Requirement for Consent

2. Those who partake of the benefits of this PRIVATE corporation are partaking of a PRIVILEGE, and can only procure 1 the PRIVILEGE by consenting to the contract codified within the laws of the municipality. 2 3. The written application for the benefit constitutes the “consent” to the contract, even though the complete terms of the 3 contract do not appear on the contract itself. In practice, the terms of the contract, like the laws themselves, are so 4 voluminous that it would be impractical to publish them on the form used to apply for the benefit. Therefore, the terms 5 are deliberately left out so that the applicant, in practical effect, is signing a BLANK CHECK! The government, by 6 rewriting its laws, can change the terms of the contract at any time without your explicit consent! 7

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS PART 2. CONTRACTS CHAPTER 3. CONSENT

8

9

10

11

Section 1589

12 13

1589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations

14

arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

15

4. The method for providing “reasonable notice” of the terms of the “constructive contract” or “implied contract” is by 16 publication of a “code” by the municipality within its municipal ordinances. They call it a “code” because it isn’t law 17 until someone consents to it! In that sense, it is an “invisible contract”, because most people never read the laws that 18 their government publishes and couldn’t read or research the law if their life depended on it. The 19 GOVERNMENT/public schools, in fact, are deliberately engineered to ensure that those who attend them are 20 dysfunctional in the legal field so that the sheep and future citizens who graduate will end up in lifetime economic and 21 political servitude to a privileged priesthood and cabal of judges and lawyers because of their own legal ignorance. 22 The federal and state courts have repeatedly affirmed that everyone has a duty to seek out, read, and know the law : 23

“But it must be remembered that all are presumed to know the law, and that whoever deals with a municipality [the District of Columbia, and the “United States” which is a synonym for are both “municipalities”] is bound to know the extent of its powers. Those who contract with it, or furnish it supplies, do so with reference to the law, and must see that limit is not exceeded. With proper care on their part and on

24

25

26

27

the part of the representatives of the municipality, there is no danger of loss."

28

[San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel , 62 Cal. 641 (1882).

29

See also Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 Cal. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 Cal.app. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 Cal.App. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco

30

31

Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 Cal.App. 33, 276 P. 368]

32

_________________________________________________________________________________________

33

“Every citizen of the United States is supposed to know the law. . .”

34

[Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall (74 U.S. 169) 666 (1869)]

35

_________________________________________________________________________________________

36

" Of course, ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in any one, least of all in a sworn officer of the law. But this is a quasi criminal action, and in fixing the penalty to be imposed the court should properly take into account the motives and purposes which actuated the accused. Applying these considerations, we think the requirements of the situation will be satisfied by a judgment suspending the respondent from practice for a

37

38

39

40

limited time."

41

[In re McCowan, 177 Cal. 93, 170 P. 1100 (1917)]

42

_________________________________________________________________________________________

43

“It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one. If ignorance of the law could in all cases be the foundation of a suit in equity for relief, there would be no end of litigation, and the administration of justice would become in effect impracticable. There would be but few cases in which one party or the other would not allege it as a ground for exemption from legal liability, and the extent of the legal knowledge of each individual suitor would be the material fact on which judgment would be founded. Instead of trying the facts of the case and applying the law to such facts, the time of the court would be occupied in determining whether or not the parties knew the law at the time the contract was made or the transaction entered into. The administration of justice in the courts is a practical system for the regulation of the transactions of life in the business world. It assumes, and must assume, that all persons of sound and mature mind know the law, otherwise there would be no security in legal rights and no certainty in judicial

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

investigations. ”

54

[Daniels v. Dean, 2 Cal.App. 421, 84 P. 332 (1905)]

55

_________________________________________________________________________________________

56

Requirement for Consent

242 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________