Law of Consent (1 of 1)

Even after implementing the guidance in this section, some corrupt judges have been known to try to stick the government camel's nose inside the tent of your life by unlawfully expanding the definition of words through the abuse of the words "includes" and "including". This tactic is described below: When they try to use word games to STEAL from you and ENSLAVE you to law that pertains only to government actors, the optimal response is to: 1. Respond to their interference with a criminal complaint or charge of slavery and theft. Attach the complaint to the pleadings of the proceeding to ensure that it ends up in the records of the proceeding. 2. Indicate that the parties to the litigation are under duress, and that ALL the consequences of the duress become the responsibility of those instituting the duress, and not the parties to the contract. 3. Identify the judge's abuse of discretion as beyond his delegated authority and therefore the act of a PRIVATE person not acting as an officer of the government or officer of the court. 4. Identify the judge's abuse of discretion as "purposeful ailment" of commerce within YOUR sphere of PRIVATE property interest, consent to, and an "appearance" in your own franchise court and franchise contract. Then invoke the terms of your own franchise and make yourself into the franchise judge in TWO legal actions being conducted simultaneously in the records of the court. This tactic is employed in the following MANDATORY attachment to all p l e a d i n g s f i l e d i n a n y f e d e r a l c o u r t a g a i n s t a n y g o v e r n m e n t o r g o v e r n m e n t a c t o r : The only hope that anyone can have of ever winning against any enemy is to invoke the same weapons in your defense that they employ in their offense, and to insist that you have the right to do so under the constitutional requirement for equal protection and equal treatment as described in: Lesson 6 "Consent" v. "Agreement" The relationship between "consent" and "agreement" is very important and will be treated in depth within this section. These two words are NOT synonymous. Consent is always an agreement and concurrence of the wills between two or more parties. Consent actively seeks the proposed thing to happen. Not all agreements, however, are a concurrence of wills. An agreement entered into in the presence of duress is an example where consent is lacking. Understanding this concept becomes very important in a legal context in cases involving government enforcement actions such as willful failure to file a tax return. It would be a contradiction to say that you could consent under duress. No one wills something they are forced into accepting. It would be a contradiction to say that you could consent to fraud. There can be no concurrence of wills when one party is agreeing to something different than is represented (e.g. words of art). Fraud and duress may produce agreement, but they can never produce consent. And the Declaration of Independence requires your consent when the government acts. Agreements also are not "law" in a classical sense, which is why they are classified instead as "compacts" and private law. It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us. law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, "1 will, or will not, do this"; that of a law is, "thou shalt, or shalt not, do it." It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of u law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it: in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at a1L Upon these accounts law is defined to he "a rule. [Readings on the History and System of the Common Law. Second Edition, 1925, Roscoe Pound, p. 4J That is why the Internal Revenue Code Subtitles A through C are not "law" in a classical sense, for instance, but technicallyare a franchise, and all franchises are compacts, contracts, or agreements of one sort or another. Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be "a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong."

'it is generally conceded that a franchise is the subject of a contract between the grantor and the grantee. and that it does in fact constitute a contract when the requisite element of a consideration is present.' Conversely, a franchise granted without consideration is not a contract binding upon the state, franchisee, or pseudo-franchisee. " "[American Jurisprudence 2d, Volume 36, Franchises, §6: As a Contract]

Requirement for Consent

27