Chapter 6:  The Con of Contracts

    “There is but one law which, from its nature, needs unanimous consent. This is the social compact; for civil association is the most voluntary of all acts. Every man being born free and his own master, no one, under any pretext whatsoever, can make any man subject without this consent. To decide that the son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man.” [The Social Contractor Principles of Political Right, Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1762, Book IV, Chapter2]
    In other words, there are no contracts which bind any man except for the social compact which he enters into voluntarily. That cannot change from day to day, month to month, or year to year. It would be implied that the social compact I joined today, is the same one in which my forefathers joined at the time of the founding of this country, not to some arbitrary changes made by a majority of mentally manipulated individuals who today might be considered my “peers.”

    A simple contract consists of an “offer,” “consideration” and “acceptance” of that offer. There are basically two kinds of contracts.  Implied contracts and expressed contracts.  Implied contracts happen when you enter a restaurant and eat a meal, it is implied that you are going to pay for that meal, right?  Another example would be when you go into a supermarket and you’re shopping, and you open a drink before you get to the checkout counter. It is implied that you have agreed to pay for the item, since you are consuming it, correct? Ok, well, we all know what expressed contracts are.  It is when you walk into a car dealership and put money down and buy a car. The terms of the contract are going to be laid out right there for you to read, examine and understand.
     The Constitution, as I was discussing before, is a con-tract and it is a contract between the colonial government and the Crown.  But it is not a contract that the people are a party to.  Let me ask you a question.  If I agree with my best friend, and we put it in writing, that we are going to create a government with full authority to do commerce and contract, and imprison those who disagree or don’t do as their told, etc., would that government have any authority over you? Well, people may want to think about this one really hard, because people have allowed a government, created by contract between 2 or more parties other than themselves, over 200 years ago, to dictate to them how they are living today.
    The Founding Fathers created a government whose sole purpose was to exist for the sake of the people otherwise the control would have to revert back to the people. What I am saying here, is that the Constitution is not a contract to which you and I are a party. It is a contract that binds government, not you and I.  Can you imagine, for a moment, if a legislator got into office and passed a law saying it was against the law for the people to ever change the laws again, and the crime was punishable by death? Well, then we would never be able to change the laws ever again. We could never change our government. Well, of course, that is silly, but at the same time, it is silly to think we are subject to any of the Constitution or its by-laws for that matter. You cannot be subject to a contract to which you are not a party …unless, of course, you are considered still a subject of the Crown.
     Here, in the U.S. Constitution in 1789 at Article VI Section 2 & 3, it is stated: 2. This constitution, and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: and the judges, in every state, shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.  3. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the united states and of the several states shall be bound, by oath or affirmation to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states.”
    I don’t see anywhere in there where it states that the “people are subject” or “bound” to anything at all. The entire purpose of the Constitution was to BIND government and hold the elected representatives accountable to the people, not the other way around. 

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 states specifically, “To exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings;”
    This meant that the Legislature could not make laws that extended beyond the “ten square miles” or to areas purchased by the legislature which would be meant to include army bases and dockyards. Congress could not make laws which affected the free people in their respective states.
    All along, even until this day, there are safeguards put in which have never been removed which insure our rightful ownership position within this government. It is only recently though, in history, that freedom fighters have been able to uncover enough of these truths to finally put the overall picture together. It has taken even longer to figure out how to incorporate those truths into offences and defenses which could be used in the courtroom or to avoid it entirely.
    To further prove this point, I will quote several sources right out of the law books of history to this present day: The following case is from 1796. Cruden v. Neale (1796)

    “Counsel for the Plaintiff – It will not be denied, and is admitted by the pleadings, that the Plaintiff previous to the revolution resided in this country; after the establishment of the present form of government he can be considered but one of these two lights, as one who refused to become a member of the new government, continuing his allegiance to the king of Great Britain, or as a citizen. When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent. The Plaintiff here is not stated by the Plea ever to have become a citizen or member of North Carolina. The fact is that he never was a citizen.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. (Haywood’s Reports – Reports of Cases adjudged in the Superior Courts of Law and Equity of the …By CAROLINA, North. Courts of Justice, William Horn BATTLE, John HAYWOOD (One of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.) (Verified)

    This case, having taken place in 1796, is important for several reasons. The understanding throughout America, even after the Constitution, was that “every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” This means that every American born in this country, is under no laws, except those of nature until he contracts with other men, and by law, that must be knowingly, and willfully with full disclosure.

     In all power structures, there is a chain of authority, which starts at the top with the being that created the power structure. This is the “Sovereign.” This is the “Principal.” Everything that is his concern is his “Interest.” This Principal creates “Agencies” to serve him and these Agencies employ “Agents” that work for the Agency. The agent can never rise above the principle and this makes it so the servant can never be higher than the master, to which he is indebted. This is also expressed in energy and monetary value, i.e. credit, since the interest is always less than the principle. This means that our servants can never be more powerful than WE, the people, who created the government.  Sometimes, even most of the time, they like to act like they are more powerful, but that is only because they know more than us and usually, they carry a gun. Knowledge is power and information are like bullets. Stock up on information and then your gun will be bigger and more powerful than theirs.

    This next case Waring v. City of Savannah (Ga. 1878), (Unverified), illustrates this sentiment perfectly:
     “In this state as in all republics, it is not the Legislature, however translucent it’s powers, who are supreme – but the people, and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law, is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of delegated power may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” — 60 Ga. 93 (Ga. 1878), Waring v. City of Savannah (Unverified)

    The following quote is taken from the Memoirs and writings of Benjamin Franklin:
    “Every man of the commonalty (excepting infants, insane persons, and criminals) is, of common right, and by the laws of God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. …liberty or freedom consists in having an actual share in the appointment of those who are to frame the laws and who are to be the guardians of every man’s life, property, and peace. For the all of one man is as dear to him as the all of another; and the poor man has an equal right, but more need to have representatives in the Legislature than the rich one. …they who have no voice or vote in the electing of representatives, do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and their representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom other men have set over us, and to be subject to laws made by the representatives of others, without having had representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf.” – (Some Good Whig Principles. Declaration of those Rights of the Community of Great Britain, without which they cannot be Free,” as quoted in Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818) by Benjamin Franklin and William Temple Franklin)

    The following is taken from the California Government Code:
     “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies in this state exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.  It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.   The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.  The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.  The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”  —
California Government Code Section 54950

     While I was researching this stuff years ago, I looked into a situation that was unfolding in Montana. A group of guys called the “Montana Freemen” were shaking up the local government and they had stumbled across some law material and codes and statutes that showed that there was an original “supreme Court” in the county that was composed of real people and whose actions took precedence over the laws and codes of the elected legislative courts, and even the State Supreme Court, and ALL Supreme Courts.  In other words, they uncovered the true “supreme Court.”  Here are a few of the “gems” they found while doing serious research and it should be kept in mind, that these same statutes may be found in other states as well. All of this is being covered up by the liars/lawyers.

     1994 MCA Special Session Edition    Jurisdiction Over Appeals From Justices’ Courts: The Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction to review the judgments or orders of the Justices’ Courts. – Adair v. Lake County Justice Court, 213 M 466, 692 P2d 13, 41 St. Rep. 2241 (1984); State ex rel. Estes v. Justice Court, 129 M 136, 284 P2d 249 (1955)

     So, they talk about these “Justices’ Courts.” The Montana Freemen named themselves “Justus Township” after this word and concept.

     1994 MCA Special Session Edition – Section 5.  Self-Government Charters. (1)  The Legislature shall provide procedures permitting a local government unit or combination of units to frame, adopt, amend, revise, or abandon a self-government charter with the approval of a majority of those voting on the question. The procedures shall not require approval of a charter by a legislative body. (2)  If the legislature does not provide such procedures by July 1, 1975, they may be established by election either:

      (a)     Initiated by petition in the local government unit or combination of units; or

      (b)     Called by the governing body of the local government unit or combination of units.

(3)  Charter provisions establishing executive, legislative, and administrative structure and organization are superior to statutory provisions.

     I don’t know if you read that correctly or not, but it says “procedures shall not require approval of a charter by a legislative body.”  AND “Charter provisions establishing executive, legislative, and administrative structure and organization are superior to statutory provisions.” This says it all right here folks, WE are the government and they (the elected) cannot make laws to tell us how to run our “government.”

     1994 MCA Special Session Edition Art. XI, Sec. 5, Mont. Const.- Official Comment
New provision directing legislature to pass laws concerning procedures for local voters to design their own forms of government (self-government charters). The charter provisions concerning structure of local governments would take precedence over general laws on such matters.

    That’s the KEY right there.   (…would take precedence over general laws on such matters…) 

    And next we read from the Montana Constitution:
     “The Legislative Assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say regulating county or township affairs; regulating the practice in Courts of Justice; regulating the jurisdiction and duties of Justices of the peace, police magistrates or constables; changing the rules of evidence in any trial or inquiry; providing for changes of venue in civil or criminal cases; for limitation of civil actions; summoning or impaneling grand or petit juries; for the punishment of crimes; for the assessment or collection of taxes; changing the law of descent; creating offices, or prescribing the powers or duties of officers in counties, cities, township or school districts;” —
Montana Constitution, Article 5, sec. 26

Who is a Party to the Contract called the Constitution?

     “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution.  The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.  The States are party to it.” —
Supreme Court of Georgia, Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) (Bills and Debates in Congress Relating to Trusts: 1902-1913)
    This particular case dealt with an individual who was suing the state for an unfair tax. What is less often cited in this case is the following, which is of major importance in relation to taxes.
    “It is a universal maxim, that Quibilet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto. The consumer, therefore, can waive his right to object to this ordinance, on the score of its being void; and he does this when he pays the tax that it imposes on him.”

    If I am reading this correctly, it states that when a tax is paid, that is consent to it. What this implies is that there is a way to protest the tax as well which includes non-payment. Regardless, paying the tax accomplishes the role of “acceptance” of the contract. 

     So, I think that should clear that up, right? Individual people are not a party to the contract of the Constitution in our “private” capacities, only in our capacities as voluntary members of the collective ”state.”

     I wanted to introduce this concept here because the essence of this book is contracts. A verbal speech can be a contract in that one person says something to another person who either accepts it or rejects it. Say I tell a woman that her dress is stained. I communicated to her something that I thought she might want to know. Now she can take this a number of ways.  She may be thankful for me pointing it out to her, or she may think I am insulting her. Sex is another form of contract in that sometimes people make love for different reasons. Have you ever been with someone who you thought was attractive, but you didn’t want to “date” them?  Did you tell them how you felt exactly, before you slept with them? After you had sex without disclosing your true feelings, how did they take it when they found out you just wanted sex and not a loving relationship? This is an implied contract of sorts, and unless you spell out the terms, there is going to be confusion among the parties. These are implied contracts, in a sense because there is a lot which is presumed, but not explicitly expressed.
    In commerce, when a person does not accept an offer, of a tendered negotiable instrument or bill, then there is what is called a “dishonor” of the offer. This “dishonor” can now be accepted.  Normally, the person doing the acceptance is in a superior position of the contract, but if an offer is dishonored, the person accepting the dishonor is now at the head of the contract. This is a seldom known concept in simple contracts in commerce.
When the offer is accepted, the acceptor becomes the “holder in due course,” and they are in charge of the contract. When an offer is dishonored, the offerer becomes the “holder in due course” instead of the acceptor. It is not too important to get this completely at this point of the book, but as the reader progresses through this book, it will become a vital concept to understand. So, basically, every contract has 3 elements, really. The third is “consideration.”  You have value given, for value received, and consideration. When something is offered, it represents “value” given, and when compensation or money is paid, there is value received. In the middle is “consideration.”  This, of course, is when you consider the contract, or the offer. This must take place in order for there to be a legitimate contract and it must not be done under duress.

     Here is a court case that illustrates our power to contract. Hale v. Henkel (March 12, 1906)
        “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such that existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State….. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass on their rights.” —
Hale v. Henkel (March 12, 1906) (Verified)

    So, maybe this is how they got us. We can contract anytime we want. Even when we don’t know we are contracting, and the state or feds are taking advantage of us.
    Here is a result of contracting with the state through a marriage contract. The case concerned a party who sought divorce in a state other than the state the marriage had taken place in.
    “The state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardians of their morals.” —
Roberts v. Roberts (1947) 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381.

   In this next case I present, sovereignty exists despite contracts and illustrates how sovereignty is not given up by contract without full consent. Loss of sovereignty may not be implied. Sovereignty case involving contracts and retention of Sovereignty

   “The Tribe’s role as commercial partner with petitioners should not be confused with its role as sovereign. It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.”  –
Pp. 455 U. S. 144-148. – Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982) (Verified) (1)


Pages 42, 43, 44 Not Included in Free Edition – To Order the FULL Version in either Softcover or E-Book, Please Visit the Store.

Chapter 7