Requirement for Consent

supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

1

2

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a

3

service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

4

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life

5

6

then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

7

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America.

8

Those who want to trap animals lay out “bait” and rig the door of the trap to slam shut when the animal grabs the bait. 9 People can be trapped just as easily as animals and it happens all the time. For the government, this “bait” is called 10 “benefits”. You “grab” or consume this bait by filling out an “application” such as a SSA Form SS-5, or IRS Forms W-7 or 11 W-9. The courts call this process of grabbing the bait and waiving your sovereign immunity “purposeful availment”. 54 12 Beyond the point of taking the bait, you become a public officer in the government corporation. Hence, the “cage”, from a 13 legal perspective, is a corporation and the animal in the cage is a public officer. Why? Because the government can’t 14 lawfully pay public funds to private people. Therefore, you must be assimilated into the government corporation as a 15 public officer and a public “person” in order to lawfully receive the payment or “benefit” and in effect, become one of 16 them. 17

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree

18

19

20

under legislative forms.

21

Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

22

23

24

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St., 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations — that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11

25

26

27

28

54 See, for instance, Yahoo! Inc. v. La. Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d. 1199 (9th Cir. 01/12/2006), in which the court held the following, which is entirely consistent with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (F.S.I.A.), 28 U.S.C. §1605 et seq:

In this circuit, we analyze specific jurisdiction according to a three-prong test:

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and

(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d. 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d. 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)). The first prong is determinative in this case. We have sometimes referred to it, in shorthand fashion, as the "purposeful availment" prong. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 802. Despite its label, this prong includes both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. It may be satisfied by purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum; by purposeful direction of activities at the forum; or by some combination thereof. We have typically treated "purposeful availment" somewhat differently in tort and contract cases. In tort cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant "purposefully direct[s] his activities" at the forum state, applying an "effects" test that focuses on the forum in which the defendant's actions were felt, whether or not the actions themselves occurred within the forum. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 803 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984)). By contrast, in contract cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities" or "consummate[s] [a] transaction" in the forum, focusing on activities such as delivering goods or executing a contract. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 802. However, this case is neither a tort nor a contract case. Rather, it is a case in which Yahoo! argues, based on the First Amendment, that the French court's interim orders are unenforceable by an American court.

Requirement for Consent

277 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________