [this interesting Supreme Court Doctrine on the
declension in status and loss of Sovereignty whenever the King
enters into Commerce, appears in this Letter later with
discussing those CIRCULATING EVIDENCES OF DEBT, Federal Reserve

Our Founding Fathers did not tie the King's giblets down tight
enough with that level of explicit and blunt language that all
Kings need to be restrained by.  [262]

For example, the original draft versions of the Second and Fifth
Amendments were far more specific and restrictive than the
negotiated comprised milktoast versions that finally made it
through the Congress of 1787.  Yes, the Constitution was an
     "We believe that God raised up George Washington, that He
raised up Thomas Jefferson, that He raised up Benjamin Franklin
and those other Patriots who carved out with their swords and
with their pens the character and stability of this great
Government which they hoped would stand forever, an asylum for
the oppressed of all nations, where no man's religion would be
questioned, no man would be limited in his honest service to his
Maker, so long as he did not infringe upon the rights of his
fellow men.  We believe those men were inspired to do their work,
as we do that Joseph Smith was inspired to begin this work; just
as Galileo, Columbus, and other mighty men of old... were
inspired to gradually pave the way leading to this Dispensation;
Sentinels, standing at different periods down the centuries,
playing their parts as they were inspired of God; gradually
dispelling the darkness as they were empowered by their Creator
so to do, that in culmination of the grand scheme of schemes,
this great nation, the Republic of the United States, might be
established upon this land as an asylum for the oppressed; a
resting place [a sanctuary] it might be said, for the ARK OF THE
COVENANT, where the Temple of our God might be built; where the
PLAN OF SALVATION might be introduced and practiced in freedom,
and not a dog would wag his tongue in opposition to the purposes
of the Almighty.  We believe that this was His object in creating
the Republic of the United States; the only land where His work
could be commenced or the feet of his people come to rest.  No
other land had such liberal institutions, had adopted so broad a
platform upon which all men might stand.  We give glory to those
Patriots for the noble work they did; but we given first glory to
God, our Father and their Father, who inspired them.  We take
them by the hand as brothers.  We believe they did nobly their
work, even as we would fain do ours, faithfully and well, that we
might not be recreant in the eyes of God, for failing to perform
the mission to which He has appointed us."
     -    Orson F. Whitney, in a discourse delivered at the
Tabernacle on April 19, 1885; 26 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at
200 [London (1886)].

And so any attack on Federal Reserve Notes will require such an
explicit and bluntly worded Constitutional Amendment, and that is
a political operation for the Legislatures to handle, not
something lending itself well in nature to a Judicial remedy.  At
best the Judiciary can rule on cases with the outcome carefully
designed to give the Congress an incentive to get going.  An
honest assessment of the total factual setting of monetary
history in the United States will emphasize general naivete among
the members of the American legislatures in 1787:  They didn't
know what they were doing, collectively speaking, although there
were a few who did raise their voices in opposition to paper
money, like Roger Sherman.  [263]

For example, in the Continental Congress on August 28th, 1787,
"Article 12 was being discussed.  Article 12 was proposed to be
as follows:
     "Article XII.  No state shall coin money; nor grant letters
of marque and reprisals; nor enter into any treaty, alliance, or
confederation; nor grant any title of Nobility."
"Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roger Sherman moved to insert after the words
making those prohibitions against paper money absolute.
"Mr. Ghorum thought the purpose would be well secured by the
provision of Article XIII, which makes the consent of the General
Legislature necessary, and in that mode, no opposition would be
excited; whereas an absolute prohibition of paper money would
rouse the most desperate opposition from its partizans.
"Mr. Sherman thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper
money.  If the consent of the Legislature could authorize
emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every
exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it."
OF 1787, at page 439 [Yale University Press, New Haven (1911-
Notice how Mr. Sherman and Mr Ghorum were concerned,
knowledgeable and aware of the exterior opposition to prohibiting
the emission of paper bills.  There was opposition lying around
the Countryside, opposed to making hard gold and silver mandatory
with no legislative discretion allowed to substitute paper bills
for gold and silver coin.  So the reason why we have fraudulent
Federal Reserve Notes running around today is because our
Founding Fathers failed to tie the King down yesterday -- and
Federal Judges are not Commie pinkos when tossing out arguments
attacking Federal Reserve Notes.  Our Founding Fathers
specifically declined to make explicit and blunt prohibitions
against the emission of paper bills because they knew then that
few people wanted such a mandatory restrainment operating on the
Congress, and our Fathers in 1787 did not want to create
opposition to the proposed new Constitution designed to replace
the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.  So what we are left with today is
the milktoast of Article I, Section 8.  Gremlins have merely take
advantage of what our Fathers circumvented back then; and our
Fathers found themselves in such a position because a lot of
folks did not want prohibitions against the emission of paper
bills.  We did this to ourselves, and Patriots are snickering at
the wrong people.

Remember that the Britannic Crown was still quite popular then,
and the American Revolution was a minority rights operation, with
many bleeding heart native Americans opposing severance from the
Crown.  And there were also just too few George Masons to go
around.  The experientially wise know that you never, ever deal
with a King with negative restraining clauses in contracts except
under the most explicit and blunt words that the English Language
offers, because the King will always figure out ways to claim
some implicit permission to work his way around a restraining
clause that is sounding in milktoast; but our Fathers didn't do
that.  And compounding the problem drafting such specific
language, sprinkled in between the floor debates and political
comprises, were a few traitors of strong influence (like
Alexander Hamilton, who married indirectly into the House of
Rothschild).  [264]

Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage,
in St. Croix, the West Indies.  After changing his name and his
geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler, the second
daughter of Phillip Schuyler, at the bride's home in Albany, New
York, on December 14, 1780.  The bride's mother was Catherine van
Rensselaer, daughter of Colonel John R. van Rensselaer, who was
the son of Hendrik, the grandson of Killiaen, the first Partroon,
and Engeltke (Angelica) Livingston.  The bride had been
characterized as:
     "... a brunette with the most good natured, dark, lovely
eyes that I ever saw, which threw a beam of good temper and
benevolence over her entire countenance."
The bride was just over 23, and the groom was 25.  Alexander's
courtship with Elizabeth that year had been very brief, as the
arranged marriage that it was.  While others have uncovered
payment records in the British Museum in London from the
Rothschilds to their nominee Alexander Hamilton, an examination
of his political orientation [particularly his drive to create a
national bank] magnifies his Gremlin stature.  There is quite a
large number of Alexander Hamilton related biographics and
profile sketches floating around.  See "THE INTIMATE LIFE OF
ALEXANDER HAMILTON," by Allan Hamilton [Charles Scribner's Sons,
New York (1910) [quote on the bride's description, id., at page
by Broades Mitchell [MacMillian Company, New York (1957)].

who knew exactly what they were doing, for and on behalf of their
sponsors.  [265]

There has always been a period of Time in the United States when
well sponsored imps have ascended into positions of political
prominence; sometimes into Juristic Institutions, and other times
they operate on the outside, perhaps as a director of a
foundation, a historian, or a university professor of some type.
One such imp, financially sponsored by Rockefeller Cartel
interests, has been Rexford Tugwell, who likes to create the
image that he is a historian.  In one of his books, entitled THE
EMERGING CONSTITUTION, he really shows off his Gremlin colors.
He tries to throw derogatory characterizations at our Founding
Fathers by pointing attention over to such things as the acreage
of land once owned by Thomas Jefferson and other economic profile
information; but the fact that the Four Rockefeller Brothers are
financially sponsoring little Tug himself to write a new
Constitution to enrich the Brothers is, of course, something this
little imp, speaking with a forked tongue, remains silent on.
And he has, of course, just the right solution for all those
CRUCIAL American legal ailments:  A new Constitution [see TEXT
FILE on THE NEWSTATES CONSTITUTION, available on some BBS's for
downloading] -- designed along Corporate Socialist lines that
would enrich his sponsors in the Rockefeller Cartel.  Under this
new Constitution, large private corporations assume several of
the functions once held exclusively by Juristic Institutions --
such as criminal prosecutions, the regulation of business,
issuance of commercial licenses, and, of course, there is no
Trial by Jury.  Rexford Tugwell shows off his true Gremlin colors
by coming down on those great triple Gremlin irritants:  LAISSEZ-
     "So much for the Constitution.  But it did not end there;
continuing suspicion of authority allowed LAISSEZ-FAIRE to thrive
beyond its time and allowable scope; and the propensity to
contrive produced an affluence we did not use to advantage
because we held to INDIVIDUALISM and INDEPENDENCE in theory
although we created a system of social and economic complexes
requiring integration and organic management.  If these
generalizations are accepted, they describe a curious and
unanticipated outcome.  It is not certain, for instance, how much
of our affluence is owed to the INDIVIDUALISM that now threatens
to choke its own further growth...
     "Yet the myth of INDEPENDENCE and INDIVIDUALISM persists,
mostly nowadays as a political appeal, but it furnishes
assurances to unthinking citizens.  These words are regarded with
cynical tolerance by intellectuals; but they still have an appeal
to the electorate, and they will until a more realistic approach
has made its way into people's minds...
     "The laws establishing [administrative] agencies did not
clearly recognize that the businesses involved were using
resources belonging to the people, and lacking this, their
authority to make allocations was hazy.  They were handicapped
also by the prevailing belief in LAISSEZ-FAIRE..."
     -    Rexford Tugwell in THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION, at 17, 27
and 145 [Harper & Row, New York (1974); Sponsored by the
Rockefeller's FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC in Santa Monica, California].
Notice what difficulty Gremlins like little Tug have in
restraining themselves not to throw invectives at those heinous
institutions of INDIVIDUALISM, LAISSEZ-FAIRE, and the
INDEPENDENCE of national Sovereignty.  Gremlins do not want
INDIVIDUALS to amount to something great on their own volition
[they want men to remain boys, and for everyone to keep their
diapers on by looking to Government for security, for protection,
and as a source of remedies for society's problems]; they do not
want LAISSEZ-FAIR [they want total top down Government control of
everything, so that when Government controls it, then they can
control it]; and Gremlins do not want the world divided up into
multiple independent Sovereignties [they want a ONE WORLD
GOVERNMENT, under their control].  Those are the great Gremlin
objectives, and getting rid of that United States Constitution --
and everything else Majestic, Celestial, and developmental of
INDIVIDUALS that it represents -- is a glorious dream for imps to
bask in.  [For other attacks on the Founding Fathers by sponsored
self-proclaimed "historians," see imp Charles Beard in AN
Free Press, New York (1913)]; who uncovered detailed financial
profile information on the Founders, and then came to the
conclusion, as he was paid to do, that the Constitution was just
a legal instrument to self-enrich its creators.  Like his brother

One might think that with the passage of time, an increase in
political SAVOIR FAIRE might just develop nationally.  But no.
If a Constitutional Convention were held over again today, as is
quite close to happening, I am afraid of the consequences.  We
need a Constitutional Convention today in the 1980's like we need
the Ortega Brothers [of Nicaraguan infamy] in the United States
Senate representing the State of New Hampshire.  Conservatives
believing a new Constitutional Convention, called for the purpose
of a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, are playing into the hands of
Gremlins, who fully intend to use that Constitutional Convention
to replace our Father's Constitution with their own; in fact that
is how the Constitution of 1787 was proposed to the States, as a
replacement for the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.  And if you don't
think Gremlins are smart enough to use parliamentary devices to
work their way around wording in some State Resolutions calling
for such a Convention (attempting to limit the subject matter
discussed in the Convention to just the content of the BALANCED
BUDGET AMENDMENT), then you have no knowledge whatsoever of
Gremlins, and you are not even qualified to exercise such
political judgment today when in fact Gremlins now hold the upper
hand in the United States.  [266]

If you CONSERVATIVES were smart, you would not consider donating
money or voting for any candidate expressing sympathy with either
the milktoast Democratic or Republican Party Platforms; such a
candidate is no adversary of Gremlins.  As far as I am concerned,
if in fact the Gremlins can pull off this Constitutional switch
at the impending Constitutional Convention, then they fully
deserve the avalanche of benefits such a juristic instrument will
generate for them.  I admire victors of battles for their
tactical SAVIOR FAIRE, even though I may not be sympathetic with
their doctrines or objectives.

And Gremlins are not about to let a Constitutional Convention
come and go in the United States without putting up a good fight.

"In connection with the attack on the United States, the Lord
told the Prophet Joseph Smith [that] there would be an attempt to
overthrow the country by destroying the Constitution.  Joseph
Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution
would hang as it were by a thread, and at that time... the Elders
of Israel, widely spread over the nation, will, at the crucial
time... [participate by providing] the necessary balance of
strength to save the institutions of Constitutional Government.
Now is the time to get ready."
     -    Ezra Taft Benson in CONFERENCE REPORTS, page 70
(October, 1961).

If you want to get a good preview and feel for the class of new
Constitution that such a convention would produce, just examine
the caliber of Presidents elected in recent history.  [268]

If you are unaware of the interest certain Gremlins have towards
using that impending Convention for their own proprietary
purposes, then consider these words from our Gremlin friend
EXTRAORDINAIRE, Zbigniew Brzezinski:
     "The approaching two hundredth anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national
constitutional convention to reexamine the nation's formal
institutional framework.  Either 1976 or 1987 -- the two
hundredth anniversary of the Constitution -- could serve as a
target date for culminating a national dialogue on the relevance
of existing arrangements, the workings of the representative
process, and the desirability of imitating the various European
regionalization reforms and of streamlining the administrative
structure.  More important still, either date would provide a
suitable occasion for redefining the meaning of modern democracy
-- a task admittedly challenging but not necessarily more so than
when it was undertaken by the founding fathers -- and for setting
ambitious and concrete social goals."
     -    Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES:
York City (1970)].
Those "social goals" that Brzezinski wants involve a NEW ECONOMIC
ORDER which Brzezinski openly admits would seriously threaten
"the traditional American values of individualism, free
enterprise, the work ethic, and efficiency." -- but pesky little
anachronisms like those are nuisances today, and his employer
David Rockefeller has no room for nuisances.  What David decrees
is what's important, and David has decreed that Corporate
Socialism is important.

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

George Mercier