Requirement for Consent

"Whatever these Constitutions and laws validly determine to be property, it is the duty of the Federal

1

Government, through the domain of jurisdiction merely Federal, to recognize to be property.

2

“And this principle follows from the structure of the respective Governments, State and Federal, and their reciprocal relations. They are different agents and trustees of the people of the several States, appointed with different powers and with distinct purposes, but whose acts, within the scope of their respective jurisdictions,

3

4

5

are mutually obligatory. "

6

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)]

7

Both parties to the lawsuit must be parties to the social contract and therefore “citizens” or “residents” within the 8 jurisdiction you are civilly suing. If the defendant you are suing is NOT party to the social contract, they are called a 9 “nonresident” who is therefore protected from being civilly sued by: 10 1. The “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act”, codified at 28 U.S.C. Part IV, Chapter 97 starting at section 1602. 11 2. The “Minimum Contacts Doctrine” elucidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 12 326 U.S. 310 (1945). This doctrine states that it is a violation of due process to bring a nonresident into a foreign court 13 to be sued unless certain well defined standards are met. Here is how the federal courts describe this doctrine: 14

In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the Supreme Court held that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant consistent with due process only if he or she has "certain minimum contacts" with the relevant forum "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " Id. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). Unless a defendant's contacts with a forum are so substantial, continuous, and systematic that the defendant can be deemed to be "present" in that forum for all purposes, a forum may exercise only "specific" jurisdiction - that is, jurisdiction based on the relationship between the defendant's forum contacts and the

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

plaintiff's claim.

22

[. . .]

23

In this circuit, we analyze specific jurisdiction according to a three-prong test:

24

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof ; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby

25

26

27

invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;

28

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related

29

activities; and

30

(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it

31

must be reasonable.

32

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d. 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d. 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)). The first prong is determinative in this case. We have sometimes referred to it, in shorthand fashion, as the "purposeful availment" prong. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 802. Despite its label, this prong includes both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. It may be satisfied by purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum; by purposeful direction of activities at the forum; or

33

34

35

36

37

by some combination thereof.

38

[ Yahoo! Inc. v. La. Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d. 1199 (9th Cir. 01/12/2006) ]

39

Why does all this matter? Because what if you are a nonresident and the U.S. government wants to sue you for a tax 40 liability? They can’t take a nonresident (in relation to federal territory) and a “nontaxpayer” into a Federal District Court 41 and must instead sue you in a state court under the above requirements. Even their own Internal Revenue Manual says so: 42

Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.)

43

9.13.1.5 (09-17-2002)

44

Witnesses In Foreign Countries

45

1. Nonresident aliens physically present in a foreign country cannot be compelled to appear as witnesses in a United States District Court since they are beyond jurisdiction of United States officials. Since the Constitution requires confrontation of adverse witnesses in criminal prosecutions, the testimony of such aliens may not be admissible until the witness appears at trial. However, certain testimony for the admissibility of documents may be obtained under 18 USC §3491 et seq. without a "personnel" appearance in the United States. Additionally, 28 USC §1783 et seq. provides limited powers to induce the appearance of United States citizens physically

46

47

48

49

50

51

present in a foreign country.

52

Requirement for Consent

156 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________