Requirement for Consent

An example of situation in which your consent is expressly required is when you litigate in federal court and the judge 1 delegates management of the case to a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636 requires that BOTH litigants must consent for the 2 magistrate to preside before his orders are enforceable. A statement on the record of the case by a specific litigant that 3 he/she/it does NOT consent to the magistrate renders the orders of the magistrate MOOT and without the “force of law”. 4 A SPECIFIC and important example where federal courts may NOT hear a case because they have no subject matter or in 5 personam jurisdiction and the case is NOT a “federal question” is a civil or criminal tax enforcement case brought in 6 federal court against a state domiciled PRIVATE party who was the victim of false information returns and was otherwise a 7 nontaxpayer NOT subject to the Internal Revenue Code. For such a case: 8 1. The court is PROHIBITED by 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) from declaring the victim of the false information return to be a 9 statutory “taxpayer” subject to the Internal Revenue Code 10 2. The court CANNOT do INDIRECTLY what they cannot do DIRECTLY by PRESUMING that the defendant is a 11 statutory “Taxpayer”. 12 3. If the case is a criminal case, the defendant would have to commit the crime of IMPERSONATING A PUBLIC 13 OFFICER in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912 to even enter a plea. 14 4. The defendant, even if he/she WAS served with a summons within the exterior limits of the federal judicial district, 15 was not WITHIN federal territory if he was on state land. Therefore he/she was NOT within the FEDERAL district 16 and hence, the court had no in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. 17 5. If the court does not impose and invoke the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (F.S.I.A.), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 and 18 EXPRESSLY identify at least ONE provision within 28 U.S.C. §1605 that the defendant satisfies, they are causing the 19 defendant to criminally impersonate a statutory “U.S. citizen” (per 8 U.S.C. §1401, 26 U.S.C. §3121(e), and 26 C.F.R. 20 §1.1-1(c)) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §911. 21 Lastly, we wish to emphasize an important point about the meaning of an “appearance”. An “appearance” is when you 22 consent to the jurisdiction of a specific court. The problem with making an “appearance” is that it functions as the legal 23 equivalent of a “blank check” for the judge to do WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS, and usually at your expense 24 rather than the government’s expense. Behind the idea of consent to anything is: 25 1. Choice NOT to consent and no adverse consequences for FAILURE to consent. 26 2. 27 The ability to specify a SUBSET of the things that are being offered that one consents to and no more. 3. Advance knowledge of EXACTLY what they are consenting to and what SPECIFICALLY they are getting as a 28 “benefit” in exchange for what they are consenting to. 29 1. They are enforcing the equivalent of a contract between the parties called the “social compact”. 31 2. They do NOT protect your right to NOT consent to the compact. 32 3. If they enforce the civil provisions of the social compact against you without your consent because you REFUSE to 33 make an “appearance”, they are, in effect, compelling you to contract with them under the social compact. This is truly 34 ironic because governments are created to PROTECT your right to both CONTRACT and NOT CONTRACT, and yet 35 the only means they have to protect that right is to FORCE you to contract with THEM. 36 4. They will not respect or protect your right of CHOICE. For instance, they will not allow you to INDIVIDUALLY 37 QUALIFY SPECIFIC aspects of the exercise of their jurisdiction that you DO NOT consent to and therefore that they 38 CANNOT exercise. 39 The foundation of our system of jurisprudence is equality of ALL persons under the law, and yet, the government can’t 40 even acquire STATUTORY jurisdiction without making you UNEQUAL and a statutory franchisee, usually WITHOUT 41 your lawful consent. For instance, when you want to sue them civilly, the government MUST expressly waive its sovereign 42 immunity by: 43 But in the case of a the de facto government “protection racket” called civil “court”: 30

1.

Expressly consenting to be sued by statute.

44

2. Expressly specifying in a statute every aspect of how and where they may be sued and for what. 45

And yet, de facto government REFUSES its constitutional duty to allow you, who are supposed to be EQUAL to every 46 other legal person under the law INCLUDING “government”, the SAME sovereign immunity. For instance, they will NOT 47 permit YOU to EXPRESSLY DEFINE the manner in which you waive YOUR sovereign immunity within the court you 48

Requirement for Consent

139 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________