Law of Consent (1 of 1)

Not all agreements can truthfully be characterized as legal evidence of consent. Agreements can take the following forms, some of which are evidence of consent, and some of which are not: 1. Express consent: 1.1. Vocal agreement. This is called a "parole contract". 1.2. In writing. For instance, a written contract. 2. Implied consent: 2.1. A specific action evidencing consent under the terms of the transaction proposed. 2.2. Inaction or silence when enforcement of the thing proposed is attempted against the person against whom it was proposed. For example, consider a stick up. Someone approaches you in a dark alley with a gun, and says:

"This be a fuckin' stickup. Gimme everything in your wallet or I'm gonna shoot you."

You hand them the wallet and they walk away with it. Has there been a concurrence of wills? You agreed because you handed them the wallet, and that action might be construed as evidence of "implied consent" described above. However, you were under duress and were in fear. As we proved earlier, anything done in the presence of such fear or terror cannot truthfully be characterized as a "meeting of the minds".

"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 quality and there must be a [free, uncoerced] choice between

' Larson v. South Dakota, 278 U.S. 429, 73 L.Ed. 441, 49 S.Ct. 196; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U.S. 544, 57 L.Ed. 633, 33 S.Ct. 303; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 50 L.Ed. 801, 26 S.Ct. 427; Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Brown, 176 Ark. 774, 4 S.W.2d. 15, 58 A.L.R. 534; Chicago General R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 253, 52 N.E. 880; Louisville v. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 149 Ky. 234, 148 S.W. 13; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co., 140 Mo. 539, 41 S.W. 955; Baker v. Montana Petroleum Co., 99 Mont 465, 44 P.2d. 735; Re Board of Fire Comrs. 27 N.J. 192, 142 A.2d. 85; Chrysler Light & P. Co. v. Belfield, 58 N.D. 33, 224 N.W. 871, 63 A.L.R. 1337; Franklin County v. Public Utilities Corn., 107 Ohio.St. 442, 140 N.E. 87, 30 A.L.R. 429; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; Rutland Electric Light Co. v. Marble City Electric Light Co. 65 Vt. 377, 26 A. 635; Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 469, 99 S.E. 723, 9 A.L.R. 1148, cert den 251 U.S. 557, 64 L.Ed. 413, 40 S.Ct. 179, disapproved on other grounds Victoria v. Victoria Ice, Light & Power Co. 134 Va 134, 114 S.E. 92, 28 A.L.R. 562, and disapproved on other grounds Richmond v. Virginia Ry. & Power Co., 141 Va. 69, 126 S.E. 353. 10 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa. 183, 16 A. 836. 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 `consene." [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 305, emphasis added] Why is there no meeting of the minds? Because: 1. You didn't WILL or wish that the transaction should happen. 2. As soon as the criminal leaves the scene, you are going to call the police and have him arrested for a crime. A crime, after all, is anything done to you that injures you and which was accomplished without your consent. Here is yet one more example that helps illustrate the difference between "consent" and "agreement". If you fill out a government form that proposes a commercial transaction with the government and connects the applicant to a federal "benefit" or franchise, but: 1. You are compelled under duress by some third party bank or financial institution to fill out and submit a government form such as a tax withholding form. The duress originates from the fact that the form is submitted under penalty of perjury, and the company demanding it threatens to either not hire you, to fire you, or to not do business (DISCRIMINATE under the color of law, no less) if you don't fill out a SPECIFIC form and put a SPECIFIC thing on the form. Hence, they are instituting the crime of tampering with a federal witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512, as well as conspiracy to commit perjury, perjury, and subornation of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1001, 1542, and 1621.

28

Requirement for Consent