Requirement for Consent

“ Adhesion contract . Standardized contract form offered to consumers of [government] goods and services on essentially “take it or leave it” basis without affording consumer realistic opportunity to bargain and under such conditions that consumer cannot obtain desired product or services except by acquiescing in form contract. Distinctive features of adhesion contract is that weaker party has no realistic choice as to its terms. Cubic Corp. v. Marty, 4 Dist., 185 C.A.3d. 438, 229 Cal.Rptr. 828, 833; Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v. Perkins, C.A.Or., 347 F.2d. 379, 383. Recognizing that these contracts are not the result of traditionally “bargained” contracts, the trend is to relieve parties from onerous conditions imposed by such contracts. However, not every such contract is unconscionable. Lechmere Tire and Sales Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 718, 720, 721, 277

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

N.E.2d. 503 .”

9

[ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 40]

10

Adhesion contracts have only come into vogue in the last century because of the corporatization of America and the 11 monopolistic power that these large corporations have over the economy. If we didn’t have such large, government 12 sanctioned, corporate monopolies within specific segments of our economy, the sovereign People would have enough 13 choice that they would never knowingly consent to an “adhesion contract” because they could entertain other competitive 14 options. This concept of monopolistic coercion of the public also applies to the federal government. 28 U.S.C. 15 §3002(15)(A) identifies the “United States” government as a “corporation”. It also happens to be the largest corporation in 16 the world which has a virtual monopoly in certain market segments. It has abused this monopolistic power to coerce people 17 into complying with what amounts to an “invisible adhesion contract” called the Internal Revenue Code. What makes this 18 particular contract “invisible” is the fact that our public servants positively refuse to help you or notify you of precisely 19 what activity or action makes you a party to this private contract. They do this because they don’t want anyone escaping 20 their control so that everyone will be trapped in their usurping spider web of tyranny, lies, and deceit. Hence, we had to 21 write this memorandum so you would understand all the nuances of this invisible contract and thus make an informed 22 choice about whether you wish to be party to it. In response to publishing the terms of this “stealth contract” within our 23 book, the government has repeatedly harassed, threatened, and persecuted us in an effort to keep the truth away from public 24 view. Section 4.3.2 of the Great IRS Hoax , Form #11.302 reveals some of the many devious ways that dishonest and evil 25 public servants attempt to conceal, avoid, or hide the requirement for consent in their interactions with the public. If you 26 haven’t read that section, then we recommend going back and doing so now before you proceed further. 27

On the subject of “invisible adhesion contracts”, you might want to visit the Family Guardian website and read a 28 fascinating series of articles by George Mercier on the subject at: 29

Invisible Contracts , George Mercier, Form #11.107 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Our public dis-servants often use the second option above, the “invisible adhesion contract”, quite deviously in order to 30 pass statutes that “appear” to impose a mandatory obligation on their surface, but which in fact are not “law” and are 31 entirely voluntary and only simply “directory” in nature: 32

“ Directory . A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed. The general rule is that the prescriptions of a statute relating to the performance of a public duty are so far directory that, though neglect of them may be punishable, yet it does not affect the validity of the acts done under them, as in the case of statute requiring an officer to prepare

33

34

35

36

37

and deliver a document to another officer on or before a certain day.”

38

[ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 460]

39

The second option above, by the way, is an extension of both our and the government’s right to contract. The government 40 writes the contract as a statute but doesn’t enact it into positive law. This makes it simply a “proposal” that we can choose 41 to accept or not to accept. The contract provides some benefit or “privilege” that people or the states want, which is usually 42 some form of protection or some entitlement to a financial benefit. An example would be welfare “benefits”. When a 43 person or a state accept the benefit of the statute, then they must obey the REST of the contract, even if they did not 44 explicitly consent in writing to the rest of the contract. In the case of receipt of federal welfare benefits, one requirement is 45 that all states who want to receive the benefit MUST require those applying for driver’s licenses to provide a Slave 46 Surveillance Number, for instance. This approach is simply a devious legal extension of The Golden Rule: 47

“He who owns the gold rules.”

48

In the case of our current federal government, by the way, the gold they are ruling with is stolen! It is loot! Here is how the 49 U.S. Supreme Court describes it: 50

Requirement for Consent

102 of 396

Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.003, Rev. 7-23-2013

EXHIBIT:________