Requirement for Consent

8.1. The only way that rights can be “unequal” within any given population is for you to consensually give up some of 1 them, for instance, by procuring some government “privilege”. 2 8.2. If the government is treating you differently than someone else, by, for instance, making you pay more money for 3 the same service that someone else is paying for, then it is engaging in unequal protection. Therefore, it is safe to 4 conclude that this service has nothing to do with protection and is a private, for-profit government business not 5 authorized by the Constitution. 6

If you would like to learn more about the above summation, we enthusiastically endorse the following excellent FREE 7 electronic book which exhaustively and constitutionally analyzes all of these concepts: 8

Treatise on Government , Joel Tiffany http://famguardian.org/Publications/TreatiseOnGovernment/TreatOnGovt.pdf

9.11.5

How PEOPLE waive sovereign immunity in relation to governments

9

Understanding the concepts in the previous section is the key to unlocking what many freedom lovers instinctively regard 10 as “the fraud of the income tax”. Most freedom lovers understand that the federal government has no territorial jurisdiction 11 within states of the Union, but they simply do not understand where the lawful authority of federal courts derives to treat 12 them as either “residents” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) or “U.S. persons” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30). 13 The key to unraveling this puzzle is to understand that the courts are silently “presuming” that at some time in the past, you 14 voluntarily availed yourself of a commercial federal “privilege” and thereby waived your sovereign immunity under 28 15 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2). An example of how this waiver occurred is by signing up for the Social Security program on an SSA 16 Form SS-5. When you signed up for that program: 17

1. You made a decision to conduct “commerce” within the legislative jurisdiction of the sovereign. 18 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2), you surrendered or “waived” sovereign immunity. 19 3. Your status changed from that of a “non -resident NON-person ” 20

to a “resident alien” as defined in 26 U.S.C.

§7701(b)(1)(A).

21

4. You became a legal “resident” who is “present” within the forum. A “resident” is a “res”, which is a legal thing, which 22 is “identified” within the forum. You in essence “procured” a legal identity within the forum that the forum recognizes 23 in the courts, even though you may never have been physically present or domiciled in the federal zone. 24 5. You made a decision to act in a representative capacity as a “public official” engaged in a “trade or business”. This 25 person is a “trustee” of a Social Security Trust that is domiciled in the District of Columbia. Pursuant to Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 17(b), 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39), and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d), your effective domicile under the terms of 27 the Social Security Franchise Agreement as an “agent” acting in a representative capacity for the “trust” that it creates 28 then becomes the District of Columbia, regardless of where you physically reside. 29 6. You consented to the jurisdiction of the federal courts to supervise and administer the benefit for all. 30 7. You implicitly agreed to waive all rights that might otherwise have been injured in complying with the obligations 31 arising out of the program: 32

“ The Government urges that the Power Company is estopped to question the validity of the Act creating the Tennessee Valley Authority , and hence that the stockholders, suing in the right of the corporation, cannot [297 U.S. 323] maintain this suit. ….. The principle is invoked that one who accepts the benefit of a statute cannot be heard to question its constitutionality. Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407; St. Louis Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co.,

33

34

35

36

37

260 U.S. 469. “

38

[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936)]

39

“… when a State willingly accepts a substantial benefit from the Federal Government, it waives its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and consents to suit by the intended beneficiaries of that federal assistance. ”

40

41

[Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)]

42

Use of a Social Security Number, in most cases, is all the evidence that the courts will usually need in order to conclude 43 that you “voluntarily consent” to participate in the program. Consequently, either using an SSN or TIN or allowing others 44 to use one against you without objecting constitutes what the courts would say is “prima facie evidence of consent” to be 45 bound by the Social Security Act as well as all the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A. These two “codes” 46 form the essence of a “federal employment agreement” or “contract”, which all who receive government benefits become 47 bound by. In essence, failure to deny evidence of consent creates a presumption of consent. This process is described in 48

Requirement for Consent

227 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________