Requirement for Consent

Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407; St. Louis Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co.,

1

260 U.S. 469. “

2

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

3

9. Interfere with remedies for protecting PRIVATE rights in constitutional courts by: 4 9.1. Refusing to allow litigants to invoke ONLY the common law and the constitution rather than statutory civil 5 franchise law in their defense. This has the practical effect of exercising a THEFT of constitutional rights and an 6 eminent domain over those rights without compensation and in violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. 7 9.2. CONFUSING CRIMINAL statutes with PENAL statutes. Most civil franchises are enforced as PENAL law 8 rather than CRIMINAL law. They are heard in criminal courts to fool the litigants into thinking that they are 9 CRIMINAL in nature. However, PENAL law requires DOMICILE and CONSENT to the franchise before the 10 penalty provisions may be enforced, and you should demand that the government PROVE with evidence that you 11 lawfully consented to the franchise by engaging in a public office BEFORE you could even be eligible to 12 participate or receive the “benefits” of said franchise. See: 13 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises , Form #05.030, Section 15 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 9.3. Forcing litigants into a franchise court even though they may NOT go there without committing a crime. Only 14 public officers can go into FRANCHISE courts in the Executive Branch. If a PRIVATE human who is not a 15 public officer or franchisee goes into a FRANCHISE court, he/she/it is criminally impersonating a public officer. 16 See: 17 The Tax Court Scam , Form #05.039 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 9.4. Illegally transferring controversies in state courts involving constitutional rights to federal FRANCHISE courts, 18 thus manipulating the right out of existence. See: 19 Opposition to Removal from State to Federal Court , Litigation Tool #11.001 http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm 9.5. PRESUMING that the parties before it are STATUTORY “persons”, “citizens”, or “residents” if litigants to not 20 claim otherwise, thus removing them from the protections of the constitution. See: 21 Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 9.6. Abusing choice of law rules to FORCE only statutory civil franchise remedies on the parties to litigation. See: 22 Federal Jurisdiction , Form #05.018, Section 3 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 10. Illegally and unconstitutionally invoke sovereign, judicial, or official immunity to protect those in government who 23 willfully: 24 10.1. Enforce the PUBLIC franchise against those PRIVATE people who do not consent to participate. 25 10.2. Violate the constitutional rights of others by exceeding their lawful authority, and thereby become a mafia 26 protection racket for wrongdoers in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1951. This tactic has the effect of making the District 27 of Columbia into the District of Criminals and a haven for financial terrorists who exploit the legal ignorance and 28 conflict of interest of their coworkers and tax professionals to enrich themselves. 29

The Bible warned us this was going to happen, when it said: 30

“ Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law , have fellowship with You? They gather together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood. But the Lord has been my defense, and my God the rock of my refuge. He has brought on them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own

31

32

33

wickedness; the Lord our God shall cut them off. ”

34

[Psalm 94:20-23, Bible, NKJV]

35

Who else but corrupted lawmakers and public servants could “devise evil by law”? In this white paper, we will therefore: 36

1. Provide extensive evidentiary support which conclusively proves the above assertions beyond a shadow of a doubt. 37 2. Try to provide to you some tools and techniques to enforce the requirement for consent in all interactions you have 38 with the government. 39 3. Show you how to discern exactly WHO a particular law is written for, so that you can prove it isn’t you and instead is 40 only federal instrumentalities, agents, and “public officers”. 41 4. Teach you to discern the difference between “public law” that applies EQUALLY to all and “private law” that only 42 applies to those who individually consent. 43

Requirement for Consent

238 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________