Invisible Contracts?

Government demands our absolute obedience, day in and day out. We are held to a higher standard of behavior than even its own agents are, and for that, it is may not be an acceptable defense before the government to merely claim that there was no injury to persons or property. Contract violations of monopolistically imposed “benefits,” whether that be income tax liability or individually mandated insurance, are used as a vehicle for revenue generation to line the pockets of judges and their Standing Armies.


Screen shot 2014-02-15 at 1.54.33 PM


The author would like us to believe that tyrants can “legally” enslave their captive populations through unwritten adhesion contracts. Thankfully, Mercier provides us with a basic understanding of what adhesion contracts are:


“As it would pertain to you and me, Adhesion Contracts are in effect whenever we sign a lease with a landlord, buy a television or automobile – i.e., in any Commercial setting where standardized, pre-printed contract forms are used, and the low level salesperson you are dealing with has no agency jurisdiction to modify the contract’s terms at all. As the purchase price gets bigger, the general rule, the less ‘Adhesive’ the terms of the contract becomes; so purchases like jets, chemical plants, oil refineries, pipelines, and large real estate properties, etc. are very rarely on standardized forms.”


In other words, adhesion contracts rob you of your ability to dicker and bargain for a better deal, that is, no negotiation is allowed, just “take it or leave it,” much like how the Federalists advertised their proposed 1787 Constitution to the American colonial legislatures. To illustrate how tyrants can impose adhesion contracts on us, Mercier overuses the metaphor of God the Father as somehow trying to teach us the importance of honoring our contracts, for each of us will be held to account for them at the Final Judgement. One problem, though, I would like to point out, namely, is that this would mean that God the Father literally enslaves everyone on the planet. This would also suggest that God the Father is a tyrant, but I contest that if such were the case, then he is no longer worthy of being worshipped. Is Mercier attempting to subtly imply to us by his religious analogy that the State considers itself God? As Stefan Molyneux once said:


“What they do is they invent a superhuman deity who supports their power. So, if you gain power, as a young and strong male, you don’t want youth and strength to be the continuing method by which people get to the top of the pyramid. You want to continue to have your power even when you continue to get old and frail, so how are you going to shore up your power and authority when you get old and frail in your tribe? You’re going invent a super leader who will punish anyone who defies your rule as you age. In other words, as your strength wains, as your power weakens, you need to shore it up by inventing a god, who will strike down anybody who defies you, and that is how you terrify the youth, even though they are stronger and could take you down pretty easily, you terrify the young men of the tribe into submission by inventing a super leader who has chosen and approves you, and who will strike down and punish anyone who defies you.”


Although Mercier certainly does not go so far as to blatantly say that God the Father is a figment in the imagination of a control-freak who is desperately trying to cling onto coercive power, I can’t help but consider the hubris of contemporary government agents as being indicative of their attitude that their actions are somehow outside of the normal limits of morality, which would be a unique standing typically reserved for the Almighty, such as when he instructs Jews how to beat their slaves in the Old Testament.

Religiosity aside, there is still the problem of these unwritten adhesion contracts themselves. For one, how could one be possibly able to fulfill such allegedly invisible contracts if you know nothing about them? Isn’t the entire notion of an “invisible” contract intrinsically violate one of the necessary conditions for contracting itself, that is, full disclosure? Finally, couldn’t it be true that unknowingly accepting these alleged “benefits” is inherently fraudulent? Keeping in mind that Mericer’s “the King” is the United States federal government, he says:


“The reason why the King has the right to summarily assess the amount due under unwritten contracts, when you and I might have to have a protracted Trial setting to settle disputed amounts of money, is because the King publishes the terms of his contracts out in the open in his statutes; so such a Public Notice nature of the King’s statutes is deemed by Judges to settle the question of the amount of money damages due. So the only question left to the IRS to address is simply whether or not you are a Taxpayer, and properly so.”


Mercier is deliberately confusing the terms and conditions of contracts with legislative statutes. Just because a legislature openly publishes the scribblings of politicians does not therefore mean you somehow “consented” to their arbitrary dictates. Worse than that, he seems to be willfully obfuscating that which is voluntary from that which is coercive. Perhaps we should let Mercier round out his explanation for how all this supposedly works:


“So, in Equity Relationships where contracts govern, no formal written contract is necessary to work someone else into an immoral position on their deficiency of quid pro quo reciprocity through the nonpayment of money to you. And when the King is a party to an unwritten and invisible contract, otherwise disputed factual setting arguments surrounding the amount of money due question are not applicable (when the King is a party), due to the prior Public Notice effect of his statutes (and therefore Persons entering into Equity Relationships with the King have already consented to the Amount of Money Due terms). If anyone ever yells you that our King is dim witted or dumb, get rid of such a person but quick.”


Using the example of a roofing contractor who is hired to fix someone’s house but then the client refuses to pay what is owed, Mercier tries to illustrate how an contract could be unwritten yet still valid because there was a benefit received, in this case, on the part of the homeowner. Yet, how does this jive with what “the King” does? It’s almost as if Mercier doesn’t understand government protected cartels, or worst yet, even the basic notion regarding the consent of the governed. Even if Mercier were correct that the reason we all have to pay income tax and acquire driver licensure is because it is pursuant to contract fulfillment since the government is providing us with what it considers to be a benefit, then exactly what benefits are we “enjoying” from the government we wouldn’t otherwise “enjoy” had we not all paid income tax or drove without a license? Although the roofing contractor would be justly owed compensation for the valuable work he performed on the homeowner’s house, how is a fixed house considered a benefit equivalent to the alleged benefit of receiving the hanging chads from the King’s table that was originally stolen from us at gunpoint in the first place? How is any of this voluntary when it is coercively imposed upon us by the law?

Possibly even more disturbing than what I have mentioned thus far is Mercier’s contention that these silent “invisible” adhesion contracts possess higher standing than the federal Constitution. If indeed these contracts outrank any American constitution, then why bother having one? Mercier explains:


“The Constitution was never designed or intended by our Framers to negotiate the terms of contracts – never. If you are coerced by the King into being an involuntary party to a contract in order to enjoy a substantive natural right by clever administrative rule making (e.g., the rights of association, speech, work, and travel), then that is another question; as contracts claimed to be in effect where Tort elements of duress and coercion were present at the time of initiation lose their paramount standing, and so otherwise off-point Tort Law Government restrainments found in the Constitution would then take upon themselves vibrant new practical meanings and now appropriately intervene into grievances where the very existence of the contract itself was disputed.”


That’s rather interesting, so it would seem that Mercier appreciates the government’s trump card of coercive power. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t many American dissidents, particularly constitutionalists and libertarians, the way they are because they scream bloody murder over the tyrannical behavior of government? Whether it be the abuses heaped on us by the Administrative Agencies, or the corporate exploitation of our natural resources and wage labor by soulless empty suits, isn’t it true that the only way any of this rampant corruption could be systematically pulled off is because of such institutionalized coercion the government enjoys when it “lays down the law,” as it were? If such turns out to be the case, then why bother pretending we have a democratic republican whatever and just acquiescence to the reality that we are the dominated subjects of an authoritarian ruling class? Wouldn’t Mercier’s description of these involuntary contracts pretty much fit the bill here?

Taking Mercier’s invisible contracts as a given, it’s certainly a hoot to see how he applies them to a variety of political issues. Regarding the birth certificate, Mercier says:


“When I heard that line, I tossed it aside as a brazen piece of foolishness; the idea of having parents assign debt liability to their offspring by evidence of a Birth Certificate was then, and now remains, as utter foolishness…[t]his concept some folks propagate – that we are locked into juristic contracts by our parents since it is the parents who have caused the Birth Certificate to be recorded – is not correct…[t]he relational status of your parents to Government, past and present, is an irrelevant fact Birth Certificate Pushers are incorrectly assigning significance to…[a]nd so those individuals who have filed a Notice of Rescission of Contract, in rem regarding their Birth Certificate are deceiving themselves, as that Rescission, of and by itself, means absolutely nothing. You missed altogether the one single most important feature that attaches liability to contracts: The acceptance of benefits out in the practical setting.”


Like I mentioned in Only on Paper, there is no evidence that birth certificates are financial securities, at least, none that have been presented by the Commercial Redemptionists or any of their various cohorts. Despite that, though, I’m wondering what “benefits” a child enjoys from the government by virtue of his birth certificate? Would it be United States citizenship, perhaps? Regardless, Mercier next tackles the driver’s license:


“When Protesters get up in the morning, get out the old car, and drive into the street, they are literally driving themselves into a contract – as the Protester then and there accepted benefits conditionally offered by the State – no where in your State Constitution does it require the Prince to build and maintain those Highways of his, so his building and offering those Highways for your consideration and possible use is purely discretionary on his part; nor is your Prince restrained from possessing any expectation of reciprocity from persons accepting the benefits derived from the use of those Government Highways.”


Really? Mercier claims that “no where in your State Constitution does it require the Prince to build those Highways of his,” yet how does he explain Article 3, Section 47-k (b) of the Texas Constitution:


“The Texas Mobility Fund is created in the state treasury and shall be administered by the commission as a revolving fund to provide a method of financing the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, and expansion of state highways, including costs of any necessary design and costs of acquisition of rights-of-way, as determined by the commission in accordance with standards and procedures established by law.”


I guess that really causes some serious doubt as to Mericer’s related claim that “his building and offering those Highways for your consideration and possible use is purely discretionary on his part.” Sadly, Mercier goes onto to essentially provide what I can only describe as an anarcho-primitivist argument against cars that run on internal combustion engines, but then he perverts it to justify the government’s forcible licensure upon the act of traveling itself! Following his very statist diatribe, I would like to next steer your attention towards what Mercier had to say about bank accounts:


“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 of a banking charter to; and the individual shareholders only hold an equitable interest in the bank’s operations.”


Although it is preferable to be unbanked than fully banked, I have never read in any consumer agreement contract I’ve ever had with a bank in the past that said I am contracting with the United States federal government. Thankfully, Mercier provides us with a case citation he used to justify this Instrumentality Doctrine, namely, from Davis v. Elmira (1896), 161 U.S. 275, paragraph 1:


“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.”


Despite the fact that sentence sounds pretty damn bad right from the get go, I am left to wonder whether regional banks, are “instrumentalities of the federal government,” too? In any case, Mercier goes on to say that:


“No, it’s not just a bank account. No, it’s not just a Social Security Number. Those contracts have multiple secondary and rippling tertiary effects that expose people to criminal liability for nothing more that mere forgetful negligence on their part. They are Conclusive Evidence of your having accepted a Federal Commercial Benefit.”


That would be a fun project, wouldn’t it? Just trying to pictorially diagram all those “multiple secondary and rippling tertiary effects” would be an achievement all by itself. Unless you are visually gifted, I would suggest not bother trying in the first place, besides the fact that you’d need all your court case decisions ready to go. Of course, if you miss any relevant court cases, or you misinterpret a ruling you already have, then you’d have to start from scratch, assuming you haven’t confused others or yourself beyond all recognition first.

There is one more contentious issue I’d like to address before mentioning what Mercier’s remedy to all these invisible contracts is, and that is the imposition of the Federal Reserve Notes. As he says:


“Your state of mind is not one of beneficial acceptance and enjoyment of Federal Reserve Notes, but one of a forced de minimis coercion. You are not using Federal Reserve Notes for Commercial profit or gain, but such use is out of practical necessity since the King has physically removed all currency competitors from the marketplace under his penal statutes and literally by physical duress; and so on your use of Federal Reserve Notes is by lack of alternatives to select from, not freedom of choice. By such monopoly tactics, the King is engaging in unfair Trade Practices, which if you or I did the identical same thing, we would be incarcerated for it under numerous Racketeering and Sherman Anti-Trust criminal statutes. Yet the forced monopoly of a currency serves no beneficial public interest, and is actually an instrumentality to work magnum damages on us all after the King replaces his initial hard currency later on with a paper currency (which has now happened). Remember that Federal Judges see important benefits in everything the King does, and there are legitimate benefits in having a uniform national currency to pursue Commercial enrichment with – when those benefits were sought after voluntarily.”


Let me get this straight…according to Mercier, it’s okay for the government to force everyone who wants to travel on the roads to acquire licensure what in reality is a basic freedom inherent to our nature, but for some strange reason, it’s bad for the government to force everyone to accept their monopolistically generated fiat currency? Why would legal tender be thought of as coercive, but driver licensure as being voluntary? In both cases, if you try to do without their licensure and their currency, government agents will find a way, sooner or later, to make you suffer for your perceived insolence to their dominating control over the tax cattle (ever heard of mala prohibita crimes against the State, like selling lemonade with a license?). Again, it’s as if Mercier is so throughly indoctrinated within the cult of state worship that he is literally unable to tell the difference between rape and love-making.

So, what is it that Mercier recommends we all do if we desire to escape the bonds of these unwritten, silent, “invisible” adhesion contracts? He first says:


“[S]uch a pure and clean rescission out away from King’s Equity is a tactically difficult thing to do, even when you are planning it in advance and are trying to do it…I don’t have any problems with the merit and substance of the Social Security Administration’s position that your contract rescission is utterly meaningless: Because the King has an invisible contract on you even without the Social Security Number, if you accept the King’s intervention and benefits in your Employer/Employee contract.”


Is he implying that if you refuse the benefits, then you’re scot free? Let us examine what he himself did:


“In my personal facial Equity rescission, I claimed that the Social Security Administration is jurisdictionally similar to a Federal District Court, i.e., on a limited jurisdictional mission by the Congress, and that they have no grant of jurisdiction in Title 42 to prevent, interfere, or obstruct with terminal contract rescission and benefit forfeiture, nor does Title 42 in any way restrain the cancellation of Social Security contracts and the attachment of Equity Jurisdiction with the King such a contract initiates…and I emphasized the waiver and forfeiture of benefits, and toned down the significance of the rescission of the assigned Social Security Number itself.”


After all that wrangling earlier about how rescission doesn’t work, what I think he meant to say was that rescission by itself does not work, that it needs to be combined with waiving the benefits. Mercier rounds this out by stating:


“So, in the retortional rebuttal response I received back from the Social Security Administration, no such off-point foolish rebuttal was made to United States v. Lee, and the entire rebuttal letter, which was rather long, simply went from one paragraph to the next telling me of all the dire practical consequences I would be experiencing without having a precious little Social Security Number in effect. To those persons who have Social Security contracts, both the United States Social Security Administration and the Contract itself is governed by Title 42, Social Security Act, and so Title 42 now becomes the terms of your Social Security Contract.”


There you have it…a rescission coupled with benefit forfeiture is how you nullify these invisible contracts; of course, how to go about drafting and filing such a unique rescission is a completely separate matter Mercier does not discuss at all, so you are left to your own devices just how you are going to go about doing that.

Having examined Mercier’s thesis, are there any preexisting rebuttals to it? There are at least two I have found, the first of which being Jon Roland’s analysis:


“The essence of the argument is that officials base much of their usurpation on the ancient equitable doctrine of quantum meruit, which provides a legal claim for compensation for ‘unjust enrichment’, and for implicit consent to regulation if one has accepted some benefit, as an ‘understood’ condition for enjoying that benefit. Applied to programs like the income tax on wages or Social Security, the argument is that since people are accepting the benefits of the taxes, either immediately or in the future, they are consenting to the taxes and to the ‘laws’ intended to enforce their collection, even if the laws are not logically derivable from the Constitution. In other words, it is an attempt to hang all or most of the usurpations on the constitutional grant of equity jurisdiction to courts…Does the U.S. Constitution permit implied or adhesion contracts between government and private parties? No. That would require an explicit delegation of power, and there is none. The Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause do not provide authority for that, although those are the clauses which are commonly invoked to offer authority for usurpations.”


Well, so much for the whole benefit forfeiture approach. How about Larry Becraft, who was one of the two witnesses who exonerated Gary Hunt of being John Doe #4, what does he have to say about this? As he puts it:


“With the statute of frauds in mind, look at your birth certificate, driver’s license and SSN card. What promises to pay appear on any of these documents? Did you sign any of these documents promising to pay anything? Can King government sue you for breach of contract based on your birth certificate, driver’s license or SSN? In truth and as a matter of law, these documents are not contracts, nor do they evidence contracts. Finally, there are no ‘invisible contracts’ regarding these matters. Furthermore, having an association with some regulated entity like a bank does not supply some nexus to King government, absent some express law.”


If that’s true, then that would mean that Mercier’s thesis is completely bogus. Although the copious endnotes at the end of each chapter serve as an serial bibliography, I am beginning to doubt that Mercier’s thesis adequately explains any running themes common to most of the cases he cites. Finally, I would like Bob Minarik to share this thoughts on Mercier’s thesis:


“Folks – Here is the bottom line. We are losing our asses because of judicial tyranny, not because we don’t follow wild ass theories of men like George Mercier, Roger Elvick and other wild ass theorists. When we advocate these off the wall theories, what we are doing is saying that we in the patriot movement have been doing it all wrong and that if we followed this theory we would have success, but no one, and I restate NO ONE, has had any success in the judicial arena with that wild theory crap. We in essence are giving credibility to the enemy who is stealing our liberty and divide our ranks so we can be shot down one at a time. If we are going to have any chance of turning this around, we have got to expose this crap for the fraud that it is and get good people who want to fight to start reading history and the Supreme Court cases that supported the fundamental rights issue and reject the spurious claims of men like Rich Cantwell and George Mercier.”


Obviously, Roger Elvick is credited as the original source material for the Redemptionists and their assorted ilk that I have written about before, so since Minarik is using guilt by association by lumping Mercier and Elvick together, I am inclined to agree with him after having read Mercier’s book. Although it may very well be possible to rescind some of these alleged invisible contracts by waiving the benefits, it would have to be demonstrated by simply drafting letters and sending them into the appropriate government entities, followed then by gauging from their responses whether the technique worked or not. Again, this is not so much a matter of philosophy as it is one of methodology, and thus it is falsifiable.

Although it is a maxim of law that ignorantia juris non excusat, good luck trying to figure out what the rules are, or more importantly, what they even mean. Sure, you can read, from the federal government, its United States Constitution, its Public Slip Laws (legislative statutes), its United States Code, its United States Attorney General’s opinions, its United States Supreme Court decisions; or, from your respective state government, such as, for example, the Texas Constitution, the over two dozen Texas statutory codes, the Texas attorney general’s opinions, or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decisions, but that only encompasses the letter of the law. The spirit of the law lies in its interpretation.

Many dissidents think that if they understand the letter of the the law they can substantively understand its spirit, but this a grave mistake, for it assumes that your interpretation possesses equal weight with the government’s interpretation. In the government’s eyes, anything you say is subjective; anything it says is objective. Therefore, what you think you understand, whether right or wrong, is irrelevant to the government; the only thing that matters to the government is its interpretation of its own rules. This is why it is critical for you to always use the government’s interpretation of its own rules, and not your own; it is also the reason why you should be asking questions and requesting clarification from the government as to what they think their own rules actually mean. Another reason to not give your own interpretation of the law is to avoid being accused by the government for “practicing law without a license,” or even for “contempt of court.”

George Mercier’s Invisible Contracts is a testament to the fact that trying to interpret the government’s own rules in an exercise in futility. As long as I’ve studied the law on my own free time, it seems to me that judges are the most convincing propagandists for Leviathan; they are also the best apologists for evil. Besides that, the whole notion of an “invisible contract” is inherently Orwellian, because in order for it to work, it has to self-detonate, that is, it must contradict itself by trying to get you to believe in “involuntary agreements,” which are just as insane as “consensual rape.” I felt like I was reading The Federalist Papers, with all the justifications for adhesion contracts backing it up. Mercier engages in quite a bit of wishful thinking that we might be able to escape government tyranny if we just comprehended the secret meanings behind their body of codified words. Similarly, Mercier indulged in magical thinking as well when he constantly alluded to “Our Father,” “Judgement,” and the “Last Day.” Religious liberty is one thing, but abusing religiosity in order to justify tyranny is what the priesthood historically has done, and we should all know what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the priests’ temperament against liberty.

This entry was posted in Literature Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s