George Mercier "Invisible Contracts"

[netnaznav]

My apologies if I have filed this topic incorrectly, as I am new to internet forums.

I searched Q-forum for George Mercier and found next to nothing. Perhaps he's not a Freeman type or tax protestor himself (is he?), but his magnum opus "Invisible Contracts" would appear to be a seminal text among adherents of those persuasions.

I have skimmed some of the freeman library. I know I should probably read them thoroughly but the writing is so bad, I just can't do it. It's too frustrating. Anyway, the only text that really stood out to me, not only for superior grammatical construction but also for the appearance of actual scholarship, is "Invisible Contracts" by George Mercier. I actually enjoy this one because at the very least, he spins a great yarn.

What I'd like to know is:

How many of you out there have read it?
How did you like it?
How do you respond to the ideas set forth within it?
Who is George Mercier?

[The Observer]

Are there links to websites that have his theories on line? If so, that might be a way to get other people involved in the conversation.

[notorial dissent]

netnaznav, if I haven't said so before welcome, and if I have, welcome again and anyway.

If Mercier is the one I am thinking of, he has been around for ages, but has pretty well been pretty well dropped off the scope by the flashier of the genre. Again, IIRC, a lot of the early sovcit nonsense was based on his stuff. I can't say that I have seen or even heard his name mentioned in quite some time, so anything you can disinter on him will be of interest, as he really hasn't been chronicled that I am aware of, certainly not here, and he certainly deserves his place in the Hall of Fraud.

[Jeffrey]

There's a lot of unresearched stuff out there, Mercier is one of them.

I've heard Merciers book referenced repeatedly by Winston Shrout however never went and looked into it.

[morrand]

I searched Q-forum for George Mercier and found next to nothing. Perhaps he's not a Freeman type or tax protestor himself (is he?), but his magnum opus "Invisible Contracts" would appear to be a seminal text among adherents of those persuasions.

Oh, I think he is, or was. There is an introductory file posted on archive.org, to start with. This makes it clear that Invisible Contracts goes way back to the days when nonsense passed from BBS to BBS:

(1) Invisible Contracts was privately published and privately circulated beginning in early 1986. It is not copyrighted and the author has given express and explicit permission to those who first purchased the book to distribute the book in any format they choose, without compensation to the author.

(2) Invisible Contracts is actually a 745-letter in book form. 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 1980's, now defunct) called "Your Heritage Protection Association." In that original letter, Mercier was attempting to present a correct description of the error that Armen Condo was committing in his case against the Feds. 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.

Google searches on "mercier invisible contracts" are productive of results in the usual places (Sui had one, I think), though I think that the purest source would be to read it in the original BBS textfile form (scroll down to "incon001.txt", and so on; try to avoid distraction as you do so).

Larry Becraft evidently had his differences with Mercier. For what it's worth, Becraft summarizes Mercier as claiming that all law is commercial law and is based on (surprise!) invisible contracts; if so, then obviously Invisible Contracts would be a key link in the development of a busload of current sovcit ideology.

Continuing with the intro file:

(10) Invisible Contracts was written for knowledgeable and "well-seasoned" Patriots. Its contents are on the equivalent level of a Ph.D. It assumes that you have, at a bare minimum, a good working knowledge and understanding of law and legal concepts related to the Patriot Movement* and its primary concerns and issues. It assumes that you have already passed through numerous mental barriers erected by society and our Rulers to lead you down blind alleys and dead ends, fighting worthless fights or just plain giving up and turning on the Boob Tube. It assumes that you are somewhat intelligent, and more importantly, in a "teachable state." In short, depending upon your personal orientation just prior to exposure to this book's contents, you may either conclude that the experience was, as the Russians would describe it, a "Providential Discovery," or in the alternative, a "waste of time." However, you must understand that Invisible Contracts is a key, and this key only fits certain locks. Either you are or you are not one of those locks which the key fits. This key only seeks to find locks that fit, not one's that do not. In short, this book is not running a "popularity contest." If you find this book very valuable, then that alone is prima facie evidence that the book was written just for you (and if so, in fact, it was).

I have not read any of it myself, so far (I have Boob Tube to watch), but for anyone who's interested in having a crack at it, here you go.

[bmxninja357]

I have seen that come up lots of times but generally from posters who I take little stock in. Like jackieg for example.

Ninj

[notorial dissent]

Yup, then, this is the bozo I was thinking of. He was kind of the founder and progenitor of the "everything is contract/commercial law" subset of the sovcit movement. He, or at least his theories were real popular with a certain segment of sui for a long time, still are for all I know, since they never learn, just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over. I think Shrout is at least in part a lineal descendant, and there are a couple of others I can't think of at the moment. Mercier doesn't get as much play these days for some reason, not sexy enough????

[netnaznav]

netnaznav, if I haven't said so before welcome, and if I have, welcome again and anyway.

If Mercier is the one I am thinking of, he has been around for ages, but has pretty well been pretty well dropped off the scope by the flashier of the genre. Again, IIRC, a lot of the early sovcit nonsense was based on his stuff. I can't say that I have seen or even heard his name mentioned in quite some time, so anything you can disinter on him will be of interest, as he really hasn't been chronicled that I am aware of, certainly not here, and he certainly deserves his place in the Hall of Fraud.

I appreciate the warm welcome.

Sadly, George Mercier Jr. died in 2011 at age 57.

His father, WWII veteran George Mercier Sr. died two months ago at age 92.

Oddly, for all of Larry Becraft's opposition to Mercier's text, his main page has plenty of material that would appeal to the Freeman mindset. Those court records read a lot like "Invisible Contracts" so it's almost certainly the same guy, apparently a big fan of Irwin Schiff.

What I find most interesting is that, Mormon beliefs and invisible contract theory aside, he seems sharp enough to point out that FOTL/TP types really only damage themselves by attempting to engage and game the system, a concept that seems to be lost on the average OPCA litigant.

[Patriotdiscussions]

My apologies if I have filed this topic incorrectly, as I am new to internet forums.

I searched Q-forum for George Mercier and found next to nothing. Perhaps he's not a Freeman type or tax protestor himself (is he?), but his magnum opus "Invisible Contracts" would appear to be a seminal text among adherents of those persuasions.

I have skimmed some of the freeman library. I know I should probably read them thoroughly but the writing is so bad, I just can't do it. It's too frustrating. Anyway, the only text that really stood out to me, not only for superior grammatical construction but also for the appearance of actual scholarship, is "Invisible Contracts" by George Mercier. I actually enjoy this one because at the very least, he spins a great yarn.

What I'd like to know is:

How many of you out there have read it?
How did you like it?
How do you respond to the ideas set forth within it?
Who is George Mercier?

I have read it a few times.

I thought it was decent, gave me something to start with in my research.

I researched the ideas set forth, most that I have spent time on I found to be true to a degree. Almost everything we do is a contract, a lot of them never even known about. The social contract I have found is one such contract, allegiance for protection, the original contract they say.

From what i heard he was a district court clerk, but who knows.

[Patriotdiscussions]

netnaznav, if I haven't said so before welcome, and if I have, welcome again and anyway.

If Mercier is the one I am thinking of, he has been around for ages, but has pretty well been pretty well dropped off the scope by the flashier of the genre. Again, IIRC, a lot of the early sovcit nonsense was based on his stuff. I can't say that I have seen or even heard his name mentioned in quite some time, so anything you can disinter on him will be of interest, as he really hasn't been chronicled that I am aware of, certainly not here, and he certainly deserves his place in the Hall of Fraud.

I appreciate the warm welcome.

Sadly, George Mercier Jr. died in 2011 at age 57.

His father, WWII veteran George Mercier Sr. died two months ago at age 92.

Oddly, for all of Larry Becraft's opposition to Mercier's text, his main page has plenty of material that would appeal to the Freeman mindset. Those court records read a lot like "Invisible Contracts" so it's almost certainly the same guy, apparently a big fan of Irwin Schiff.

What I find most interesting is that, Mormon beliefs and invisible contract theory aside, he seems sharp enough to point out that FOTL/TP types really only damage themselves by attempting to engage and game the system, a concept that seems to be lost on the average OPCA litigant.

It seems to me that most just want to game the system, to me liberty means personal responsibility, so for the majority of "freedom" researchers, they seem to be mainly confirmation bias intellectually lazy basterds looking to game the system some way.

[fortinbras]

I bothered to check out George Mercier on Lexis. He was the plaintiff in at least two dozen lawsuits, most unpublished, usually suing someone in authority - the Secretary of Defense, the US Marshals, the Las Vegas Police Dept, the bodyguard of the Nevada Governor, et al. - invariably NOT paying the filing fee (which usually doomed his lawsuit), and often complaining that those in authority had somehow contrived to send someone to assassinate him (which definitely doomed those few lawsuits that survived the failure to pay the filing fee). He sued NY Governor Pataki for contriving to have him sent to a psych hospital, which gives you a hint of how responsible people felt about him. Did I mention that he never won a lawsuit?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Seems like George did not understand his own theories.

[AndyK]

Not true.

He completely understood his theories. He just didn't realize that they were totally wrong.

[notorial dissent]

I agree, I think he really truly believed his theories, it was just that they were all 110% WRONG, as his life of total abject failure proved.