(Basically saying, I think, "If you have a bank account, you're in an adhesion contract with 'the King' that obligates you to pay income tax." If so, Rossotti wouldn't need to walk out and 'show them the law' - there wouldn't be one - but the Invisible Contract is what would win in court. Still - they'd prefer we didn't know this. :)

-----

INVISIBLE CONTRACTS - BANK ACCOUNTS

Some years preceding his multiple prosecutions in 1984, Mr. Condo
went down to a bank, and initiated an Equity relationship with
that corporation and the King. Yes, Commercial contracts in
effect with banks are invisible juristic contracts in effect with
the King. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that banks are
in a special Status with the King, and likewise so are the
individual people who experience profit and gain from any

Commercial contract they enter into with a bank. This relational
effect of doing business in King's Commerce is pronounced quite
clearly in the INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE the Supreme Court
initiated publicly with DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS:

"National banks are instrumentalities of the Federal
Government (The King), created for a public purpose, and as such
necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United
States."

So although the Protestor was at one
time unaware of the existence of a contract being in effect, the
King was very much aware, and so the Protestor's defiant behavior
is increasingly improvident when viewed from the perspective that
the Commercial contract was written to strongly favor the King,
and is interstitially dispersed throughout with penal clauses IN
ESSE for no more than mere administrative negligence and default,
and any outs that exist for persons in default are the unintended
default technical errors that the King's LEX statutes can correct
at the discretion of the Congress.

Today, great Tax Protesting Patriots like Condo, Schiff, and
Saussey --who have established themselves in forward political
positions --have the strong advantage of learning in advance the
single most important fundamental starting point in this Life; a
starting point that most other folks won't even know of until it
is too late; a starting point that bifurcates the Law of Judgment
into two great subdivisions; Tort and Contract.

Exemplary perhaps would be two EXCLUSIONARY RULE based cases from
the Supreme Court:
-UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).
A criminally accused person made a pre-Trial Motion to Suppress
of copies of checks and other bank records which federal
agents had gotten a hold of. HELD: That the Motion to
Suppress was properly denied since the accused person
possessed no Fourth Amendment interest that could be
vindicated by a challenge to the bank accounts; and any
infirmities or deficiencies in the bank account record
acquisition process, by way of a defective Subpoena or Search
Warrant, were irrelevant arguments since Subpoenas and Search
Warrants were unnecessary document acquisition tools to begin
with; those bank account records are the property of the
Government, and they are available to the Government under
administrative devices (meaning an investigator's phone call
or letter inquiry); and
-UNITED STATES VS. PAYNER, 447 U.S. 727 (1979). A criminal
defendant had been charged with falsifying his income tax
return by denying that he held a foreign bank account.
Federal agents in Florida had broken into an apartment and
then surreptitiously copied bank records that a bank manager
from the Bahamas had brought with him on a trip, under
circumstances that you or I would be incarcerated for. Later
on, detective work back at the office uncovered the fact that
the poor defendant did indeed maintain foreign bank accounts,
so the Government then threw a criminal prosecution at the
fellow caught in the act of defilement. Since the Government
had violated the Constitutional rights of a third party [the
bank manager from the Bahamas], and not the criminally
accused, the Fourth Amendment offered no protection to the
Defendant, since the Defendant had no rights violated.

Stated in other words, perhaps more explicitly, emphasizing the
consequences of maintaining bank account records: When Government
obtains your bank account records, regardless of how, through
whom, when, or under any circumstances, then arguing Fourth
Amendment rights defensively will likely not produce any sympathy
from Federal Appellate Forums.

Paraphrased from UNITED STATES VS. PAYNER, id., at 731.

Since the "zone of privacy" inherent in the Papers Clause of the
Fourth Amendment does not facially protect information you have
deposited into the hands of third parties, like banking
institutions,

" ...no interest legitimately protected by the Fourth
Amendment is implicated by governmental investigative
activities unless there is an intrusion into a zone of
privacy, into 'the security a man relies upon when he places
himself or his property within a constitutionally protected
area."
-HOFFA VS. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 293, at 301 (1966) .

--Federal Courts find it unnecessary to probe any deeper and
explicitly tell you the real underlying reason why bank accounts
fall outside the protective penumbra of the Fourth Amendment;
Because a Commercial contract is in effect, and the Bill of Rights
cannot be held to interfere with or obstruct the contemporary
execution of Commercial contracts, for either party (and properly
so). But wait, as those Supreme Court cases dealt with bank
accounts Seized from a bank itself, and banks as regulated
Commercial establishments have no Fourth Amendment rights
whatever. So there are no privacy rights in any information you
deposit with those banks, and this remains true whether or not
there was a Commercial contract in effect or not. Hmmm. But what
if those bank account records were Seized from a person's home
where the Fourth Amendment does apply? Now what? The Fourth
Amendment still does not apply, and properly so.

"Respondent [bank account holder] urges that he has a Fourth
Amendment interest in the records kept by banks because they
are merely copies of personal records that were made
available to the banks for a limited purpose and in which he
has a reasonable expectation of privacy... Even if we direct
our attention to the original checks and deposit slips (that
the bank account holder kept in his home], rather than to the
microfilm copies actually viewed and obtained by means of a
subpoena, we perceive no legitimate 'expectation of privacy'
in their contents. The checks are not confidential
communications but negotiable instruments to be used in
commercial transactions. The lack of ANY legitimate
expectation of privacy concerning the information kept in
bank records was assumed by Congress in enacting the BANK
SECRECY ACT, the express purpose of which is to require
records to be maintained because they 'HAVE A HIGH DEGREE OF
USEFULNESS IN CRIMINAL, TAX, AND REGULATORY INVESTIGATIONS
"-" AND PROCEEDINGS' (12 U. S .C .Section 1829b(a)(1)]."

This is what is really meant when the bank account evidence taken
from a patently unlawful residential Search and Seizure in a
person's home is deemed admissible, even though the Fourth
Amendment's Exclusionary Rule would otherwise attach if the
property that was seized did not belong to the King (guns,
cocaine, etc.) .Federal Judges will skew their Seizure of bank
accounts annulment justifications off to the side and talk about
the "special facts in this case" when annulling Fourth Amendment
rights on bank account records unlawfully Seized from a residence.

Banking records seized from residences merely contain the same
information that other documents located in public places contain;
and so although those seized records are "private papers," all the
Government has to do is go down to the bank [now that they know
which bank to go to, and which account to sift through], obtain
duplicate copies of banking records, and then throw those copies
that were obtained directly from banks at Defendants:
"On their face, the documents [bank accounts] subpoenaed here
are not respondent's 'private papers.' Unlike claimant in
BOYD VS. UNITED STATES [116 U.S. 616 (1886)], respondent
[bank account holder] can assert neither ownership nor
possession. Instead, these are the business records of
banks.
-UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 440 (1976).

And now we are finally getting down to the one real reason why the
Bill of Rights in general, and the Fourth Amendment, in
particular, means absolutely nothing when a bank account is
involved with a contested Search and Seizure; this special reason
is never talked about by law schools; and this reason is not to be
found anywhere in any law book in any library that I am acquainted
with: But the reason is, as stated, because a Commercial contract
with the King is in effect, and so as a point of beginning, the
Bill of Rights is irrelevant from the scratch, and properly so;
but you will never hear that explicit explanation from anyone
else, other than George Mercier. Never in any Court Opinion is
there any blunt discussion of Commercial contracts being in
effect; rather, Judges will continue to focus distracting
attention and discussions around the Fourth Amendment, creating
the potential image, in some peripheral factual setting cases,
that the Fourth Amendment is the center of gravity here, rather
than the Commercial contract itself. Yet it is very proper and
correct that the Bill of Rights should not be allowed to interfere
with, obstruct, intervene, or otherwise restrain the execution or
operation of contemporary Commercial contracts --for either
party; but getting an official admission like that from a Federal
Judge will result in a can of worms being opened up (as they
perceive it), a can of worms they don't want to talk about and
deal with in the future.

As I mentioned in the Armen Condo Letter, Federal Judges have been
asked not to let the "cat out of the bag" by discussion the
special and very quiet relationship between bank accounts and
Income Tax statute liability (although bank accounts are not
exclusive Equity Jurisdiction attachment instruments, they are
air-tight instruments of CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE whenever the King
has a burden of proving the defendant's entrance into Interstate
Commerce).

Additionally, but to a lesser extent, those bank account records
are the private personal property of the King, and so it is
irrational that the King cannot reclaim his own property whenever
he feels like it, all pursuant to the terms of the bank account
contract.

"The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to
another, that the information will be conveyed by that person
to the Government... This Court has held repeatedly that
the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of
information revealed to a third party and conveyed by [the
third party] to Government authorities, even if the
information is revealed on the assumption that it will be
used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in
the third party will not be betrayed."
-UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 443 (1976).

If you don't know what contract I am referring to that gives the
King the right to simply reclaim his own property, then ask a bank
for a copy of their bank rules that all depositors and borrowers
have agreed to be bound by. Under normal circumstances, banks are
reluctant to give depositors copies of Bank Rules those depositors
have agreed to be bound by. Sounds irrational, doesn't it?
Withholding the terms of contracts those depositors have just
taken upon themselves criminal compliance liability for? Yet,
numerous attempts by people associated with me have attempted to
obtain a copy of these Bank Rules, and all attempts resulted in
the banking officer claming up tight, deflecting attention over
to the "irregular and unusual" nature of the request, and then
telling the requesting person to go see MR. SO AND SO at the
Federal Reserve Board, who in turn also clamed up tight. So much
for domestic American bank accounts.

Those are the real reasons why the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
are irrelevant in bank account Administrative Seizures and in
judicial prosecutions evidentially based on bank accounts.
Within the same line of Fourth Amendment cases, those Federal
Judges will also refer to bank accounts as being interstate
merchant and Commercial instruments, but never is there any
discussion to be found anywhere on the special Equity
Relationship in effect between Persons entering into such
Commercial contracts, and the King.
Some folks have taken the position that if they entered into
Equity with the King by signing a bank account card under
Objection on the grounds of necessity, that Objection somehow
will vitiate future liability; but there is an inherent defect in
that reasoning. Unlike signing Driver's License applications
under Objection and Notice of Duress to avoid incarceration, the
Supreme Court has ruled that the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a Substantive
and Fundamental Right that cannot be infringed upon, absent very
strong and compelling state interests; and there are state
statutes which criminalize the act of an unlicensed driver
operating a motor vehicle down the road. Taking that Driver's
License scenario as a model and applying it to justify possessing
bank accounts just does not cut it. Bank accounts are not
entered into to avoid incarceration, and banking is not a
Substantive Right, and direct personal financial profit and gain
enrichment is experienced when possessing bank accounts that is
without parallel with a Driver's License. So, all factors
considered, the likelihood of escaping an Excise Tax liability by
arguing bank account possession by necessity, is remote. This
remains true even though the California Supreme Court ruled once
that:
"For all practical purposes, the disclosure by individuals or
business firms of their financial affairs to a bank is not
entirely volitional, since it is impossible to participate in
the economic life of contemporary society without maintaining
a bank account. In the course of such dealings, a depositor
reveals many aspects of his personal affairs, opinions,
habits and associations. Indeed, the totality of bank
records provides a virtual current biography."
BURROWS VS. SUPERIOR COURT, 13 Cal 3rd 238, at 247 (1974).

The California Supreme Court is not a Federal Tribunal, and
statements to the effect that bank accounts are necessary for
practical economic survival, and perhaps are not purely
volitional [VOLITIONAL means freely choosing or will to do so, as
in making a decision], although an interesting perception of the
passing scene, will in no wise vitiate your legal liability to
the adhesive Federal taxation reciprocity expectations resident
in Title 26. Notice how the California Supreme Court did not say
that possession of bank accounts under a documented factual
setting of economic survival annuls Title 26 liability. So let's
not read out of that state court what it does not say; and even
if that state court did state inferentially that possession by
necessity annuls expectation of reciprocity liability in areas of
taxation, then the California Supreme Court is still not a
Federal Judicial Forum. Federal Judges are taught and trained
certain things in those Seminars of theirs, and that BENCH BOOK
of theirs makes the Government's position sound more than
reasonable, and so as a result, Federal Judges are collectively
sensitive towards certain things [such as the significance of a
Commercial contract] that State Judges are indifferent to.
This DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS Instrumentality Doctrine
occasionally surfaces in Supreme Court rulings, by sometimes
being lightly mentioned in passing in OBITER DICTUM, such as in
ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK VS. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233, at 252 (1943).
and on other occasions, this Instrumentality Doctrine is bluntly
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, as in MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK VS.
FIRST OF OMAHA. 439 U.S. 308 (1978).

But if the Law of King's Commerce is correctly understood, there
is no need for the Supreme Court to reaffirm anything, as the
circulation of paper money, notes, or the circulation of any
juristic currency, even carrying intrinsic value, in King's
Commerce (as distinguished from privately minted coins and
notes), has always been the closed private domain of the King of
England. And it has been the exclusive domain of the King ever
since paper money was first printed and circulated by King
Richard II to finance an offensive war against France that
Parliament declined to levy taxes to wage.

-----