Requirement for Consent

In the context of governments, “special laws” usually deal with procuring “privileges” or “franchises” relating to a 1 regulated or licensed activity and they are implemented usually as civil laws that “activate” when you choose a domicile or 2 residence within the jurisdiction of the sovereign grantor of the franchise. An example would be Social Security. You can 3 only become subject to the provisions of the Social Security Act by signing up for it using the SSA Form SS-5. Any one or 4 more of the following renders the SS franchise unenforceable and without the “force of law” : 5 2. Did not have the capacity to lawfully consent because still a minor. 7 3. Were signed up for it by SOMEONE ELSE, such as their parents. 8 4. Were forced to participate by either being harmed or threatened with harm, whether physical or financial, if you did not 9 sign up. This is called duress, which voids contracts. 10 5. Were not eligible when they signed up because they were not a statutory “U.S. citizen” or “permanent resident” as 11 required by 20 C.F.R. §422.104. 12 6. Quit the program using forms and procedures available from the agency such as SSA Form 521. 13 7. Were not lawfully engaged in a public office in the U.S. government at the time they connected a specific transaction 14 to the franchise by using the SSN or Social Security card in connection with a specific transaction. 15 8. Were not lawfully engaged in a public office in the U.S. Government at the time they signed up. Government benefits 16 cannot lawfully be offered to the private public, nor can such benefits lawfully be used to entice people into “electing” 17 themselves into public office. All franchises require that the participants must occupy a public officer BEFORE they 18 sign up. No provision within the Social Security Act, in fact, authorizes the CREATION of any new public offices. It 19 is a crime to pay public monies to private parties, or to bribe private people to unlawfully accept a public office using 20 public monies. 21 1. Never consented to it. 6

“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other bestow it on favored individuals…is nonetheless robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation.”

22

23

[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

24

"A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group

25

26

for the benefit of another."

27

[ U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 1936 ]

28

For those who meet any of the above criteria:

29

1. The Social Security Act is not enforceable against them and may not adversely affect their PRIVATE rights. It is 30 “foreign” and “alien” to the jurisdiction and forum within which they are domiciled or resident. 31 2. The Social Security Act does not have “the force of law”. 32 3. The Social Security Act does not apply and is irrelevant. 33 4. All enforcement of the franchise conducted against the non-participant is a criminal trespass in violation of 18 U.S.C. 34 §241. 35 5. Any and all withholdings and all funds collected through the illegal enforcement, lien, or levy must be immediately 36 returned to the non-participant NOT under the franchise contract, but under the rules of equity. The franchise contract 37 is always SILENT on the matter of NON-PARTICIPANTS and the common law is the only thing that protects NON- 38 PARTICIPANTS. A non-participant who quotes the franchise contract as a remedy is an IDIOT who contradicts 39 themselves in invoking the “privileges and protections” of the franchise contract available only to participants: 40

“A claim against the United States is a right to demand money from the United States. 38 Such claims are sometimes spoken of as gratuitous in that they cannot be enforced by suit without statutory consent. 39 The general rule of non-liability of the United States does not mean that a citizen cannot be protected against the wrongful governmental acts that affect the citizen or his or her property . 40 If, for example, money or property

41

42

43

44

38 United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 US 251, 32 L Ed 159, 8 S Ct 1156, 4 AFTR 4628 (holding that a claim against the Secretary of State for money awarded under a treaty is a claim against the United States); Hobbs v. McLean, 117 US 567, 29 L Ed 940, 6 S Ct 870; Manning v. Leighton, 65 Vt 84, 26 A 258, motion dismd 66 Vt 56, 28 A 630 and (disapproved on other grounds by Button’s Estate v. Anderson, 112 Vt. 531, 28 A.2d. 404, 143 A.L.R. 195).

39 Blagge v. Balch, 162 US 439, 40 L Ed 1032, 16 S Ct 853.

40 Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24, 51 L.Ed. 351, 27 S.Ct. 233.

Requirement for Consent

213 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________