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

                         George Mercier

                     THE RESIDENCY CONTRACT
                         [Pages 553-565]

[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.]

Another invisible contract that is difficult to see is the
Residency Contract.  By being "resident" within a particular
Kingdom for a certain length of time, it is presumed that you
have accepted those juristic benefits which that regional Prince
of your's is offering you.  [732]

"All these appellants, indeed, shared during the taxable year the
benefits of the expenditures by the State for the various
activities of its Government.  As the trial judge pointed out,
the public schools were available to their children; they had the
benefit of police protection for themselves, their families and
their property; they could use the public roads daily; the courts
were open for resort by them if necessary; and so with every
other benefit and privilege provided by the State or its
agencies, such, for instance, as water supply and sewerage.  They
entered upon the enjoyment of these benefits, and should be
liable to a share in the taxation levied to maintain them, in the
absence of any distinguishing factor in their situation."
     WOOD v. TAWES, 28 Atlantic 2nd 850, at 854 (1942).
Since we know that the acceptance of benefits locks folks into
contracts, we also know how to get out of unwanted contracts; our
distinguishing factor in our situation is going to be, of course,
a NOTICE OF REJECTION OF BENEFITS filed appropriately and timely.
Until benefits have been rejected, invisible contracts are in
effect and we are not entitled to prevail under any
circumstances.  Here, in WOOD v. TAWES, Residency Protestors
tried unsuccessfully to weasel out of state income taxes.  This
WOOD v. TAWES case was heard before by the Maryland Court of
Appeals -- but its reasoning and justification is very similar to
other state judges in all 50 states.  Of those benefits that are
listed above, you should know that acceptance of the twin state
BENEFIT are universally viewed by judges in all English Common
Law Countries world wide as being sufficient, all by themselves,
to lock folks into RESIDENCY CONTRACTS, as silence by inhabitants
is deemed acceptance of those particular juristic benefits.  In a
nice way, this Maryland Court is trying to say:  You accepted
those juristic benefits -- so pay the tax and stop trying to be
cheap.  Yes, protestors are irritating to judges; so let's
reverse the factual setting presented for a grievance settlement,
and let's first work our adversaries into an immoral position by
vacating the transfer of juristic benefits to us.  Now, when the
state tax commission asks for money, now that there is no QUID
PRO QUO equivalence on the record, now as a moral question, we
are entitled to prevail.  However, if we have kids going to
public schools then we will not be able to get rid of all
benefits offered by the state, and our NOTICE OF REJECTION OF
BENEFITS means nothing since it is incomplete -- and we should
not protest state income taxes while accepting benefits, because
we are not entitled to prevail.

If the benefits are legitimate, then the reciprocity your
regional Prince expects back from you in the form of a state
income tax, is very reasonable, and the Supreme Court has so

     "(States) can tax the privilege of residence in the State
     and measure the privilege by net income, including that
     derived from interstate commerce."  [733]

FREEMAN v. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, at 255 (1946).

The entire area of State Income Taxes lies generally outside of
Federal intervention, except to the narrow extent to which
several slices of restrainments resident in the United States
Constitution hem in your regional Prince; [734]

"A state is free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed
by the Constitution, if by the practical operation of its power
in relation to opportunities which it has given, to protection
which it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred by the
fact of being an orderly, civilized society."
     -    WISCONSIN v. J.C. PENNEY, 311 U.S. 435, at 444 (1940).

even more so, Tax Protestors arguing philosophically doctrinaire
and other economic questions on State Taxation schemes are
frequently rebuffed by Federal Judges who defer the question back
to the States.  [735]

"... the economic wisdom of state net income taxes is one of
state policy not for our decision..."
     -    PORTLAND CEMENT v. MINNESOTA, 359 U.S. 450, at 461

The basic power of taxation is an attribute of Sovereignty, and
is inherent in every Government unless explicitly denied or
limited by its Constitution; [736]

"Before we proceed to examine [the Case's] argument, and subject
it to the test of the Constitution, we must be permitted to
bestow a few considerations on the nature and extent of this
original right of taxation, which is acknowledged to remain with
the states.  It is admitted that the power of taxing the people
and their property is essential to the very existence of
Government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to
which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the
Government may choose to carry it.  The only security against the
abuse of this power is found in the structure of Government
itself.  In imposing a tax the legislature acts upon its
constituents.  This is in general a sufficient security against
erroneous and oppressive taxation."
     -    M'CULLOCH v. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316, at 428 (1819).

(however, I am referring only to the expectations of reciprocity
inherent as Sovereignty in the several States, and not the United
States Government, which is a very unique jurisprudential
structure of the world's political jurisdictions.)  Properly
rephrased, what that means is that the jurisdiction of Government
(remember during this Residency Contract discussion, I am only
talking about the several States) to first throw benefits at
folks, and then in turn demand and get reciprocal taxation
compensation back in return for having done so, is simply
unlimited -- unless the Juristic Institution in its
constitutional structure has been explicitly restrained (limited)
from asking for reciprocity back in return.  And when dealing
with a State taxation scheme, we need to focus in on the State's
statutes and its Constitution, rather than the United States
Constitution, because as a general rule the States are free to
throw benefits at folks, and then demand and get reciprocity back
in return -- generally unhampered, unencumbered, and unrestrained
by the Federal Constitution.  [737]

"On the other hand, the Constitution, by words, places no
limitation upon a state's power to tax the things or activities
or persons within its boundaries.  What limitations there are
spring from applications to state tax situations of general
clauses of the Constitution."
     -    JOSEPH v. CARTER & WEEKS, 330 U.S. 442, at 426 (1946).

So the place to disable a State's expectations of reciprocity has
its seminal point of origin in the Juristic Institution's own
Charter -- and an examination of your regional Prince's Charter
will reveal that not very much reciprocity restrainment exists
there, if any.  [738]

"The power of taxation rests upon necessity and is inherent in
every independent State.  It is as extensive as the range of
subjects over which the Government extends; it is absolute and
unlimited, in the absence of constitutional limitations and
restraints, and carries with it the power to embarrass and
     -    TANNER v. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 380, at 380 (1915).

As this background legal setting applies to us, Residents are
objects accepting juristic benefits, and so now Residents are
PERSONS over which the State has reciprocal expectations of
taxation jurisdiction, largely unhampered by the Federal
Constitution, because you are a benefit acceptant object lying
within the contours of its geographical perimeters.  [739]

"... the power of taxation is not confined to the people and
property of a state.  If may be exercised upon every object
brought within its jurisdiction.  This is true.  But to what
source do we trace the right?  It is obvious, that it is an
incident of Sovereignty."
at 490 (Cambridge, 1833).

So the State has some jurisdiction over you simply because you
are an object in that kingdom, however, whether or not that level
of jurisdiction ascends to the reciprocal level of taxation
jurisdiction when no benefits are being transferred down to you,
is another question.  [740]

"The obligation of one domiciled with a state to pay taxes there,
arise from unilateral action of the state Government in the
exercise of its most plenary of sovereign powers, that to raise
revenue to defray the expenses of Government and to distribute
its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits.  Hence,
domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation."
     -    LAWRENCE v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, at 279

Now we ask ourselves the usual question:  Just what benefits are
being thrown at us this time, in order to justify one more
juristic layer of taxation?  [741]

"Decisions of this Court, particularly during recent decades,
have sustained nondiscriminatory, properly apportioned state...
taxes... when the tax is related to... local [in-State]
activities and the State has provided benefits and protections
for those activities for which it is justified in asking a fair
and reasonable return."
     -    COMPLETE AUTO BODY v. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274, at 287
"The application of the rule will vary with the quality and
nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each
case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of conducting [commercial]
activities within this forum state, thus invoking the benefits
and protections of its laws."
     -    HANSON v. DENCKLA, 357 U.S. 235, at 253 (1957).
"But to the extent that a [person] exercises the privilege of
conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and
protections of the laws of that state.  The exercise of that
privilege may give rise to obligations..."
     -    INTERNATIONAL SHOE v. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, at 319

As a point of beginning, Residents accept the benefits offered by
State Constitutions.  [742]

"A Sovereign may impose upon everyone domiciled within his
territory a personal tax, which is 'the burden imposed by
Governments upon its own Citizens for the benefits what that
Government affords by its protection and its laws.'  Any
domiciled person is subject to this tax, though he be an alien or
a corporation."
     -    Joseph Beale in JURISDICTION TO TAX, 32 Harvard Law
Review 587, at 589 (1919).

The fact that a state conducts certain programs for its Residents
does not mean that these benefits are available to all who live
within its borders.  [743]

The right to use certain state benefits often depends upon
whether the Resident can meet certain qualifications.  See
Columbia Law Review 134 (1970).

Here in New York State, we open up the State Constitution no
farther that the first line in Article 1, Section 1, and we find
the recital of benefits the United States Supreme Court was
referring to:

     "No member of this state shall be disenfranchised, or
deprived of any of these rights or privileges secured to any
Citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment
of his peers..."
     -    NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, Article I, Section 1
["Rights, privileges, and franchise secured"] (1938).

Generally speaking, State Residents are State Citizens; and
Citizens, as members of the State body politic, possess election
rights of suffrage.  [744]

"Every Citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for
all officers elected by the people..."
     -    NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 1.

Another benefit inuring to State Residents is the protectorate
operation of the State Police Powers.  [745]

"The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every
civilized Government, is exercised upon the assumption of an
equivalent rendered to the Taxpayer in the protection of his
person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or
in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which
he shares -- such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks,
pavements, and schools for the education of his children.  If the
taxing power be in no position to render these services, or
otherwise benefit the person or property taxed, and such property
be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it
may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for
protection, the taxation of such property within the domicile of
the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a
tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the
power of the Legislature, and a taking of property without due
process of law."
     -    UNION REFRIGERATOR v. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 195, at 202

By the use if this power, a wide ranging array of benefits can be
thrown at folks in justification for the enforcement of the
reciprocal demands of taxation.  [746]

One manifestation of the operation of the Police Powers, so
called, is the creation of regulatory jurisdictions designed to
restrain color and race discrimination:
     "... the police powers of a State under our Constitutional
system is adequate for the protection of the civil rights of its
Citizens against discrimination by reason of race or color."
     -    Justice Douglas in BOB-LO EXCURSION COMPANY v.
MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28, at 41 (1947).
By multiplying little slices of invisible benefits here and
there, States create a large array of benefits that are
impressive to Federal Judges -- and even the 14th Amendment
surfaces as an expression of Law in State Residency Contract
     "Since the 14th Amendment makes one a Citizen of the state
where ever he resides, the fact of residence creates universally
recognized reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of
allegiance and support by the Citizen.  The latter obviously
includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is
largely a political matter."
     -    MILLER BROTHERS v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340, at 345

But in addressing the Residency Question itself, which is a
sister to Citizenship, two Cases come to my mind:

     -    In COOK v. TAIT, [747]

265 U.S. 47 (1924).

which is primarily a Citizenship Contract Case, the Supreme Court
ruled that income received by a Citizen of the United States
while resident in Mexico is taxable due to benefits received
while outside of the United States (the old acceptance of
benefits story:  When benefits offered conditionally have been
accepted, there lies a contract and it becomes immoral not to
require a mandatory exchange of reciprocity).  The Court then
listed those benefits that American Citizens carried with them no
matter what their geographical situs was.  [748]

And just like the King can tax his Citizens when they have asset
streams out of the country, States can tax their Residents on
asset streams the Residents own outside the perimeters of the
     "A state may tax its residents upon net income from a
business whose physical assets, located wholly without the state,
are beyond its taxing power...  That the receipt of income by a
resident of the territory of a taxing sovereignty is a taxable
event is universally recognized.  Domicile itself affords a basis
for such taxation.  Enjoyment of the privileges of residence
[accepting residency benefits] and the attendant right to invoke
the protection of its laws [the police protectorate benefits,
contract enforcement benefits, and others], form responsibility
for sharing the costs of Government.  'Taxes are what we pay for
civilized society...'  See COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE
measured by net income of residents is an equitable method of
distributing the burdens of Government among those who are
privileged to enjoy its benefits."
     -    NEW YORK EX REL COHN v. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, at 313
(1936) [Statements were quoted out of order.].

     -    In SHAFFER v. CARTER, [749]

252 U.S. 37 (1920)

a Resident of Illinois was experiencing income from property he
owned in Oklahoma.  It was held that Oklahoma can tax non-
Residents on their property located within the Oklahoma boundary
situs, and the reason is that protective benefits were accepted
by that Oklahoma property and so the state is entitled to a part
of the financial gain that property realized (which is also a
correct statement of Nature, although the Supreme Court did not
use those words.)  [750]

"The [income] tax, which is apportioned to the ability of the
taxpayer to pay it, is founded upon the protection afforded by
the state to the recipient of the income in his person, in his
right to receive the income and in his enjoyment of it when
received.  These are the rights and privileges which attach to
domicil within this state."
     -    NEW YORK EX REL COHN v. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, at 313

The taxation key in both of those Cases was the acceptance of
benefits.  [751]

When arguing state taxation jurisdiction Cases before judges, one
of the permissible arguments to make is a subjective value
cost/benefit question.  In listing some of the arguments that
could have been made by a Tax Protestor, but were not, the
Supreme Court said that:
     "We note again that no claim is made that the activity is
not sufficiently connected to the State to justify a tax, or that
the tax is not fairly related to benefits provided the
     -    COMPLETE AUTO BOY v. BRADY, 430 U.S. 274, at 287
Incidentally, as a point of reference, the Constitution's
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE disables certain State Income Taxing
schemes from taking effect, under some limited conditions.  See
which discusses several such factual settings where challenged
State Income Taxing schemes were either affirmed or annulled on
questions that turned on the COMMERCE CLAUSE.

Viewed from a Judge's perspective, what this means is that it is
permissible for a political jurisdiction to throw some benefits
at you, and then demand, and get, some QUID PRO QUO financial
compensation in return for having done so.  In this respect, due
to Sovereignty, Governments differ from Individuals in the
respect that Individuals have to document with evidence the
voluntary acceptance of a benefit [of which silence, but the
RATIFICATION DOCTRINE, can be reasonably inferred in some
circumstances] from someone else before bringing that other
person to his knees in a Courtroom; Government, however, simply
throws benefits at everyone at large, and the acceptance of the
benefit by silence is automatically assumed absent explicit,
blunt, and timely benefit rejection and disavowal by you.  The
several States as independent Sovereignties also possess this
inherent power, except as limited by the United States
Constitution.  [752]

"We have had frequent occasion to consider questions of state
taxation in the light of the Federal Constitution, and the scope
and limits of national interference are well settled.  There is
no general supervision on the part of the nation over state
taxation, and, in respect to the latter, the state has, speaking
generally, the freedom of a sovereign, both as to objects and
292 (1905).

And so as it applies to occupancy, Residency Status is very much
a privilege in the sense that contracts are in effect; by your
silence, after talking occupancy in some Prince's kingdom, you
attached a reasonable expectation of using the Prince's police
protectorate powers, among taking advantage of other juristic
benefits; and so now state statutes that define a reciprocal
taxation liability being expected back in return after you have
lived in that kingdom for some 60 to 90 days, or whatever, and
then continues liability attachment unless you have been out of
his kingdom for more than six months in any one year, etc. are
all morally correct and provident.  [753]

"... the 'controlling question is whether the state has given
anything for which it can ask return.'  Since by 'the practical
operation of [the] tax the state has exerted its power in
relation to opportunities which it has given, to protection which
it has afforded, to benefits which it has conferred...' it 'is
free to pursue its own fiscal policies, unembarrassed by the
     -    PORTLAND CEMENT v. MINNESOTA, 358 U.S. 450, at 465

By your silence, benefits offered conditionally by your regional
Prince were accepted by you through your refusal to disavow them,
so invisible contracts where then and there created by your acts
(your act of refusing to reject and disavow the juristic
benefit).  [754]

"And we deem it clear, upon principles as well as authority,
that... a State may impose general income taxes upon its own
Citizens and residents whose persons are subject to its
     -    SHAFFER v. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 52 (1919).

Therefore, State Income Tax Protestors, who merely make the
declaration, while in the midst of some type of state income tax
enforcement proceeding, that they "are not residents" or are not
"state citizens" are wasting their time.  [755]

Whether or not RESIDENTS of a state are automatically
classifiable as STATE CITIZENS varies based on several factors;
sometimes these two words mean the same thing, and sometimes they
do not.  Although a light reading of the 14th Amendment would
lead folks to believe that residents are Citizens of the state
wherein they reside, there is a distinction in effect between
"resident" and "Citizen":
     "Of course the terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not
synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important [like
in] (LA TOURETTE v. MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465, at 470 (1918))."
     -    TRAVIS v. YALE & TOWNE, 252 U.S. 60, at 78 (1919).
For purposes of analyzing a taxation scheme under the PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment, the terms RESIDENT
and CITIZEN are essentially interchangeable; see AUSTIN v. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 420 U.S. 656, footnote 8 (1974).
However unequal the Government benefit distribution skew is
between these two classifications, important for the moment, for
taxation purposes RESIDENTS are equally taxable objects like

The fact that you may have recorded that declaration in a public
place, and may have also made the declaration timely, are not
relevant factual elements that inure to your advantage, since the
substance of your arguments is meaningless.  Your Residency
Contract is not unilaterally terminated by your mere declaration
that you are not a Resident; contractual termination has to occur
for a good substantive reason.  One such reason would be Failure
of Consideration (meaning, that you explicitly and timely
rejected all state and municipal benefits).  Now that there has
been a failure of benefit transference, now you have a
substantive attack to make on the assertion of a Residency
Contract on you.  Your objective is to terminate the contract.

There is a distinction between the termination of a contract, and
the repudiation of contract.  REPUDIATION is to reject, disclaim,
or renounce a duty or obligation that is owed to another party --
since the retention of the benefits derived from the operation of
the contract continues the life of the contract in effect.  To
repudiate a contract is to merely give advance notice to the
other party that you intend to breach the contract for some
Samuel Williston in REPUDIATION OF CONTRACTS, 14 Harvard Law
Review 421 (1900).]  In contrast to that, to TERMINATE a contract
is to end and cease the existence of the contract altogether [see
TERMINATION, all rights, duties, and obligations arising between
the parties cease altogether, and there are no lingering
reciprocal expectations retained by either party.

  If you want to win your State Income Tax Cases, then do not
throw arguments sounding in the Tort of unfairness at the Judge;
do not pretend that the invisible contract does not exist, and do
not argue that it is unfair to hold such a contract against you
since either nothing "was signed" or that the Protestor baby talk
of "minimum contacts" or "nexus" required by the Supreme Court in
their line of State Jurisdiction Cases was not met (as your
physical household inhabitancy in that kingdom overrules those
types of questions designed to address factual settings where
Geography Jurisdiction itself is a disputed element).  [757]

And geography was very much disputed in 1959 when, as Governor,
Nelson Rockefeller gave his taxing grab one more turn of the
screws to Parties of the New York State Personal Income Tax -- as
this time, Residents of New Jersey, who work in New York City and
pay New York Income Taxes as the reciprocity for the use of the
Commerce Jurisdiction of New York State, decided to take matters
into their own hands.  They persuaded U.S. Senator Clifford Case
of New Jersey to introduce a proposed Constitutional amendment
into the Congress in March of 1959 which would have prohibited
the several States from taxing the income of non-Residents.
Although Nelson Rockefeller's tax increase was the catalytic
trigger for initiating this amendment, however, as is usually the
case the truth itself is obscure and difficult to find, because
during Hearings held in Congress, emphasis was shifted over to
paint a larger regional picture of an "unfairness" taxation
problem by pointing to the double taxation of New Jersey
Residents both by New York and also by Pennsylvania for those who
commuted into Philadelphia.  During Senate Hearings, the question
arose as to how to protect the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
the State of New York from the prospective loss of revenue --
revenue that was generated from such non-Residents [certain
people seemed very concerned that Nelson Rockefeller not be
deprived of so much as one thin dime of tax money to spend].
Would there be any reciprocating QUID PRO QUO that New Jersey
would yield in exchange for financial benefits lost to New York
     "The reciprocal exemption of New York residents from a New
Jersey income tax on nonresidents working in New Jersey might
well constitute sufficient QUID PRO QUO."
     -    Senator Clifford Case in HEARINGS BEFORE... THE
["Constitutional Amendment:  Taxation By States of
Nonresidents"], 86th Congress, First Session, April, 1959; acting
on Senate Joint Resolutions 29 and 67 [GPO, Washington (1959)].
As we turn around from a juristic situs on political arguments
made in Congress, over to the unbridled snortations disseminating
outward from a Federal Judge's Courtroom, nothing changes either,
as the same PRINCIPLE OF NATURE that Judges hold errant Tax
Protestors to [that your expected QUID PRO QUO reciprocity is
mandatory when juristic benefits were accepted by you], also
applies to nullify prospective opposition to political arguments.
By Senator Case's identification in advance of the QUID PRO QUO
that New York State would be gaining if this amendment gets
Ratified, the impending opposition of this amendment by New York
State is placed into a known expected manageable mode -- a
strategic model for handling grievances that Tax and Draft
Protestors would be wise to consider adapting into their MODUS
OPERANDI of errant defiance.  Through this Letter, I have
identified certain key benefits that Federal Judges have their
eyes fixated on when signing a Commitment Order to a Federal
Penitentiary on Tax and Draft Protesting Cases.  Your failure to
nullify, in advance, the Principle of BENEFITS
impending adversaries, will prove to be self-detrimental, as this
PRINCIPLE OF NATURE can and will make an appearance in any
setting.  And if you do win on some off-point technical grounds,
your apparent victory will be carrying over with a lingering
illicit savor.  Secondary consequences will also be created in
the wake of having deflected attention off to the side while the
true reason for winning that particular battle remains obscured,
and also by having been deprived of the important intellectual
benefits associated with battles that are fought and won/lost on
their merits.  Failure to identify the true cause of a battle
loss or win is to render the efforts expended on behalf of your
battle largely naught, and leaves a person's judgment no better
off coming out of the battle than they were when first going into

You must address the Contract question head on, that by the act
of your silence a Residency Contract was entered into, and you
must come to grips with that fact.  [758]

The power to tax, the power to throw benefits at folks and then
demand, and get, financial reciprocity:
     "... is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-existensive
with that to which it is an incident.  All subjects over which
the sovereign power of a State extends, are objects of taxation;
but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest
of principles, exempt from taxation."
     -    M'CULLOCH v. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316, at 429 (1819).

The local state tax collector did not receive any Notice of your
Rejection of Benefits, so his assertion of a reciprocal tax
against you is provident, up to a limited point.  And so winning,
on point, will be predicated upon your correctly addressing the
existence of the contract in arguments for what it really is, and
then attacking the content substantively on the hard mandatory
requirement of benefit enjoyment [which does not exist in your
Case due to Failure of Consideration], a defense line that causes
contracts so deficient in Consideration to fall apart and
collapse under attack in adversary judicial proceedings.  When
trying to get out of contract where one of the parties is a
Juristic Institution, a few low-level Trial Judges will find your
position to be novel and philosophically uncomfortable, and so
you should brace yourself for some snortations descending down to
the floor of the Courtroom from the Bench.  I did not realize
this at first, but some Judges are actually jealous of people
turning around so smoothly walking away from a juristic taxation
contract; the Judge went to Law School, and then possibly went to
work for a law firm, and then they were called to be a Judge; in
their minds they look back and see all that money they threw out
the window to Government year after year only to wind up in the
pockets of some Special Interest Group, and here you are,
actually GETTING AWAY WITH what they did not know how to do
themselves, and what is nowhere documented in statutes.

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

George Mercier