A FICTION AT LAW OF UNTOLD MAGNITUDE The Creation and Marketing of the "State of New Columbia" by Jeffery, Craig, Thayer Sui Juris, Juris et de jure Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes; and (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak and write, they will declare themselves. -- Thomas Jefferson, August 10, 1824 (In "conversation" with a fictitious student, Mr. Thayer unravels one of the stickiest traps Congress has yet laid for the unwary: the hidden relationship between the District of Columbia and the separate States. The dialogue is very enlightening.--Editor) Since 1982, there has been a new flag flying over the District of Columbia. Don't be surprised if you fail to recognize it. It's quite different from the American flag but is treated with equal dignity there. The design, three red stars and two red stripes on a white field, also appears on District of Columbia license plates and police officers' armband insignias. The flag is hoisted daily on a separate flagpole to the same height as the U.S. flag in the District--even at McDonalds restaurants. There are un- confirmed reports of this flag also flying over certain United States military bases. Why does the District of Columbia need its own flag? In 1982, Washington DC, established itself as the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA, complete with a brand-new constitution that bears little resemblance to the Constitution for the united States of America. I don't recall a new state being added. Am I forgetting something? Your memory is fine. It is not a State of the Union despite some media play that it had applied for admission. NEW COLUMBIA is one of three superstates [London and the Vatican are in the others] and will probably never seriously consider becoming a State of the Union. That would be an evolutionary step backward for this political creation. Why should I care? I don't live there. Think again. Both contract law and the doctrine of the "law of the flag" dictate that the Constitution for the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA may very well apply to you right now as your municipal law. (See sidebar.) That's impossible. I can't be bound by laws that are foreign to where I live! Can I? I understand your disbelief; it grows out of two time-honored concepts, lex loci and lex loci contractus. They mean that "the law of the place" (where you make your home, where an act was committed, etc., or where a contract was entered into) governs the relations between those involved. However, those concepts, potent in American law until now, have been superseded by another that better suits the plans of those who created the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA. It is know as lex fori and governs all administrative and judicial courts today. Lex fori means the "law of the forum [court]" alone will apply. That is, the only law that will count in that court is the positive law of the state, country or other jurisdiction to whose judicial system the court belongs--regardless of conflict with any other body of law. Such as the state and local laws that the parties to the action might be familiar with and agreeable to? Exactly. OK. So what law does govern these courts? You can answer that one for yourself. First look at the flags planted in each courtroom. Then consider that each County and State court in which the United States flag is now displayed is a contractual, political subdivision of the District of Columbia. What? That's right; the municipal law of Washington D.C., sometimes disguised as State law, now governs you by contract under the doctrine of lex fori--also under the doctrine of the law of the flag. By authority of that municipal law (approved by Congress in its capacity as legislature for the District of Columbia) the new flag now flies over every government building, usually on the same staff as the U.S. flag. By law, it is also displayed inside all public buildings whenever and wherever the U.S. flag is displayed. But don't the District of Columbia laws apply only to those who live there? Most people believe that. However, you may become subject to the municipal law of this red and white flag in ways you would never suspect. When you consent, in writing or otherwise, to "reside" or be "employed" in a federal "revenue district," electoral district, water conservation district or school district you automatically include yourself in a "political subdivision" and "body politic" that you know by some local name, but it ALSO known as NEW COLUMBIA. You produce the same result when you vote for national officers as a citizen of the UNITED STATES, INC. "UNITED STATES, INC."? What's that? The United States government is a corporation, no different legally than Chrysler or General Motors. Corporations are political creations. The UNITED STATES, INC. was given formal legal birth in 1990 when the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act was passed. I'm confused; I thought the United States was a nation! That's not surprising. There are more than three distinct definitions of "United States" officially recognized by the Supreme Court. The picture gets even more confusing; the large body politic or "superstate" labeled the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA actually has satellites known by different names. In Pennsylvania for example, NEW COLUMBIA is known by several aliases, such as the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and the STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA (distinguished from the Constitutionally established Pennsylvania commonwealth or Pennsylvania state), the abbreviation "PA" with a ZIP Code numeral, (in contrast to "Penna." or "Pa." long established for Pennsylvania commonwealth or state), the COUNTY OF SUSQUEHANNA (distinguished from the Constitutionally established Susquehanna county), etc. Capitalizing and reordering words to convert a political entity in a "STATE OF" or a "COUNTY OF" name are telltale signs that it may actually be one of the many political subdivisions of the District of Columbia. In each of these satellite jurisdictions, officers of the UNITED STATES, INC. apply laws passed by Congress which are created and applicable only in the District of Columbia--"except as provided by law." For example? Take a simple conveyance of real estate. Recall your American history? The English Stamp Act of 1763 was one of the prime igniters of the Revolution. Forced upon the colonies, this law regulated stamps placed on deeds, contracts, agreements and papers in law proceedings, bills, notes, letters, receipts and other papers in order to tax these transactions. They were not postage stamps. Each stamp placed on these papers was a tax for the "privilege" of conducting the transaction in the King's domain. The premise and paradigm in the pre-Revolutionary period was that the King owned everything--the colonists were merely tenants. Today a notary seal acknowledging your signature on a deed, deed of trust or mortgage has the same purpose as the Stamp Act. Instead of the King receiving "tribute" for this transaction, his pretended successor, the UNITED STATES, INC. receives it through various Federal, "State" and "County" political subdivisions of the District of Columbia. Notaries carry out a federal office and function. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, placing the seal of a notary public on your document, verifying your signature, amounts to saying that you resided in a federal enclave or taxing jurisdiction when you conveyed the land. Consider those seals as equal to plating the flags of the UNITED STATES, INC. and STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA on your documents. Most States no longer use revenue stamps, but they impose a transfer tax and enter the property into the property tax rolls of a Federal County, which is a political subdivision of the District of Columbia by contract. Simply put, when you signed your name, you agreed to the "notion" that you bought the property in a venue subject to the law of the District of Columbia and its political subdivisions. That's unfair! Maybe so, "except as provided by law." Although you may have had other options, your failure to reserve and execute those options, significantly complicates any effort to be free of Congress's exclusive legislative jurisdiction effected through the District of Columbia. Are there other examples? If you were ever to find yourself embroiled in criminal or civil litigation in a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, what procedural laws do you suppose would apply? In a U.S. district court? Well the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I guess. No offense (most attorneys would answer the same way you did), but that shows you don't understand why these rules of procedure apply or that their use is actually restricted to the District of Columbia--except, of course, "as provided by law." For example Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure gives this definition: `Act of Congress' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession. It is beyond any argument that each statute which defines a federal crime in Titles 18, 22, 31, 32 and 42 of the United States Code, is an Act of Congress, passed and made locally applicable only to those residing in the District of Columbia. Otherwise, the offenses defined by those statutes could never have been defined federal crimes. But over what "territory" or "insular possessions" does Congress have authority to define crimes and punishments? Only the District of Columbia, "except as provided by law." Similarly, Rule 81 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (governing the entire scope of application of these rules relating to civil actions filed in a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT) defines the phrase "Law applicable" as: Whenever in these rules the law of the state in which the district court is held is made applicable, the law applied in the District of Columbia governs proceedings in the United States district court for the District of Columbia. When the word "state" is used, it includes, if appropriate, the District of Columbia. When the term "statute of the United States" is used, it includes, so far as concerns proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, any Act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia. From this it is quite clear that, in a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, the law of the flag is firmly planted and understood by practitioners, with a few exceptions not relevant here. Each time anyone appears and responds in such a criminal or civil action, by use of a fiction at law s/he is "in" the District of Columbia where its municipal law is being applied through one of its many political subdivision. This is one main reason that United States Attorneys and their assistants (employed by the Office of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice) appear in criminal actions anywhere in the several States, representing the UNITED STATES, INC. and claiming that certain Acts of Congress have been violated. Yet Title 28 of the United States Code, at Sections 501 and 502, undeniably states that the Office of the Attorney General is part of the Department of Justice and the Executive Department of the United States established only at the "seat of government," Title 4 of the United States Code, at Sections 71 and 72, restricts the phrase "seat of government" to the District of Columbia. Those two sections also restrict the "territorial" exercise of any office of the UNITED STATES to the "seat of government" at the District of Columbia an nowhere else--"except as provided by law." Still, municipal law in the District of Columbia three thousand miles away can't apply to me in California?! True--"except as provided by law." But I'm a Californian! Besides, didn't you show me just the other day that each state is legally a separate country from the others and from Washington D.C? Of course, but under principles of municipal and contract law, you are a Californian subject to the law of the flag. But how can a "municipal" law apply in a different state? Easily--the definition of "municipal" has been expanded According to the latest edition of Black's Law Dictionary: [I]n a narrower, more common, sense it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to public or government affairs of a state or nation or of a people... Relating to a state or nation, particularly when considered as an entity independent of other states or nations [Emphasis added] Also according to Black's, a "political subdivision" is: A division of a state made by proper authorities thereof, acting within their constitutional powers, for purposes of carrying out a portion of those functions of state which by long usage and inherent necessities of government have always been regarded as public. Washington insiders are well aware that the name of the District of Columbia was changed to the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA when its new constitution was ratified by a 61,405 to 54,964 vote in the District on November 2, 1982. Those same insiders are also well aware that the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA is not a "state" of the union like Virginia, new Mexico or Montana. It's a self-governing, municipal body politic which is not a signatory to the U.S. Constitution. Like England (aka the City of London, one mile square, as distinct from the United Kingdom) and the Vatican (aka the Papal City, as distinct from Italy), NEW COLUMBIA operates subject to no laws or constitution except its own. What?! That's right. Since it is not a signatory to the social compact known as the Constitution for the united States, it is arguably not bound by its terms. Your are generally not bound by any contract you did not sign, unless you expressly agree to the delegation of duties in an existing contract. NEW COLUMBIA has agreed to no such other contract. Like England and the Vatican, NEW COLUMBIA is not a member of the United Nations. The UNITED STATES, INC. is, but not NEW COLUMBIA. How did this "STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA" manage to get itself "constituted" under a body of law different from that passed and enforced in the 50 states which had to apply for admission and become part of the Union? How did this separate and super "State" come about? The Constitution for the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA was reportedly ratified by approximately 116,000 "electors" in Washington D.C., not by any vote put to the U.S. citizens at large. So no one asked the rest of us whether we approved of the change? Right, and the term "ratify" has this important meaning: To approve and sanction; to make valid; to give sanction to. To authorize or otherwise approve, retroactively, an agreement or conduct either expressly or by implication. Saying that the residents of the District ratified this new constitution means that they were the same people (electors) who proposed and agreed to its terms. Otherwise we should say that it was "enacted," like a decree from an emperor. Whether any of the 116,000 supposed electors actually proposed any of the NEW COLUMBIA constitution is highly questionable. Were any of them even told what it really means? We don't know yet. Media coverage of the event was essentially blacked out, but research is under way to discover what actually happened. History offers bright students many examples of public officials intentionally giving words and phrases, particularly legal terms, a "spin" to confuse those who read and use them. Like that punchline, "except as provided by law," that you keep adding with your wicked little smile? Precisely. That innocent little phrase opens the door for legislators to change, and the courts to re-interpret, any thing that precedes it. You will discover it strewn throughout the NEW COLUMBIA constitution and the D.C. Codes, giving lawmakers a mandate for providing protection, to children or the elderly, for example, in whatever way they deem best according to statutory law alone. In NEW COLUMBIA you can forget about the common-law concepts of unalienable rights to life, natural liberty, self-defense, etc.; under this new constitution the legislature won't be hampered by such concepts when they decide what protection they want to provide. Wow! What about situations where the "law" innocently or intentionally overlooks a needed protection? There's always that danger and, under the law as written, there's no recourse outside itself. With this new constitution, Congress gave itself a blank-check delegation of powers, authority and conscience to act as the sovereign for NEW COLUMBIA. Of course, under the law of the flag, any of their laws can apply to you, too, and to anyone else in the 50 states. The U.S. Constitution won't necessarily apply. Welcome to 1774--or 1984! all of this about trick words has me wondering: Does the word "district" in "District of Columbia" figure into this puzzle somewhere? Smart question. According to Black's, a district is: One of the territorial areas into which an entire state or country, county, municipality or other political subdivision is divided, for judicial, political, electoral, or administrative purposes... The circuit or territory within which a person may be compelled to appear. Hmmm, just how expanded does the definition of "territory" get? The same dictionary gives us one of many understandings: Territory...A portion of the United States, not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized, with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial officers appointed by the president. See Trust territory. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Yes, "territory" obviously describes the District of Columbia. But what is a "trust territory"? No edition of Black's until the current one has listed the phrase--not even the 5th, which was printed in 1979. But now it appears as: A territory or colony placed under administration of a country by the United Nations. Wait a minute! Are you saying that Washington D.C., now re-named the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA, has been placed under the administration of a country, now re-named the "UNITED STATES, INC.," by the United Nations?!! That's what a literal reading of the definitions means, but it's still a matter for debate; we don't have all the facts yet. Remember, Congress didn't create this corporation until 1990. With all of these confusing definitions and competing jurisdictions, how can anyone make any sense of this mess? Some people have very effectively navigated their way though the "red- tape jungle," but only by first understanding the historical development of the District of Columbia's laws. [end of part 1] A FICTION AT LAW OF UNTOLD MAGNITUDE The Creation and Marketing of the "State of New Columbia" by Jeffery, Craig, Thayer Sui Juris, Juris et de jure (The first part of this article appeared in the May/June issue of Perceptions.) A dialogue between Mr. Thayer, lawyer and counsellor at common law, and a fictitious student, it explained that the District of Columbia was re-established outside the U.S. Constitution in 1982 and that its municipal statutes, supposedly applicable in the District alone, can actually have the force of law in any of the fifty States and their Counties. In this second of three parts, My Thayer explains how this came about and who is, and who is not, affected by it.) Last time you told me that I would need to know some of the District of Columbia's history in order to understand what is going on now in the "STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA." Yes. Between the period of 1801 and 1925, there were no less than sixteen attempts to collect and provide a code of law for the District of Columbia. Many times the people who were supposed to provide this code did nothing more than assemble and compile what had already been issued. Congress published their works but did not adopt them. On the other hand, in 1872 the Legislative Assembly of the District of Columbia (Congress in its lawmaking function for the District) directed its printer to publish a work titled Statutes in Force in the District of Columbia. Supposedly just a compilation, it also included many "innovations." The governor of the District transmitted it to the House of Representatives, but it was not adopted either. Between 1861 and 1874, Congress proposed more legislation for governing District affairs than it had in the entire fifty years before. During that time, slavery had been abolished, and the District of Columbia had adopted a general incorporation law, a law creating metropolitan police, and divorce and partnership laws. During this same period Congress created a "territorial" government for the District and abolished the old Washington and Georgetown corporations along with the Levy Court. In June 1866, Congress passed an act authorizing the President to appoint three commissioners to revise and compile all the District statutes and parts of statutes which ought to be brought together and to make such alterations as might be necessary to reconcile contradictions, supply omissions and mend imperfections of the original texts. That was soon after Lincoln was assassinated and his Vice President had taken over control of the country, wasn't it? Yes, and it's important to note that, on its face, this act did not seem to refer to the District or even to embrace it. The commissioners were appointed and proceeded with their work, which took seven years. With no express authority, they also made a separate revision and collection of the acts of Congress relating to the District, gratuitously adding an unauthorized collection of general statutes relating to the entire United States. They reported each collection to Congress to approve and enact into law. The concluding paragraphs of each one repeal virtually every part of every act of Congress passed before 1873--not just those concerning the District--and the commissioners intentionally omitted those repealed acts from this crudely made collection without any authority from or ratification by the people. Wow, I never read about that in American History 101! Let me stress that the people had not given Congress or these commissioners any general authority to "collect, reconcile contradictions, supply omissions and mend imperfections" of approximately 70 years of law. They had no authority whatsoever to completely repeal all of that tremendous, time-honored body of law. These revisions, amendments and supplements, masquerading as innocent clerical corrections, were then enacted as the entire body of United States statutory law. When referring to the "United States" in this context, Congress made an intentional misstatement, of course, the only authority it had to promulgate laws relating to this type of subject matter was contained in this charter as legislature for the District of Columbia, not for the United States as a union of compact States. Just how did Congress assume the authority to pass these criminal and civil statutes for the fifty States while sitting as the legislature for the District of Columbia alone? How did they make it stick? Which answer do you want, the long or the short? Both, but give me short one first, OK? The simple answer is this: The people of the United States are naive and uneducated. It is easy to pull the wool over someone's eyes when he does not understand that you are blindfolding him--and especially when he has grown to like the warm wooly feeling. So, you can fool all the people all of the time? Most of them, especially those who cannot or will not read. The more complete answer is this: The local municipal law of the District of Columbia is technically being applied not to human beings individually, but to people collectively incorporated as "persons" in the new, corporate Federal States and Counties created by written contracts with the District of Columbia. These contract deal with federal programs such as revenue sharing, aid to rural highways, agriculture, welfare, crime, insurance and health. Each one causes the District of Columbia flag to become first planted, then cemented, into the soil of these federally created "States" and "Counties." This trend toward "federalization" has accelerated since 1940, when Congress passed the Buck Act. That act regulates the collection and allocation of sales, use and income taxes authorized by the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. Congress quietly passed both acts and made them locally applicable in the District of Columbia and in the fifty "States" or "federal areas" which the Buck Act created--fifty legal entities never before seen in America. Of course, the media and the public gave the Buck Act and the Public Salary Tax Act no more attention that they gave the NEW COLUMBIA constitution when it came along, because all three seemed to apply to the District alone. The Government Printing Office published a thorough two-volume analysis of this in 1956-57, entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within States. Where does the U.S. Constitution fit into all of this? I thought it was illegal to create a new state within an existing state. That's been a problem right from the start for the people trying to federalize the states and counties. Their plans also conflict with the constitutions of the several, freely associated, compact states. Efforts of the "federalizers" to further collectivize the Union also run directly counter to the unalienable rights of each human being [see endnote 24] claiming American national heritage and those unalienable rights are unenumerated "rights at law" which precede all earthly governments----as acknowledged (but not created) by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See, I've been studying! Very good. You will also remember that there is an equivalent section in each compact state constitution. So Congress decided to-- Wait, don't tell me. It's starting to fall into place. Congress made up the "STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA" as a thinly disguised ploy to get around the constitutional problem before it came up, right? Exactly. They simply created a new playing field, which is best described not as a country or a state, but as a pervasive mode of behavior. It is a field of commerce, governed by merchants and driven by consumers using increasingly electronic means of doing business. The "rules of play" on this field are the municipal laws of the District of Columbia and the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA. For example? Recently, I reviewed a new contract for obtaining nationwide service from a pager company. It contained "boilerplate" legal terms specifying that the law of the District of Columbia would govern all disputes and went on to say that any customer-dispute lawsuits with the company must be filed in the District of Columbia District Court. Don't tell me. The company's principal place of business was not in the District. That's right. From the contract, it appeared to be either Delaware or New York. Despite this obvious trend, the only people who become subject to and constituted within the jurisdiction of the District are those who decide to. OK, but you said last time that you can give your "consent" unknowingly, even as simply as by using a notary public. True, and every contract you have with the District of Columbia or one of its satellite State or County political subdivision counts a evidence of your status. Merely exercising your "civil right" to vote for national officers is one such contract. So what can I do--short of moving into a cave? One way to live your life free of such troublesome contracts is to carefully navigate around them using a series of lawful processes; ultimately you will be able to declare a contractual status known as Sui Juris. Judges and law-enforcement officials recognize the ancient Latin phrase which indicates this status and state of mind: "In his or her own right; possessing rights to which a freeman or Freewoman is entitled; not being under the power of another as in the case of a slave, minor or the like." The STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA constitution was established within the "exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress" and, by its very nature, will only apply to people who agree to be incorporated by Congress within its "exclusive legislative jurisdiction." Congress's argument goes something like this: "You elected us as your representatives in 'free' elections. Any laws we pass, enact, ratify or adopt as your representatives in that capacity are your laws. You are part of the local federal electoral, revenue, water-conservation, air- quality, judicial, pollution-control, and/or crime-prevention district(s), which are mere fragments and political subdivisions of the larger district called the District of Columbia or STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA." Bingo! That's how the municipal laws, passed by Congress for local application in the District alone, can become our laws, too. It's by our "collective contract" with the District of Columbia, now established as the STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA. It may seem unnatural, almost surreal, for local municipal law in the District of Columbia to apply in a State or County some distance from it. This may even seem unjust or illegal. So the people who write law dictionaries like Black's have been very busy behind the scenes creating a far-fetched "fiction at law" for attorneys to use, "proving" how local municipal law can become "national" in scope. A "fiction at law" is-- Wait, I know: "An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place. An assumption, for purposes of justice, of a fact that does not or may not exist. A rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible." Pretty good memory, huh? Excellent. Obviously this is not a proper legal definition, but "political language" intended to confuse rather than communicate. This well-known, often-used legal construct provided the means for local law in the District of Columbia to rise like a sick, foul-smelling fog out of its 10-mile square territory and waft indiscriminately across all of America where no man or woman can escape its foul odor. With informed study and proactive legal work, however, you can avoid it. So really, whether a legal fiction is true or false makes no difference. As George Orwell said: "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." What is this picture about? [See figure 1] Here you see a map of the United States with a pane of smoked glass laid over it, like the legal-fiction fog. The darkened glass represents the "superstate" District of Columbia. The map itself represents the several freely associated compact states which formed the Union. By contract, different law applies to the "persons" on the glass than to the people who are off the glass with their feet firmly planted on the map. Because the ones up on the glass have franchised themselves into the District of Columbia? Yes. Whether one knows it or not, the franchises into the rule of law of one or the other of these competing jurisdictions by agreeing to join one body politic and to be "constituted" one way instead of the other. To see just how it works, let's examine the "Peter Pan Principle of Jurisdiction" borrowed from the tale of Peter Pan. Do you recall Peter's escapades with his shadow? Sure. When his shadow got caught by a closing window, it came off and he had to come back for it. It was exactly the same size and shape as Peter, but it had no life of its own; it was the faintest of insubstantial copies. I couldn't have said it better myself. Now look at this one. [See Figure 2] {FIGURE 2 shows the sun casting the shadow of a man on a wall, whereon the blocks comprising the wall are labeled with many of the "contracts" we can have with the District, such as professional licenses, marriage licenses, driving licenses, use of zip codes, social security numbers, etc. tlr} Here you see the radiant sun shining on a free, sentient human being. Simple as a birthright, and thanks to no state or other human agency, this being has the unalienable rights of life, natural liberty, pursuit of happiness and self-preservation in acquiring, holding and protecting property, to name just a few. The picture shows much more, however. Human beings also cast shadows, in this case on a wall. Let's say that this wall is the District of Columbia or any of its Federal State or County political subdivisions. Through contact with that surface, the shadow takes on some of the wall's characteristics or attributes, the various "contracts," some of which provide "benefits" and many of which demand various performances. Compared with human beings, shadows have a most insubstantial existence, but years of United States socialization and education make most people believe that they are these "political creations," forgetting that mere shadows, which do have shapes similar to beings, are yet as different from them as night from day. ħħħ²²² Downloaded from "OUR TOP PRIORITY" POW/MIA/VETS BBS (206) 367-0479 ²²²ħħħ