Requirement for Consent

“ The Government urges that the Power Company is estopped to question the validity of the Act creating the Tennessee Valley Authority , and hence that the stockholders, suing in the right of the corporation, cannot [297 U.S. 323] maintain this suit. ….. The principle is invoked that one who accepts the benefit of a statute cannot be heard to question its constitutionality. Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407; St. Louis Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co.,

1

2

3

4

5

260 U.S. 469. “

6

[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936)]

7

“… when a State willingly accepts a substantial benefit from the Federal Government, it waives its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and consents to suit by the intended beneficiaries of that federal assistance. ”

8

9

[Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)]

10

In effect, a statute that is not positive law but which confers a government “privilege” or a “benefit”, becomes a “roach 11 trap”. They set the trap by writing the statute that implements the benefit program, and those who walk into the legal trap 12 must obey their new landlord to get out of the trap. This kind of trickery is called “privilege -induced slavery” in section 13 4.3.12 of the Great IRS Hoax , Form #11.302. We will simply refer to it as the “roach trap statutes” or franchises 14 throughout the rest of this book. Do you want your public servants treating you like an insect because that is what you have 15 become? The easiest way to avoid the “roach trap” is never to accept any government benefit. Those who are sovereign 16 cannot be dependent in any respect and won’t walk into such a trap to begin with. Another way to avoid “roach trap 17 statutes” is to qualify one’s consent when applying for the benefit by explicitly stating the terms under which one consents. 18 If the receiving agency accepts your application, then they accepted the terms of your proposed new or replacement 19 “contract”. This, by the way, is the vehicle we recommend for those who insist on filing “tax returns” with the government: 20 making them into conditional self-assessments with tons of strings attached. 21 IMPORTANT! : Only those who are party to “roach trap” statutes and the “constructive contract” and “constructive trust” 22 they describe should be using or citing anything from them! If you aren’t a “taxpayer”, and are not subject to the Internal 23 Revenue Code, then don’t go citing anything from the Internal Revenue Code in a federal or state court pleading or in 24 correspondence with the government. The minute you claim any “privilege” or “benefit” from using or quoting any part of 25 the Internal Revenue Code is the minute you portray yourself as “taxpayer”! WATCH OUT! The courts calls this 26 “purposeful availment” and it is the main method for waiving your sovereign immunity. People who aren’t subject to 27 federal law shouldn’t be benefiting from it in any way. The only exception to this rule are positive laws elsewhere in the 28 U.S. Code such as Title 18, the Criminal Code, which applies to all crimes committed by federal employees or on federal 29 property. The Great IRS Hoax , Form #11.302 covers this subject of not citing federal statutes to protect your rights in 30 section 4.2.6 entitled “Why you shouldn’t cite federal statutes as authority for protecting your rights. 31

The U.S. Supreme Court has also agreed with the conclusions of this section, by declaring that the payment of taxes is 32 “quasi - contractual”, which means that the Internal Revenue Code must be the contract or agreement! 33

“Even if the judgment is deemed to be colored by the nature of the obligation whose validity it establishes, and we are free to re-examine it, and, if we find it to be based on an obligation penal in character, to refuse to enforce it outside the state where rendered, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 , 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct. 1370, compare Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641, still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 , 31 S.Ct. 155; Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492 , 46 S.Ct. 180; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227; and see Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence. Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 223; Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 225; Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. [296 U.S. 268, 272] 262; Attorney General v. _ _, 2 Ans.Rep. 558; see Comyn's Digest (Title 'Dett,' A, 9); 1 Chitty on Pleading, 123; cf. Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77. “

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

[Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935)]

48

Below is the meaning of “quasi - contract” from the above quote: 49

" Quasi contact . An obligation which law creates in absence of agreement; it is invoked by courts where there is unjust enrichment. Andrews v. O'Grady, 44 Misc.2d. 28, 252 N.Y.S.2d. 814, 817. Sometimes referred to as implied-in-law contracts (as a legal fiction) to distinguish them from implied-in-fact contracts (voluntary agreements inferred from the parties' conduct). Function of "quasi-contract" is to raise obligation in law where

50

51

52

53

Requirement for Consent

103 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________