Requirement for Consent

the Social Security Act has no such coercive effect. As the Social Security Act is not coercive in its operation, the Unemployment Compensation Act cannot be set aside as an unconstitutional product of coercion. The United States and the State of Alabama are not alien governments. They coexist within the same territory. Unemployment within it is their common concern. Together the two statutes now before us embody a cooperative legislative effort by state and national governments for carrying out a public purpose common to both, which neither could fully achieve without the cooperation of the other. The Constitution does not prohibit

1

2

3

4

5

6

such cooperation."

7

[ Carmichael v. Southern Cole and Coke Co, 301 U.S. 495 (1937) ]

8

2. Title 50, which contains the Military Selective Service Act and describes how men may be “drafted”, is not positive 9 law. Therefore, participation is voluntary for people in states of the Union. The only persons it can pertain to are 10 “U.S. citizens” domiciled in the federal zone. See: 11 http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Military/Draft/NotSubjectToDraft.htm 12 3. Title 26, which is the Internal Revenue Code, is not positive law. Neither has there ever been any attempt by any court 13 that we are aware of to decide which of its provisions are indeed positive law. Therefore, its provisions must be 14 voluntary for everyone, and especially for those domiciled in states of the Union. 15 Instead, our public “servants” have turned our government into a money-making corporation (see 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A)) 16 intent on maximizing “corporate profit” by plundering the most that it can from people it is supposed to instead be 17 protecting, rather than plundering. They have become PREDATORS, not PROTECTORS. 18 1. To fool you into signing away your rights via a contract or to involve yourself in some act that creates a presumption 21 that you waived your rights . Most often, this method relies on some government benefit program such as Social 22 Security to make you a federal “employee”. Participating in such benefit programs makes participation in federal 23 taxation “quasi - contractual”, as the Supreme Court calls it. See Milwaukee v. White , 296 U.S. 268 (1935) 24 2. To kidnap your legal identity and “domicile” and to physically place it in a location where consent of the governed is 25 not legally required . That place is the “federal zone”, as revealed throughout this book. See, for instance, 26 U.S.C. 26 §7408(d) or 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39), and 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(g) for examples of how this type of devious fraud is 27 effected against those domiciled in states of the Union and outside of exclusive/general federal jurisdiction. 28 As you will learn throughout the remainder of this chapter, both of the above devious and dishonest tactics are used to 29 assault and undermine the sovereignty of the people both in the Internal Revenue Code and daily in the federal courts. 30 Whichever of the above two devious tricks they pull on you, we wish to remind the readers of the following fact, that most 31 people overlook when litigating to defend their rights: 32 Lastly, there are only two ways that courts can lawfully ignore the requirement for “consent of the governed”. Those two 19 ways are: 20

“In all legal actions bearing upon legal rights, the moving party asserting the right, which is the government in most cases, has the burden of proving with a preponderance of evidence that the defendant gave his consent in some form, or that you maintained a legal domicile in a place where consent was not required. Absent such proof, there is no way to enforce a government regulation or statute that is not positive law against the defendant. Strictly satisfying this requirement in all legal proceedings is the very essence and definition of ‘due

33

34

35

36

37

process’ as we understand it.” [Family Guardian Fellowship]

38

39

9.11 Sovereign Immunity

40

A subject closely related to both the requirement for consent and to federalism is the judicial doctrine known as “sovereign 41 immunity”. “Sovereign immunity” is the method for protecting the requirement of express consent on the part of the 42 government before it can be civilly sued in either its own courts or in foreign courts. Before a government can be sued in 43 its own courts, it has to expressly waive sovereignty immunity by statute and thereby CONSENT to be civilly sued. Those 44 seeking to sue a government or government agent in court must expressly invoke the statute that waives sovereign 45 immunity or their case will be dismissed for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 46

9.11.1

Definition

47

Sovereignty implies autonomy and the right to be left alone by other sovereigns. States of the Union are sovereign in 48 respect to the federal government and the people within them are sovereign in respect to their respective state governments. 49 These principles are reflected in a judicial doctrine known as “sovereign immunity”. 50

Requirement for Consent

218 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________