Requirement for Consent

(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself [a "public right", which is a euphemism for a "franchise" to help the court disguise the nature of the transaction], is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40, 9 Sup.Ct. 12, 32 L.Ed. 354; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439, 21 L.Ed. 696; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L.Ed. 35; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431, 433, 18 L.Ed. 700; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212, 7 L.Ed.

1

2

3

4

5

108.

6

(2) That where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174, 175, 35 Sup.Ct. 398, 59 L.Ed. 520, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 118; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 3 Sup.Ct. 184, 27 L.Ed. 920; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558, 25 L.Ed. 212; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35, 23 L.Ed. 196. Still the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198, 19 Sup.Ct. 503, 43 L.Ed. 779; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124, 29 Sup.Ct. 556, 53 L.Ed. 936; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374, 33 Sup.Ct. 122, 57 L.Ed. 260; United States v. Laughlin (No. 200), 249 U.S. 440, 39 Sup.Ct. 340, 63 L.Ed. 696,

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

decided April 14, 1919."

17

[U.S. v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919)]

18

1.2. O ’R eilly Factor, April 8, 2015, John Piper of the Oklahoma Wesleyan University http://famguardian1.org/Mirror/Famguardian/20150408_1958-The_O'Reilly_Factor- Dealing%20with%20slanderous%20liberals%20biblically-Everett%20Piper.mp4

19

20

21

2. Congress WRITES the rules in their statutory civil franchises and civil laws. This includes the entire civil code. These 22 “rules” protect ONLY “public rights”, not PRIVATE rights. In fact, you have to give up ALL of your natural and 23 constitutional and common law rights to pursue a civil statutory remedy OF ANY KIND. In other words, you have to 24 VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER your SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY to invoke a statutory remedy. This waiver of 25 sovereignty and sovereign immunity under the common law and the Constitution is, in fact, how one becomes a 26 “subject” under any “act of Congress”: 27

"The words "privileges" and "immunities," like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law . Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights,

28

29

30

31

32

33

authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. "

34

[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;

35

SOURCE:

36

http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pd

37

f ]

38

See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History,

39

40

Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

41

_______________________________________________________________________________________

42

Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be "a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme

43

power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong."

44

[. . .]

45

It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us . The language of a compact is, "I will, or will not, do this"; that of a law is, "thou shalt, or shalt not, do it." It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is

46

47

48

49

50

51

defined to be "a rule."

52

[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]

53

3. The civil franchise code, in turn, only regulates public officers on official business and cannot impair PRIVATE or 54 CONSTITUTIONAL rights. That is why 4 U.S.C. §72 requires public officers to serve in places NOT protected by the 55 Constitution on federal territory within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. See: 56 3.1. Proof That There Is A “Straw Man” , Form #05.042 57

Requirement for Consent

73 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________