Requirement for Consent

First page Table of contents Previous page 129 Next page Last page

One thing that all government franchises have in common is that they are private civil law that can only acquire the “force 1 of law” by your express or implied consent . They can’t be enforced against those who didn’t sign up for the franchise and 2 thereby consent to procure the “benefit” of the franchise. 3

1. Before a human being consents to a franchise: 1.1. They are PRIVATE and not public parties.

5 1.2. Their rights to all their property are protected by the common law and NOT the statutory civil law. 6 1.3. No government can regulate the use of their PRIVATE property. 7 1.4. They are not “persons”, “individuals”, or “citizens” under statutory civil law. 8 2. AFTER they have consented to the franchise: 9 2.1. They become “franchisees” and statutory “persons” under the franchise agreement. For example, within the 10 Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A “trade or business” franchise agreement, franchisees are called: “taxpayers”, 11 “persons”, and “individuals”. 12 2.2. Whatever formerly private property they had which becomes public property connected to the franchise is now 13 subject to government control. The method of connecting private property to a public franchise in the case of 14 income taxes consists in associating it with government property, which in this case is the Social Security 15 Number. 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) says that the Social Security Number belongs NOT to the holder, but to the 16 GOVERNMENT. It is a crime to mix public and private property together and that crime is called conversion. 17 Therefore, when the two types of property are comingled, private property has to change character to public 18 property. To wit, the phrase “donates it to a public use” as used below means to convert private property into 19 public property by associated it with a PUBLIC number: 20

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”]; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of

due compensation .”

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

In recognition of how consent creates jurisdiction, look at what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said on the subject of 30 whether consenting to the jurisdiction of a court can give that court jurisdiction: 31

Pacemaker argues that in the federal system a party may not consent to jurisdiction, so that the parties cannot waive their rights under Article III. The maxim that parties may not consent to the jurisdiction of federal courts is not applicable here. The rule is irrelevant because it applies only where the parties attempt to confer upon an Article III court a subject matter jurisdiction that Congress or the Constitution forbid. See, e.g., Jackson v. Ashton, 33 U.S. (8 Peters), 148, 148-49, 8 L.Ed. 898 (1834); Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 28 L.Ed. 462, 4 S.Ct. 510 (1884). The limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the need to respect the boundaries of federalism underlie the rule. In the instant case, however, the subject matter, patents, is exclusively one of federal law. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that Congress may "confer upon federal courts jurisdiction conditioned upon a defendant's consent." Williams v. Austrian, 331 U.S. 642, 652, 91 L.Ed. 1718, 67 S.Ct. 1443 (1947); see Harris v. Avery Brundage Co., 305 U.S. 160, 83 L.Ed. 100, 59 S.Ct. 131 (1938). The litigant waiver in this case is similar to waiver of a defect in jurisdiction over the person, a waiver federal courts permit. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343, 4

L.Ed.2d. 1254, 80 S.Ct. 1084 (1960).

[Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America Inc. v. Instromedix Inc., 725 F.2d. 537 (9th Cir. 02/16/1984)]

Now do you know why the government uses private banks and financial institutions to compel the use of their STINKING 46 slave surveillance numbers?: 47

1. They want to produce legal evidence that you consented to become a statutory “taxpayer” and therefore cannot sue 48 over their enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code. 49 2. They want to produce legal evidence that you consent to donate formerly private property to a public use, public 50 purpose, and public office in order to procure the “benefits” of the “trade or business” and public officer franchise. 51 3. They want to make it “look” like you are purposefully availing yourself of commerce within the legislative jurisdiction 52 of the national government, and thereby waiving sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 53 (F.S.I.A.), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97. 54

Requirement for Consent

129 of 396

EXHIBIT:________

Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online