Requirement for Consent

4. May be sued in state court under a REPLEVIN action without invoking the franchise contract because the party whose 1 funds were stolen did not consent to be a franchisee and therefore never “purposefully availed” themselves of the 2 franchise or the commercial consequences of the franchise. 3

Here is how the above process of recovering funds unlawfully taken against a nonresident party as described in the FSIA: 4

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 97 > § 1605

5

§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

6

(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any

7

case —

8

(3) in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state ; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or

9

10

11

12

instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States;

13

Below is the sequence of events that creates implied consent to the franchise, creates the legal “person”, “individual”, and 14 “resident”, transports your identity to federal territory, places it within the jurisdiction of a federal FRANCHISE court, and 15 creates what the courts call a “federal question” to be heard ONLY in a federal court. In other words, the franchise 16 agreement dictates choice of law that kidnaps your identity and moves it outside the protections of state law and the 17 constitution and onto federal territory. 18 1. Through deceit, fraud, and adhesion contracts within financial account applications and employment withholding 19 paperwork, you are illegally coerced or to apply to receive and become a custodian of government property. The legal 20 definition of “public office” confirms that a public officer is, in fact, someone who manages public property. The 21 property you receive is the Social Security Card, Social Security Number, and the Taxpayer Identification Number. 22 These numbers act as the equivalent of de facto license numbers giving permission from the state for you to engage in 23 “the functions of a public office”. IRS Regulations at 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1 confirm that the use of the number is 24 ONLY mandatory in the case of those engaging in a “trade or business”, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as 25 “the functions of a public office”. 26

“ Public office . The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public , or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.

38

[ Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]

39

2. The USE of said public property and de facto license and the number that goes with it constitutes “prima facie implied 40 consent” to engage in the franchise and accept all of its terms and conditions. Hence, your implied consent makes you 41 into a PRESUMED, DE FACTO public officer and transferee managing federal property. Any commercial transaction 42 you connect the de facto license number to constitutes consent to donate the FRUITS of the transaction to a public 43 purpose in order to receive the benefits of a government franchise. 44 3. Implied consent to the franchise contract creates “agency” on the part of the applicant. All contracts create agency, 45 which as a bare minimum consists of delivering the “consideration” called for under the contract. The courts and the 46 government illegally treat this agency as a public office as described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). They do this 47 unlawfully, because NO WHERE in the Internal Revenue Code are the creation of any new public offices in the 48 government authorized by the use of any tax form or any identifying number. The “consideration” they define by fiat 49 as consisting of obedience to the laws and dictates of a legislatively foreign jurisdiction. 50 4. Third parties are LIED TO by the IRS into producing FALSE legal evidence that connects PRIVATE people with a 51 public office. For instance, IRS FALSELY tells everyone that: 52

Requirement for Consent

271 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________