The "letter" is addressed to a "Mr. May", who wrote Mr. Mercier in connection and in response to a letter Mercier wrote to Armen Condo, the founder of a major tax protestor group in the 's, now defunct called "Your Heritage Protection Association. Condo rejected the letter and subsequently lost his case, not wanting to entertain the idea, for even a moment, that perhaps the King did in fact have Equity Jurisdiction Attachment on Condo which he most certainly did , and that perhaps the real error resided with Condo and not "over there" with the King.
|Published (Last):||11 June 2015|
|PDF File Size:||15.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.17 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Against this backdrop, George Mercier wrote a thoughtful advisory letter to Armen Condo in August of , seeking to correctively alter the course Condo was then pursuing vis-a-vis his federal case, with the objective of the letter being oriented towards keeping Armen Condo out of a federal cage.
Although Armen Condo reacted adversely to the letter, it found a very receptive and appreciative audience amongst patriots across the nation. One such copy of the letter found its way into the hands of Frank May, who subsequently wrote an intelligent and thoughtful letter to George Mercier, seeking an expansion of the enticing data contained in the Armen Condo Letter. So, without further commentary, what follows is the original letter to Armen Condo, the letter which started it all…. In analyzing the contents of your magazine, I found that the United States is apparently trying to:.
In trying to get a feel for your sentiments towards the United States for doing these things to you, I detected underlying feelings of anxiety and some resentment on your part. Therefore, what I have to say will only be of value to you to the extent that you are in a teachable attitude. Secretary of the Treasury. If the restraining order has been granted, I can show you how to get it reversed next January. Before I identify the private agreement you continue to maintain with the Secretary of the Treasury which agreement places you into a written, equity relationship with the United States , there is a fundamental principle underlying American jurisprudence you must be aware of as background material to understand what follows.
This principle is a hybrid corollary and consistent extension of the evidentiary doctrine that specificity in evidence will always overrule generalities in evidence, even when they are in direct conflict with each other. For example, the statement by one witness to a crime that…. Hence, conflicts in testimony are always resolved by giving the greater weight to the most specific statements.
This is also the way equity grievances in contract disputes are settled — the most specific, detailed clause governing the disputed circumstance is construed to be the statement meant to govern the disputed circumstances — even though broader, more general statements can be found in the contract and may favor the other party. The principle that applies to your relationship with the King the King being the United States — the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English Common Law as it was at that time, with only additional restrainments being placed on the King is the principle that private agreements will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Thus, specific agreements governing individual circumstances will always overrule broad general clauses found in the Constitution. Or expressed in other words, it is irrational to allow someone to enter into a private agreement with someone, and then allow him to take a clause out of the Constitution — off point and out of context — and allow him to take that clause and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his way out of the agreement, all while retaining the financial gain the agreement gave him in the first place.
When you started work for me you signed an agreement agreeing that all company information that you were exposed to while employed here, and all knowledge you acquired regarding impending new products and technologies being worked on here -you had agreed not to disclose, release or disseminate any such confidential information to any other person for a five year period after you left my employ for any reason.
Your excuse for violating the agreement you signed earlier with me is that…. So now I take you in front of a judge and ask for a restraining order. Question: Does the First Amendment apply? Restraining order granted. Reason: Private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights. In other words, one does not get to use the Bill of Rights to weasel out of private agreements, while retaining the gain that the agreement gave him in the first place.
Condo… you entered into an agreement with Mr. Mercier to be an engineer for him, and under which you experienced financial gain or profit.
Mercier, all while keeping the money he gave you under the agreement by working for him. This is irrational. Restraining order will have to be granted. Another example is this: Say that you are a convict sitting in a prison. The warden calls you upstairs and offers to let you go free if you sign an agreement.
That agreement calls for parole checking, warrantless entry of your residence at any time, and you agree not to carry any guns. You sign the agreement and clear out of prison. A month later your car is stopped for speeding and a gun is seen half covered in the back seat. The officer charges you with possession of a concealed weapon.
You argue Second Amendment rights during pretrial motions. The trial judge ignores your motions and sets a trial date. Question: Is the judge a fifth column commie pinko? Here you signed an agreement and you experienced a gain premature freedom.
Now you want to take the Second Amendment, and use that to weasel and twist your way out of an agreement, all while retaining the gain freedom that the agreement gave you.
This is irrational, and judges will not allow it, properly so. You probably have heard it said that Federal Judges will tell defendants and counsel in Section — Willful Failure To File criminal trials that…. That statement shocks most people up a wall — but it is an accurate and correct statement. The Judge will never tell you why, though.
Of all of the different Judges that I know who have blurted out that statement, none of the criminal defendants have ever pressed the Judge for an explanation as to why the Constitution does not apply. The reason why the Constitution does not apply is because the Judge is merely enforcing private agreements the defendant signed with the Secretary of the Treasury.
The Judge is not a fifth column commie pinko. The real reason is as follows:. When new Federal Judges are hired nominated by the President and later confirmed by the Senate after hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee — after they go through that hiring procedure in Washington — they are taken back to Washington and are taken into private seminars that are sponsored by the United States Department of Justice.
They are taught and trained what the Supreme Court of the United States wants for perfecting due process. Federal Judges have been instructed that the Supreme Court ruled in in a case called Davis vs. Elmira Savings, U. In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King. At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions , and you are very much in an Equity Relationship with the King.
If you would go back to your bank and ask the manager to show you your signature card again, in small print you will see the words:. Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules? If you have, you will read and find out that you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury, among many other things.
What is really happening in these Willful Failure to File prosecutions is that the Judge is operating on the penal clause to a civil contract. And since you have agreed to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it make whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress?
A contract does not have to be enacted by Congress — in whole or in part — in order to make it enforceable. The Congress does not have the jurisdiction to use the police powers to raise revenue. That is the proper way the ideal Alice in Wonderland way actually to collect taxes, and that is the procedure by which Federal Judges are enforcing the law — not by ruling over gestapo Star Chambers.
I have some reservations on the modus operandi of Federal Judges to the extent that the Supreme Court mentions over and over again that:. And on these tax protester trials, that requires a sentencing hearing lecture by the judge to the defendant on why and where the defendant did err.
So I disagree with the modus operandi of Federal Judges to this extent. So, in conclusion on this issue, if the 16th Amendment were somehow repealed tomorrow morning at am — it would not change a single thing other than the IRS would have to start giving people a correct presentation of the law to justify the taxes. The IRS and the excise tax on juristic persons would continue on as usual. Attorney Charles Magnuson dated January 31, — and turn to page 9. This petition by the United States for a restraining order against you is legitimate to the extent that you are in written contractual equity with the King.
When you trace back the genealogy of your signature on your bank card, you will find that you agreed to be bound by Title. The Federal Judge probably is not going to want to disclose what document it is that you executed which created the attachment of equity jurisdiction. They have been asked not to let the cat out of the bag. This type of equity jurisdiction always attaches by written consent.
If this restraining order has already been granted by now — then get rid of your bank accounts and file a petition for reversal next January — your arguments being then that you are not in an equity relationship with the King anymore. Then the First Amendment would apply then, but it does not apply to you now since you are in an equity relationship with the King — and private agreements overrule the Bill of Rights.
I was intrigued to see that you have retained an interest in my Letter to Armen Condo, even if that Letter was intended to be the isolated private correspondence between two people.
After receiving numerous inquiries about that Letter, I have been quite surprised at the extent to which that Letter has been so widely disseminated. At the time I wrote it, I was under the assumption that most folks already knew of the underlying evidentiary Commercial contract factual settings that Title 26, Section Willful Failure to File prosecutions are built on top of.
In your Letter you state that you have some questions about the bank account contract as being the exclusive Equity instrument that initiates the attachment of liability for the positive administrative mandates of Title Please be advised that your reservations are well founded and quite accurate, that is, if you did read such an element of exclusivity out of the Letter.
The reason why your reservations are accurate is because I did not mean to state or infer any such thing; however, that is not the problem here.
Since the nature of bank accounts involves the evidentiary presence of written admissions, together with the acceptance of Federal Commercial benefits therefrom, the presence of reciprocity expectations contained therein,  and other factors, bank account instruments are conclusive evidence of Taxpayer Status by virtue of participation in the closed private domain of Interstate Commerce.
And by these conclusive evidence fellows entering into the Armen Condo factual setting the way they did, those bank accounts were the only evidentiary items that I talked about. So if a person , seeking a shift in relational Status to individual , is unwilling to first get rid of his bank accounts, then talking to him about anything else is an improvident waste of time. Since no further dissemination of the Letter was expected, no detailed explanation of the factual setting otherwise relevant to the subject matter content of the Letter was made, nor was any detailed discussion of other limiting factors or peripheral elements of jural influence made.
Both parties already knew key elements of the factual setting that gave rise to the Letter, and the subject matter I addressed was intended to be a narrow one, talking about bank accounts only as a point of beginning. Relating to Mr. You have me in such a position, Mr. May, that writing this response to you makes me feel like I am the United States Supreme Court, reaffirming a prior Opinion, yet turning around and writing voluminous explanative text discussing the implications to a slight twist to the factual setting.
Condo was just plain wrong in both of those questions were discussed in that letter — because in both questions, the United States had written Commercial contracts Armen Condo had entered into wherein Mr. Condo agreed not to disseminate any erroneous tax information, and additionally, where Mr. Condo agreed not to withhold or fail to file any information the Secretary of Treasury deemed necessary to determine Mr.
Those contracts the United States was operating on were Mr. Condo in the circumstantial context of Mr. In other words, there had been an exchange of financial Consideration benefits involved, and in Contract Law, the exchange of valuable Consideration benefits is of particular significance.
As the presence of fraud vitiates contracts, so in a similar manner does the absence of Consideration nullify contracts. Very simply, Contract Law applies to govern a settlement of a grievance whenever a contract is in effect. This means that only certain types of very narrow arguments are allowed to be plead in Contract Law grievances, since only the content of the contract is of any relevance in the grievance settlement.
“Invisible Contracts” by George Mercier