Requirement for Consent

[The Free Dictionary (9/15/2013), Farlex;

1

SOURCE: http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Operation+of+law]

2

2. They say the “operation of law” creates an obligation INDEPENDENT of the consent of the person. 3 3. Yet, they don’t explain how the STATUS which is the object of the civil obligation can be created WITHOUT the 4 consent of the party. In fact, the ONLY way it can attach is WITH THE CONSENT of the party who is the subject of 5 the obligation. They are essentially trying to deceive the reader into believing that they have to obey the obligations of 6 a franchise through “operation of law” that they never expressly consented to by playing tricks with “civil status”. This 7 is an absurdity, because it would result in theft and involuntary servitude. For instance: 8 3.1. You can’t have a status under the civil law WITHOUT first choosing a domicile within the government authoring 9 the civil law. Therefore, indirectly your consent is STILL required. 10 3.2. You can’t be a “person” under the civil law without a domicile within the government authoring the civil law. 11 3.3. Those WITHOUT a domicile in a specific municipality are foreign and nonresident under the civil laws of that 12 government, not because of their nationality but because of their domicile. They are therefore not subject to those 13 civil laws. 14 3.4. You can’t have the status of “spouse” under the Family Code of a specific state without FIRST having a domicile 15 within the state authoring that Family Code. You only acquire that status after APPLYING, meaning 16 CONSENTING, to become a statutory “spouse” by completing a marriage license application. Those who never 17 applied for a statutory marriage in California, for instance, cannot be “spouses” under the Family Code because 18 the state does not recognize “common law marriage” as a means to acquire the civil status of “married” or 19 “spouse” under their civil provisions of the Family Code franchise. 20 4. They don’t say but should say that if you want to avoid the obligation created through the “operation of law”, meaning 21 the franchise agreement, you should avoid consenting to or acquiring the civil status or franchise to which the 22 obligation attaches. For instance: 23 4.1. If you don’t want the civil provisions of the vehicle code enforced against you in traffic court, which is a civil 24 franchise court, then don’t apply to become a “driver” by filling out a “driver license” application. 25 4.2. If you don’t want the civil provisions of the Family Code enforced against you, then don’t apply for a marriage 26 license and instead substitute your own private marriage contract that completely removes the jurisdiction of the 27 Family Code from the relationship. 28 It ought to go obvious to the reader that the right to contract HAS to include the right to contract the GOVERNMENT 29 OUT of the relationship to the OTHER parties in the contract. Ownership of property, after all, includes the right to 30 EXCLUDE everyone else, including the government, from using or possessing or benefitting from the property, and 31 rights are property. To argue otherwise is to argue that there is no private property and therefore NO government, 32 because the ONLY reason governments are created is to protect private property of ONLY those who CONSENT to be 33 protected by contract or agreement. 34 5. They don’t say but should say that if you never consented to the civil status to which the obligation attaches “by 35 operation of law”, and yet you become the target of enforcement on the part of the government to compel you to 36 perform the obligation, then a criminal theft, identity theft, and involuntary servitude is occurring. The identity theft 37 involved is that of associating you with the civil “status” to which the obligation attaches without your express consent 38 demonstrated in a way that only you can or should define. They can’t simply PRESUME you had that status and 39 instead have the burden of PROVING you consented to it, because they are the moving party enforcing the obligation. 40 Otherwise, we call it “theft by presumption”. 41

"It is apparent that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a

42

43

means of escape from constitutional restrictions." [Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)]

44

45

Just so you don’t think we are making this stuff up, below is a discussion of “marriage” as a civil status which ties together 46 the principles discussed so far. It shows that the “civil status” of the individual attaches to their domicile, and that the status 47 extinguishes when they change domicile: 48

But now comes the difficult question, which is raised in this way: Mrs. McCreery having resided in the state of Illinois for more than 20 months before she instituted her action for divorce against Charles W. McCreery, and, under the statute law of Illinois, service upon an absent defendant may be made by publication of the summons in some newspaper in that state, to be fixed by the court, It is contended, first, that it is always in the power of a state, through her courts, to establish the status of her own citizens, and that this was done in the case of Mrs. McCreery. Now, if marriage, by operation of law, creates the status of wife in Mrs. McCreery when she removes her domicile to that state, and such status is a res, then, under Pennoyer v. Neff, Tillinghast v. Lumber Co., Moore v. Machine Co., Toms v. Railroad Co., and especially Gibson v. Everett, supra, there

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Requirement for Consent

146 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________