Invisible Contracts

--by George Mercier

The Armen Condo Letter

August, 1984

In August, 1984, Armen Condo, Founder of Your Heritage

Protection Agency ("YHPA") was being prosecuted by the
Federal Government under numerous tax related statutes, as
well as other collateral charges such as mail fraud.

The YHPA is still (the record holds to this day), the

largest organized tax protester group to ever have existed
in the United States (with respectful deference to our
Founding Fathers and innumerable fellow unsung "tax
protester" patriots living and laying their lives on the
line in the 1700s for our benefit today). In its heyday in
the 1970s/1980s, the YHPA's dues-paying membership reached
well into the 20,000 to 30,000 range, before it was
ultimately brought into a state of non-existence through
the intervention of strongly persuasive federal influences.

The YHPA published a fairly thick newspaper, and continued

on in their efforts for several years, with their primary
focus based upon the illegitimacy of Federal Reserve Notes,
contending thereon that receipt of said Federal Reserve
Notes did not constitute "income," therefore, no one
receiving said notes was liable under federal income tax
statutes. Although additional proprietary "tax protester"
positions were routinely addressed, the YHPA's primary
focus remained centered around Federal Reserve Notes.

Curiously, as a side note, individuals choosing to join the

YHPA (usually in the context of a dinner/seminar setting),
were guided through a "joining process" at the conclusion
of the seminar, where dual ID photos were taken (the YHPA
kept one photo, and you received the other, using a dual-
photo camera similar to the dual-photo cameras used at your
local Department of Motor Vehicles or local passport photo
vendor) and slick, professional looking "ID cards" were
processed on the spot and given to each new member at that
time.

In hindsight, the stated reasons given at these

dinner/seminars with respect to the "necessity" of
having/creating a photo ID card were rather specious at
best, and in fact, there was some additional hindsight talk
that perhaps the YHPA was a Federal "Tax Protester" Sting
Operation all along, designed to attract and then identify.
[For example, in the U.S.S.R., the KGB is known to have
secretly "created" (sponsored is more like it) -- various
protester groups for the sole purpose of throwing out some
attractive philosophy designed to attract a certain type of
individual, and then having "extracted" those individuals
from society, and having thus identified them -- then
shutting down the organization and arresting the members.
This practice is a utilization of the principle known as
the "Doctrine of False Opposition."]

After all, it is rather suspicious, if not ironic, that an

organization purporting to be highly critical of
"government," and taking a relatively "radical" approach to
same (non-filing tax protesters "sign up here..."), and
having an orientation favoring the individual over
government in general, would in fact so closely emulate
"Big Brother" tactics such as requiring a photo ID card for
all of its new members, and for reasons that would not
normally hold up to intellectual scrutiny or inspection
except for the fact that within the context of the actual
joining process, those people were not concerning
themselves at the time with such incongruities, but were
instead swept up in the excitement and impetus of the "I'm
Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take Anymore" sentiment
generated at typical YHPA recruitment seminars.

Against this backdrop, George Mercier wrote a thoughtful

advisory letter to Armen Condo in August of 1984, 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. And with respect to Armen Condo, the letter
was a wash, as Armen Condo was highly unreceptive to its
contents (being in an unteachable state of mind, and so he
rejected it "in toto"); however, the letter did not stop
there with Armen Condo. In fact, it somehow "exploded" into
the general patriot pipeline/network, and was widely copied
and circulated all across the country. (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.
Expansion he wanted -- expansion he got, because George
Mercier in turn wrote a reply letter to Frank May -- a 745-
page letter, which then became a privately published book
entitled "Invisible Contracts - The Frank May Letter"
(dated December 31, 1985).

So, without further commentary, what follows is the

original letter to Armen Condo, the letter which started it
all...

August, 1984

Dear Mr. Condo:

I just received your periodical "YHPA" for March, 1984,

which I had requested from your organization for the
purpose of contemplating subscribing to it.

In analyzing the contents of your magazine, I found that

the United States is apparently trying to:

1. Get a restraining order to shut down your operation;

2. Trying to get some incarceration out of you as well.

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.
I know that I am taking a shot in the dark by telling you
things which follow, but I think it is important that
someone inform you why you are on the "left side" of the
issues and why and how the United States is on the "right
side" of the issues -- and that the Federal Judge is merely
enforcing private agreements that you continue to maintain
in effect with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

By the time you receive this letter in August, the Judge

may already have taken some action on the government's
petition for a restraining order against you -- I do not
know the present status of that action, but the information
you need to know will be important to you either way the
Judge rules. 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...

"I saw a woman run around the corner, it wasn't a man..."

(and therefore the defendant, who is a man, isn't the
criminal).

That statement would be overruled by this statement from

another witness...

"The person I saw run around the corner had long hair, a
beard, and something like a tatoo on his neck..."

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. This is irrational, and judges won't allow it.

For example, let's say that I hired you to come work for me
as a computer design engineer for my computer company. 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. So let's say that you have now left my company,
and you start publishing and disseminating information you
learned while here to my competitors. Your excuse for
violating the agreement you signed earlier with me is
that...

"Well, the First Amendment says I got freedom of speech and

press..."

So now I take you in front of a judge and ask for a

restraining order. Question: Does the First Amendment
apply? The answer is no, it doesn't. 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. In
the back of the judge's mind is the following logic:

"Well, Mr. Condo... you entered into an agreement with Mr.

Mercier to be an engineer for him, and under which you
experienced financial gain or profit. Now that you don't
feel like honoring the agreement any longer, you want to
take a clause out of the Bill of Rights to work your way
out of your agreement with Mr. 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? No, he isn't; he is merely enforcing private
agreements. 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 7203 -- Willful
Failure To File criminal trials that...

"...the Constitution does not apply here."

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 agreement the Judge has in
front of him is not the defendant's 1040 or the defendant's
W-2/4; those are merely declarations of facts and no profit
or gain is experienced by them. 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. It is
in these seminars that new Federal Judges are taught and
trained "how to" manage their criminal proceedings so as to
avoid reversible error, i.e., absence of counsel and trial
procedure, etc. They are taught and trained what the
Supreme Court of the United States wants for perfecting due
process. They are given Supreme Court cases to study --and
sitting next to that new Judge in these seminars is their
Appeals Court Justice (who will be auditing appeals coming
out of their trial court), confirming that the information
being taught and presented by Justice Department lawyers is
true and correct and that "Things will be done this way."

They are given a "Bench Book" to take with them, giving the
new Judge guidance on handling problems as they arise on
the bench. Finally, the interesting part comes: They are
taught how to manage "Tax Protester" trials -- violations
of Title 26. Federal Judges have been instructed that the
Supreme Court ruled in 1896 in a case called Davis vs.
Elmira Savings, 161 U.S. 275 that banks are
instrumentalities of the Congress.

In other words, the interstate system of banks is the

private property of the King [United States]. This means
that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift
and loan/employee credit union -- any regulated financial
institution carries with it -- as an operation of law --
the identical same full force and effect as if the King
himself created the gain. So as an operation of law, anyone
who has a depository relationship, or a credit
relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD's,
charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are
experiencing profit and gain created by the King -- so says
the Supreme Court.

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.

In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter:

"Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements."

Or in other words, Judges don't like the idea of being

thought upon as being mean gestapo agents -- doing the
dirty work for the King. They consider themselves as being
struck between a rock and a hard spot -- being asked to
enforce agreements and without being given any valid reason
as to why you should be let out of it -- other than you
just don't feel like being incarcerated.

So what happens during these Willful Failure to File trials

is that:

1. The Intelligence Division of the IRS surveys the local

banks in the vicinity of the tax protester, and obtains
copies of the protester's signature card and financial
transactions statements from the bank.

2. At the time the U.S. Attorney requests the Judge to sign

the Summons, the Judge has been presented with your bank
account information. So now during the prosecution the
Federal Judge is sitting up there on the bench with your
agreement with the King in front of him while the tax
protester argues:

"Well, Judge, the Fourth Amendment says..."

"Judge, the Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta..."

Are you beginning to see why the Judge is prone to

experience frustration and blurt out "the Constitution does
not apply here!"?

Meanwhile, the Judge is ignoring all Constitutionally

related arguments and denying all motions.

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:
"The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the Rules
of this Bank."

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.

As for the actual taxation itself, what happens is that the

King creates a "juristic personality" at the time you open
your bank account. And it is that juristic personality (its
income and assets) that the King's Agents are "excising"
back to the King. But in any event, the taxing power of the
Congress attaches by contract or use of the King's
property. 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:

"Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." [Offutt

vs. U.S., 348 U.S. 11] and that when a man is thoroughly
convinced that he is on the right side of an issue -- a man
like Irwin Schiff -- that justice has not satisfied the
appearance of justice unless the criminal defendant is
aware that he did wrong. 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).
I am not going to spend any more time on this subject just
right now -- other than you should be cognizant by this
point in the letter that you are on the left side of the
issue -- and that the King's Agents are not working a great
evil by going around the countryside asking people to stop
defiling themselves by dishonoring their own agreements
with the King.

So, in conclusion on this issue, if the 16th Amendment were

somehow repealed tomorrow morning at 9:00am -- 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.

As it pertains to the proposed restraining order the King's

Agents are trying to get against you and your alter ego,
please get a copy of the Complaint filed by U.S. Attorney
Charles Magnuson dated January 31, 1984 -- and turn to page
9. Examine the last five words in paragraph "b":

"...under the Court's equity powers."

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 26, and under Section 7202 you agreed not to
disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. And the concept that
Federal Reserve Notes are not taxable instruments of
commerce -- for any reason -- when the person has a written
agreement with the King saying that FRN's are taxable --
this concept is in fact fraudulent.

I would encourage you, Mr. Condo, to prove me wrong. You

can prove me wrong by asking the Judge:

"Please identify the instrument I signed, Judge, which

creates an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the
United States and me."

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. The IRS handles this "bank
account = equity relationship" on a military style "need-
to-know" only type basis. You can file a Mandamus in the
Circuit Court of Appeals or petition for a Subpoena Duces
Tecum returnable against the U.S. Attorney to compel
discovery of what it is that you signed that created the
attachment of equity jurisdiction the King's Agents are now
acting under in trying to get a restraining order against
you. 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.