Law of Consent (1 of 1)

The family code is a franchise and a contract. Since you have a right NOT to contract, then you have a right to write your own marriage contract that excludes ANY participation by the government or any right by the government to write the terms of the marriage contract. 2. Prosecuting those who engage in an of the following activities that injure non-consenting parties: 2.1. Institute duress against people who are compelled to misrepresent their status on a government form as a precondition of doing business. Banks and employers do this all the time and it is CRIMINAL. 2.2. PRESUME that you are a consenting party and franchisee, such as a "taxpayer", "driver", "spouse", etc. We call this "theft by presumption", because such a presumption associates you with the obligations of a status you do not have because you didn't consent to have it. 3. Providing forms and checkboxes on existing forms that recognize those who don't consent or volunteer, such as a "nontaxpayer" or "nonresident non-individual" block on tax withholding forms. 4. Providing a block on their forms that says "Not subject but not statutorily 'exempt'. An "exempt" person is, after all, someone who is otherwise subject but is given a special exclusion for a given situation. One can be "not subject" without being statutorily "exempt". 5. Providing forms and remedies for those who are either nonresidents or those who have been subjected to duress to misrepresent their status as being a franchisee such as a "taxpayer". 6. Providing a REAL, common law, non-franchise court, where those who are not party to the franchise can go to get a remedy that is just as convenient and inexpensive as that provided to franchisees. Example: U.S. Tax Court Rule 13(a) says that only franchisees called statutory "taxpayers" can petition the court, and yet there is not equally convenient remedy for NONTAXPAYERS and judges in district court harass, threaten and penalize those who are "nontaxpayer". 7. Dismissing all cases filed in franchise courts such as U.S. Tax Court by "nontaxpayers" and stopping all collection activity against those who are not statutory franchisees called "taxpayers". Otherwise, the practical effect is that the party petitioning the court is electing him or herself into a public office and engaging in the criminal activity of impersonating a public officer franchisee called a "taxpayer" in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912. It is a maxim of law that gross negligence is equivalent to FRAUD. If they CALL something "voluntary" and yet refuse to ENFORCE all the above, it is gross negligence and therefore fraud under the common law: A failure to implement all of the above by those who call themselves "government" is also a violation of the requirement for "equal protection of the law" that is the foundation of the United States Constitution. Any organization that calls itself a "government" and that does NOT provide ALL the remedies indicated above is a de facto government that is engaging in "selective enforcement" to benefit itself personally and financially and has a criminal conflict of financial interest. Here is how the U.S. Supreme Court describes such a de facto government: "Ii must be conceded that there are [PRIVATE] rights [and property] in eve?) , free government beyond the control of the State [or any judge or jury]. A 2oyernment which recognized no such Helms, which held the lives. liberty and property of its citizens. subject at all times to the disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power. is after all a despotism. It is true that it is a despotism of the many-- of the majority, if you choose to call it so--but it is not the less a despotism." [Loan Assoc. v. Topeka 87 U.S, (20 Wall.) 655 665 (1874)] The de facto government described above that REFUSES to do the MAIN job it was created to do of protecting PRIVATE rights is extensively described in: The Declaration of Independence says that all just powers of government derive from the "consent" of the governed, which implies that anything not consensual is unjust. "Consent" is the real issue, not "free will". When a government lawyer is prosecuting a rape perpetrator, he doesn't talk about whether the woman "volunteered" to have sex by failing to fight her attacker. Instead, he talks about whether she "consented". "As used in the law of rape 'consent' means consent of the will, and submission under the influence of fear or terror cannot amount to real consent. There must be an exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of its significance and moral polity and there must be a [free, uncoerced] choice between resistance and assent. And if a woman resists to the point where further resistance would be useless or until her resistance is overcome by force or violence, submission thereafter is not 'consent '." [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 305. emphasis added] Lata culpa doh) aequiparatur. Gross negligence is equal to fraud. [Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856;

Requirement for Consent

20