Requirement for Consent

_________________________________________________________________________________

1

“ No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [unrighteous gain or any other false god] . ” 49

2

3

[Jesus in Matt. 6:24, Bible, NKJV]

4

Everything they give you will always be a LOAN rather than a GIFT. Everything they give you will always have legal 5 strings attached that make the property they give you into a Trojan Horse designed to destroy and enslave you. The proverb 6 “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” definitely applies to everything the government does. Please keep these critical facts in 7 mind as you try and decide whether you want you and your family to give the corrupted U.S. Government the right to 8 intrude into your personal health care. Also keep in mind that under the concept of equal protection, you can use the 9 SAME tactic to entrap and prejudice the government and defend yourself from this tactic. 10 Here is this principle of equity in action, as espoused by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fullilove v. Klotznick , 448 U.S. 448, at 11 474 (1990) . What the U.S. Supreme Court is describing is the basic principle for how franchises operate and how they are 12 used to snare you. In a 6 -3 decision that dealt with the 10% minority set - aside issue, the Court held the following: 13

". . .Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives... by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient... with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld... against constitutional challenge... the use of this technique to

14

15

16

induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy."

17

[Fullilove v. Klotznick, 448 U.S. 448, at 474 (1990)]

18

When those who are unknowingly party to a franchise challenge the constitutionality or violation of due process resulting 19 from the enforcement of the franchise provisions against them, here is how the U.S. Supreme Court has historically 20 responded: 21

“ We can hardly find a denial of due process in these circumstances, particularly since it is even doubtful that appellee's burdens under the program outweigh his benefits. It is hardly lack of due process for the

22

23

Government to regulate that which it subsidizes. ” [Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82 (1942)]

24

25

The key to the effect of the conveyance of property is the NATURE of the funds or property conveyed by the government. 26 If it was property of the government at the time it was conveyed, then it is a subsidy and conveys rights to the government. 27 If, on the other hand, the property was someone else’s property temporarily loaned to the government under a franchise of 28 the REAL owner, it ceases to be a subsidy and cannot convey any rights to the government under ITS franchise, because 29 the government is not the rightful owner of the property. That is why everything that members of the Ministry convey to 30 the government is identified legally not as a gift, but a LOAN, on the following form. Section 6 establishes what we call an 31 “anti -franchise franchise” which reverses the relationship between the parties and makes all those who receive monies from 32 the sender into officers and servants of the sender under franchise contract: 33

Tax Form Attachment , Form #04.201 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

If you want to win at this game, you have to use all the same weapons and tactics as your enemy and INSIST vociferously 34 on complete equality of treatment and rights as the Constitution mandates. You can’t do that until you have identified and 35 fully understand how all of the weapons function. 36 Here is yet more proof of why those who accept government benefits cannot assert their constitutional rights as a defense to 37 challenge the statutes that regulate the benefit. The language below comes from the Brandeis rules for the U.S. Supreme 38 Court: 39

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, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis, etc., Co., v. George

40

41

42

C. Prendergast Const. Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. ” [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

43

44

49 The New King James Version . 1996, c1982 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

Requirement for Consent

264 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________