From the Mind of Abouna: TUESDAY LESSONS IN CIVICS-#10

LESSONS IN CIVICS & THE CONSTITUTION – I

Part B

Introduction of the George Rapp Society

First Successful Communistic, Religious, Organization in the

United States

Defendants, to sustain the issue on their part, produced the articles of association into evidence. Some of the salient parts are shown below:

ARTICLE 1: We the undersigned, for ourselves and our heirs’ executors and administrators, do herby give, grant and forever convey, to the said George Rapp and his associates, and their heirs, and assigns, all our property…for the benefit of said association or community.

ARTICLE 2: We do further covenant and agree to with the said George Rapp and his associates that we will severally submit faithfully to the laws and regulations of said community,…therefore holding ourselves bound to promote the interest and welfare of the said community, not only by the labor of our own hands, but also by that of our children, our families and all others who now or hereafter may be under our control.

ARTICLE 3: …that we will never claim or demand either for ourselves, our children, or for anyone belonging to us, directly or indirectly, any compensation, wages or rewards whatever, for our, or their labor or services, rendered to the said community, …

ARTICLE 5: The said George Rapp and his associates further agree to supply the undersigned severally with all the necessaries of life…and to such extent as their circumstances may require.

ARTICLE 6: If any of the undersigned…should withdraw from the association, then the said George Rapp and his associates agree to refund to him or them the value of all such property without interest, as he or they may have brought into the community…Said value to be refunded…as the said George Rapp and his associates shall determine.

The court ruled for defendant George Rapp on the basis that “an association for the purpose expressed is prohibited neither by statute nor the common law.” And the court further stated: “It is supposed, however, that as the in testate had power, by the articles, to secede from the society and take out whatever he brought into it, the successor to his personal rights may exercise it as his representative. Such, however, are not the terms of the articles…The right of accession, therefore, is not intransmissable.” The court also stated that “The law knows no duress by advice and persuasion”, thus, there was no fraud in the inducement to sign the article.

When one studies this case they can see that the complaint was brought under the jurisdiction of common law and that the plaintiff lost the case because of the common law and constitutionally protected right to contract. Under the common law, the only way to break the contract would be to prove fraud. According to court testimony, the members of the association intended to make money when they entered it. None of the witnesses explained how they expected to make money under the terms of the contract, so the only reasonable explanation is that they were gambling that they would be last survivors in the Association and share in the distribution of assets; and/or they expected to benefit from limited liability by sharing any loses of the association with the other members. Last survivors take all is a wagering policy, and mutual sharing of losses is insurance.

When investigating the George Rapp Association formula, we find the contract contained a forfeiture clause. Members would “never claim compensation;” upon withdrawal, the value of their property would be refunded “without interest”, and the right of accession of property donated to the Association is intransmissable to heirs of the decedent.

Rapp and his associates, as the insurers, had no risk. Not only had they nothing to lose in the event of the death of a contributor and member, but they gained all of the property donated with no possible claim from heirs of the decedent. Thus it was a controlled economy under the exclusive control of George Rapp and his associates, as there was no accountability to the members of the Association. I will show, later, that if Mr. Schriber had presented these facts to an Admiralty court and applied the proper Admiralty law to these facts, he would have won the case.

Rapp had it made. Why shouldn’t he be successful? After all, by contract he had slave labor, donations of untold wealth from members, who if they chose to leave the association before they died, could only get back what they donated without benefit of interest, and if they died while still a member of the association, the property and assets which they donated remained the property of the association as long as it existed.

Rapp died in 1847, but the society continued on. The tremendous wealth amassed by this society was eventually used to fashion and promote George Rapp Society on a much grander scale with plans to ultimately encompass the entire world in a “SUPERSTATE” controlled and governed entirely by mercantile interests, all under the protection under the law of admiralty. This would be a super state where all the property in the world and all the people on earth would be pledged to the benefit of this World Wide Mercantile association, THE NEW WORLD ORDER!

Next week, July 31st, I will cover the DeLovio vs. Boit case – {1815}

Now, Just for Laughs, Click on the