Requirement for Consent

which is the criterion established by law for the purpose of determining the civil status; for it is on this basis that the personal rights of a party, — that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy, — must depend. Udny v. Udny, L. R., 1 H.L.Sc. 457.

1

2

3

[Woodward v. Woodward, 11 S.W. 892, 87 Tenn. 644 (Tenn., 1889)]

4

Another implication of the above is that if the STATES have the right to determine civil status, then the people AS 5 INDIVIDUALS from which all their power was delegated have the right to determine their OWN civil status. This right 6 derives from the right to contract and associate and every sovereignty has it. See: 7

Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status , Form #13.008 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

In fact, there are two categories and four unique ways to become subject to the civil STATUTORY jurisdiction of a specific 8 government. These ways are: 9

1. Domicile by choice: Choosing domicile within a specific jurisdiction. 10 2. Domicile by operation of law. Also called domicile of necessity: 11 2.1. Representing an entity that has a domicile within a specific jurisdiction even though not domiciled oneself in said 12 jurisdiction. For instance, representing a federal corporation as a public officer of said corporation, even though 13 domiciled outside the federal zone. The authority for this type of jurisdiction is, for instance, Federal Rule of 14 Civil Procedure 17(b) . 15 2.2. Becoming a dependent of someone else, and thereby assuming the same domicile as that of your care giver. For 16 instance, being a minor and dependent and having the same civil domicile as your parents. Another example is 17 becoming a government dependent and assuming the domicile of the government paying you the welfare check. 18 2.3. Being committed to a prison as a prisoner, and thereby assuming the domicile of the government owning or 19 funding the prison. 20 In addition to the above, one can ALSO become subject involuntarily to the COMMON LAW and not CIVIL 21 STATUTORY jurisdiction of a specific court by engaging in commerce on the territory protected by a specific government 22 and thereby waiving sovereign immunity under: 23 1. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (F.S.I.A.), 28 U.S.C. §1605. 24 2. The Minimum Contacts Doctrine, which implements the Fourteenth Amendment. See International Shoe Co. v. 25 Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) . 26 3. The Longarm Statutes of the state jurisdiction where you are physically situated at the time. For a list of such state 27 statutes, see: 28 3.1. SEDM Jurisdictions Database , Litigation Tool #09.003 29 http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm 30 3.2. SEDM Jurisdictions Database Online , Litigation Tool #09.004 31 http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm 32 1. A crime has been committed. That crime is identity theft against a nonresident party and it involves using a person’s 34 legal identity as a “person” for the commercial benefit of someone else without their express consent. Identity theft is 35 a crime in every jurisdiction within the USA. The SEDM Jurisdictions Database , Litigation Tool #09.003 indicated 36 above lists identity theft statutes for every jurisdiction in the USA. 37 2. If the entity disregarding the above rules claims to be a “government” then it is acting instead as a private corporation 38 and must waive sovereign immunity and approach the other party to the dispute in EQUITY rather than law, and do so 39 in OTHER than a franchise court. Franchise courts include U.S. District Court, U.S. Circuit Court, Tax Court, Traffic 40 Court, and Family Court. Equity is impossible in a franchise court. 41 We allege that if the above rules are violated then the following consequences are inevitable: 33

See also Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 369 (1943) ("` The United States does business on business terms '") (quoting United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926)); Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935) (" When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts [or franchises], it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference . . . except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent ") (citation omitted); United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877) (" The United States, when they contract with their citizens, are controlled by the same laws that govern the citizen in that behalf ");

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Requirement for Consent

165 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________