Requirement for Consent

1.1. Violates the First Amendment and effectively compels you to contract with the government for civil protection. 1 1.2. Makes the statement on their part that “citizen” status is voluntary a FRAUD. 2 2. The government PRESUMES that domicile and residence are equivalent, in order to: 3 2.1. Usurp civil jurisdiction over you that they do not otherwise have. 4 2.2. Evade the requirement to satisfy their burden of proving on the record that you were “purposefully” and 5 consensually availing yourself of commerce within their civil jurisdiction with people who wanted to be regarded 6 as protected “citizens” or “residents” in the context of YOUR interactions with them. They aren’t required to be 7 “citizens” or “residents” for ALL PURPOSES, but only for those that they want to be. 8 3. The government refuses to recognize your right to be a STATUTORY “citizen” for some purposes but a statutory 9 “non -resident non- person” for other purposes. Since you have a constitutional right to NOT contract and NOT 10 associate, then you ought to be able to choose in each specific case or service offered by government whether you want 11 that specific service, rather than being forced to be a “customer” of government for EVERYTHING if you sign up for 12 ANYTHING. That’s called an unconscionable or adhesion contract. The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that not 13 being able to do this is a violation of what they call the “Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine ”. 14 4. You were treated as a statutory “citizen” without your consent. 15 5. You were PRESUMED to be a statutory citizen absent your express written consent. 16 6. You are PRESUMED to have a civil domicile within the jurisdiction of a court you are appearing before. In the case 17 of federal courts, this presumption is usually false. 18 7. Your government opponent PRESUMES that STATUTORY citizens and CONSTITUTIONAL citizens are equivalent. 19 They are NOT. 20 8. The government PRESUMES that because you are born or naturalized in a place, that you are a STATUTORY 21 “citizen”. This presumption is FALSE. Those born or naturalized are CONSTITUTIONAL citizens but not 22 necessarily STATUTORY citizens subject to federal law. 23 9. The government does not provide a way on ALL of its forms to describe those who do NOT consent to statutory 24 citizen status or ANY civil status subject to government law. 25 10. The government interferes with or refuses to protect your right to change your status to remove yourself from their 26 civil jurisdiction. 27 The “citizen” the Supreme Administrative Court is talking about above is a statutory “citizen” and not a constitutional 28 “citizen”, and the only way you can become subject to statutory civil law is to have a domicile within the jurisdiction of the 29 sovereign. Below is a legal definition of “domicile”: 30

"domicile. A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d. 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile" therein. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges. "

38

[ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]

39

“This right to protect persons having a domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws. His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

[Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]

47

Notice the phrase “civil laws” above and the term “claim to be protected”. What they are describing is a contract to procure 48 the protection of the government, from which a “claim” arises. Those who are not party to the domicile/protection contract 49 have no such claim and are immune from the civil jurisdiction of the government. In other words, they have no “civil 50 status” under the laws of that protectorate: 51

“There are certain general principles which control the disposition of this case. They are, in the main, well settled; the difficulty lies in their application to the particular facts of the case in hand. It is elementary that "every state has an undoubted right to determine the status, or domestic and social condition, of the persons domiciled within its territory, except in so far as the powers of the states in this respect are restrained, or duties and obligations imposed upon them by the constitution of the United States." Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 93. Again, the civil status is governed universally by one single principle, namely, that of domicile,

52

53

54

55

56

57

Requirement for Consent

164 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________