Requirement for Consent

in fact the parties made no promise, and it is not based on apparent intention of the parties. Fink v. Goodson-

1

Todman Enterprises, Limited, 9 C.A.3d. 996, 88 Cal.Rptr. 679, 690. See also Contract."

2

[ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1245]

3

The weak point of roach trap laws or franchises and the point upon which we can attack and undermine them is that: 4

1. The benefit must indeed be tangible. Without some mutual tangible benefit voluntarily and freely accepted, which is 5 called “consideration” in the legal field, a valid contract or agreement cannot be formed. Every valid legal contract 6 must include an offer, acceptance, mutual consideration and obligation, and mutual informed consent. In the case of 7 the Internal Revenue Code, it ought to be quite obvious that if payment is voluntary and consensual under Subtitle A, 8 there is absolutely no tangible “benefit” whatsoever that can result from “volunteering” or “consenting” to become a 9 federal serf as a person living in a state of the Union. 10 2. It must be a “ benefit ” as each party independently defines “benefit” absent any duress or influence. It ceases to be a 11 “benefit” if only one party, such as the government offeror, is able to define “benefit” in court. 12 2.1. The benefit to each individual party must be clearly described in the agreement or contract and if it isn’t, the 13 contract or agreement isn’t valid because it has no MUTUAL consideration and MUTUAL obligation. 14 2.2. If only one party can define the term “benefit” and the other is prevented from introducing evidence in court that 15 there not only wasn’t a benefit to him or her, but in fact it was an INJURY, then we’re really talking about 16 extortion and racketeering, rather than an act of contracting. 17 2.3. If the party offering the “benefit” has a monopoly on the service or product to the point of being able to compel 18 what is called an “adhesion contract”, then the contract or agreement is unenforceable as unconscionable. 19 3. Either party must be able to quit the arrangement at any time by abandoning right to receive the benefit without 20 additional penalty. 21 3.1. Merely calling it “voluntary” and yet hypocritically interfering with and not protecting the ability to QUIT is 22 FRAUD. 23 3.2. Every form offering the benefit should have a status block that allows you to correctly describe yourself as a 24 NON-consenting party not required to participate and protected in exercising their right to NOT participate. That 25 means the status block must contain options for “nonresident”, “non - person”, and/or “nontaxpayer” and 26 applicants people should not be punished if they add these statuses if they are missing from the form. 27

Invito beneficium non datur.

28

No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be

29

considered as assenting. Vide Assent.

30

Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est.

31

A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv.

32

Inst. n. 83.

33

Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.

34

Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv.

35

Inst. n. 83.

36

[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856,

37

SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

38

4. The benefit also cannot derive from the absence of force, fraud, or illegal duress upon the person in receipt of the 39 benefit. That would be criminal racketeering. Compelled receipt of a benefit is nothing but slavery and involuntary 40 servitude cleverly disguised as government “benevolence”. 41

Commodum ex injuri su non habere debet.

42

No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong. Jenk. Cent. 161.

43

Quae inter alios acta sunt nemini nocere debent, sed prodesse possunt.

44

Transactions between strangers may benefit, but cannot injure, persons who are parties to them. 6 Co. 1.

45

Injuria propria non cadet in beneficium facientis. One's own wrong shall not benefit the person doing it.

46

47

Quae inter alios acta sunt nemini nocere debent, sed prodesse possunt.

48

Transactions between strangers may benefit, but cannot injure, persons who are parties to them. 6 Co. 1.

49

[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856,

50

SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

51

Requirement for Consent

104 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________