Requirement for Consent

`beyond what the language requires,' " Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 685-686 (1983), quoting Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 675, 686 (1927). The no-interest rule provides an added

1

2

gloss of strictness upon these usual rules.

3

"[T]here can be no consent by implication or by use of ambiguous language. Nor can an intent on the part of the framers of a statute or contract to permit the recovery of interest suffice where the intent is not translated into affirmative statutory or contractual terms. The consent necessary to waive the traditional immunity must be express, and it must be strictly construed." United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U. S., at 659.

4

5

6

7

[Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986)]

8

The Declaration of Independence affirms that the rights of PEOPLE are unalienable in relation to a real government. 9 Hence, they are INCAPABLE of waiving sovereign immunity in relation to a real de jure government: 10

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the

11

12

13

governed, - “

14

[Declaration of Independence]

15

“Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

16

[ Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]

17

Nevertheless, what Jesus called the “money changers” have taken over the civil temple called “government” and have 18 turned the purpose of their creation on its head by making a profitable business out of ALIENATING rights that are 19 supposed to be UNALIENABLE. Obviously, the FIRST step in protecting PRIVATE rights is to ensure that they are not 20 converted into PUBLIC rights or government property without the EXPRESS, WRITTEN, FULLY INFORMED 21 CONSENT of the original owner. This section describes some of the mechanisms by which they breach their fiduciary 22 duty to protect PRIVATE rights using stealthful mechanisms such as “implied consent”. 23

Below are some examples of “implied consent” to waive sovereign immunity, to help illustrate how corrupted governments 24 try to evade the above requirement often without the knowledge of the party IMPLIEDLY consenting, in some cases. 25

1. When a person in the course of business affairs or a nation in the presence of a treaty with another nation willingly 26 tolerates a breach of contract or treaty, they give their silent consent to the violation and thereby surrender any rights 27 which might have been encroached thereby. 28

Supposing this not to be a tax for inspection purposes, has Congress consented to its being laid? It is certain that Congress has not expressly consented. But is express consent necessary? There is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There is nothing in the practice of men, or in the Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations, or the Law of nations that says so. Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. A tender of bank bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. These are mere instances of the use of the maxim in the Municipal Law. In the Law of Nations, it is equally potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty binds a Nation. ( Vattel, ch. 16, sec. 199, book 1. See book 2, sec. 142, et seq. as to usucaption and prescription, and sec. 208 as

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

to ratification.

37

Express consent, then, not being necessary, is there anything from which consent may be implied? There is- length of time. The Ordinance was passed the 24th of January, 1842, and has been in operation ever since. If Congress had been opposed to the Ordinance, it had but to speak, to be obeyed. It spoke not-it has never

38

39

40

spoken: therefore, it has not been opposed to the Ordinance, but has been consenting to it.

41

4. Say, however, that Congress has not consented to the Ordinance, then the most that can be maintained is, that the Ordinance stands subject to “the revision and control of Congress.” It stands a Law-a something susceptible of revision and control-not a something unsusceptible of revision and control as a void thing would

42

43

44

be.

45

[Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, W.L. 1492, (1854)]

46

2. When a statutory “driver”/franchisee “ drives ” (conducts profitable commercial activity on the public roadways) in a 47 state, he implicitly consents to a blood-alcohol test if required by a police officer who has some probable cause to 48 believe that he is intoxicated. 49 3. When a person commits a crime (violation of a criminal or penal code) on the territory of a foreign state and thereby 50 injures the equal rights of fellow sovereigns, they are deemed to implicitly consent to a surrender of their own rights. 51 They do not need a domicile or residence on the territory of the sovereign in order to become subject to the criminal 52

Requirement for Consent

229 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________