|Related articles and links:
SOURCE: Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003
A subject closely related to both the requirement for consent and to federalism is the judicial doctrine known as “sovereign immunity”. States of the Union are sovereign in respect to the federal government and the people within them are sovereign in respect to their respective state governments. These principles are reflected in a judicial doctrine known as “sovereign immunity”.
Only either by the consent of the sovereign or by the state electing to engage in “private business concerns” is the sovereign immunity of the state explicitly or implicitly waived, respectively:
Below is a definition of “sovereign immunity” from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:
Notice the phrase above “unless the sovereign consents to the suit”. The inherent legal presumption that all courts and governments must operate under is that all natural persons, artificial persons, “associations”, “states” or “political groups”:
1. Are inherently sovereign.
2. Have a right to be “left alone” by the government and their neighbor:
3. Can only surrender a portion of their sovereignty and the rights that inhere in that sovereignty through their explicit (in writing) or implicit (by their behavior) consent in some form.
4. Possess EQUAL sovereignty. The foundation of our Constitution is equal protection. No group of men or “state” or government can have any more rights than a single man, because all of their powers are delegated to them by the people they serve and were created to protect:
In other words, everyone has a natural, inherent right of ownership over their own life, liberty, and property granted by the Creator which can only be taken away by their own consent. The Declaration of Independence recognizes this natural right, when it says:
The purpose for the establishment of all governments is therefore to protect these natural, God-given rights or what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “liberty interests”. Neither the Constitution, nor any enactment of Congress passed in furtherance of it confers these rights, but simply recognizes and protects these natural, God-given rights. The U.S. Supreme Court admitted this when it said:
In law, all rights are identified as “property”. This is confirmed by the definition of “property” in Black’s Law Dictionary, which says that “It extends to every species of valuable right”:
Sovereign immunity can apply just as readily to governments as it can to individuals. A person who doesn’t consent to any aspect of government civil jurisdiction and who has no legal “domicile” or “residence” within that government’s jurisdiction is called a “foreign sovereign”, and he or she or it is protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act found at 28 U.S.C. Part IV, Chapter 97:
Under the principles of sovereign immunity, it is internationally and nearly universally recognized by every country and nation and court on earth that every nation or state or individual or group are entitled to sovereign immunity and may only surrender a portion of that sovereignty or natural right over their property by committing one or more acts within a list of specific qualifying acts. Any one of these acts then constitute the equivalent of “constructive or implicit consent” to the jurisdiction of the courts within that forum or state. These qualifying acts include any of the following, which are a summary of those identified in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act above:
1. Being a “citizen” or “domiciliary” of the Forum or State in question. See 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3).
2. Foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver. See 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(1).
3. Commercial Activity within the Forum or State. See 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(2).
3.1. Action based upon a commercial activity carried on in the Forum or State by the foreign state; or
3.2. Upon an act performed in the Forum or State in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the Forum or State in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the Forum or State .
4. Rights to property taken in violation of international law. See 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(3).
4.1. 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 Forum or State in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the Forum or State by the foreign state; or
4.2. 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 instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the Forum or State.
5. Rights in property in the Forum or State acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated in the Forum or State are in issue. See 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(4).
6. Money damages for official acts of officials of foreign state which cause injury, death, damage, loss of property in the Forum or State. Not otherwise encompassed in paragraph 3 above in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the Forum or State and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment. See 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(4). Except this paragraph shall not apply to:
6.1. any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or
6.2. any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights;
7. Contracts between private party and foreign state: See 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(6). Action is brought, either to enforce an agreement made by the foreign state with or for the benefit of a private party to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisen or which may arise between the parties with respect to a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of the Forum or State, or to confirm an award made pursuant to such an agreement to arbitrate, if.
7.1. The arbitration takes place or is intended to take place in the Forum or State,
7.2. The agreement or award is or may be governed by a treaty or other international agreement in force for the Forum or State calling for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards,
7.3. The underlying claim, save for the agreement to arbitrate, could have been brought in a Forum or State court under this section or section 1607, or (D) paragraph (1) of this subsection is otherwise applicable; or
8. Money damages for acts of terrorism by foreign state: Not otherwise covered by paragraph 3 in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources (as defined in section 2339A of title 18) for such an act if such act or provision of material support is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency. See 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(7). Except that the court shall decline to hear a claim under this paragraph:
8.1. if the foreign state was not designated as a state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 App. U.S.C. 2405 (j)) or section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) at the time the act occurred, unless later so designated as a result of such act or the act is related to Case Number 1:00CV03110(EGS) in the Forum or State District Court for the District of Columbia; and
8.2. even if the foreign state is or was so designated, if—
8.2.1. the act occurred in the foreign state against which the claim has been brought and the claimant has not afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in accordance with accepted international rules of arbitration; or
8.2.2. neither the claimant nor the victim was a national of the Forum or State (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) when the act upon which the claim is based occurred.
From the above list, two items are abused by your public servants more frequently than any others in order to unwittingly destroy your sovereignty, your inherent sovereign immunity, and to unlawfully expand their jurisdiction beyond the clear limits described by the United States Constitution:
1. Item 1: How they or you describe your citizenship and domicile. The federal government abuses their authority to write laws and print forms by writing them in such a vague way that they appear to create a presumption that you are a “citizen” with a legal domicile within their jurisdiction. They do this by:
1.1. Only offering you one option to describe your citizenship on their forms, which is a “U.S. citizen”. This creates a presumption that you are a statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401 who is domiciled within their exclusive jurisdiction. Since they don’t offer you the option to declare yourself a state citizen or state national, then most people wrongfully presume that there is no such thing or that they are not one, even though they are. See:
1.2. Using citizenship terms on their forms which are not described in any federal statute, such as “U.S. citizen”. This term is nowhere used in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The only similar term is “citizen and national of the United States”, which is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401.
2. Item 3: The government connects you to commerce within their legislative jurisdiction. They do this by:
2.1. Presuming that you are connected to commerce by virtue of using a Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number.
2.2. Terrorizing and threatening banks and financial institutions to unlawfully coerce their customers insist on Social Security Numbers in criminal violation of 42 U.S.C. §408. Any financial account that has a federally issued number associated with it is presumed to be private properly donated to a public use in order to procure a privilege from the government, whether it be a tax deduction associated with a “trade or business” (public office) as described in 26 U.S.C. §162, or “social insurance” in the case of Socialist Security.
2.3. Making false, prejudicial, and unconstitutional presumptions about the meaning of the term “United States”, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the District of Columbia in the context of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and nowhere expanded to include any area within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union. See:
Why are the above methods of waiving sovereign immunity and the rights of sovereignty associated with them nearly universally recognized by every country, court, and nation on earth? Because:
1. These rights come from God, and God is universally recognized by people and cultures all over the world.
2. Everyone deserves, needs, and wants as much authority, autonomy, and control over their own life and property as they can get, consistent with the equal rights of others. In other words, they have a right of being self-governing. Of this subject, one of our most revered Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, said:
3. You cannot deserve or have a “right” to what you are not willing to give in equal measure to others. This is the essence of what Christians call “The Golden Rule”, which Jesus Himself revealed as follows:
Everyone understands the concept of “explicit consent”, because everyone understands the idea of exercising your right to contract in order to exchange some of your rights to obtain something you deem valuable. Usually, explicit consent requires a written contract of some kind in order to be enforceable against an otherwise “foreign sovereign”. The part of the consent equation that most people have trouble with is the idea of “implied consent”.
Below are some examples of “implied consent”, to help illustrate this concept.
1. When a person in the course of business affairs or a nation in the presence of a treaty with another nation willingly tolerates a breach of contract or treaty, they give their silent consent to the violation and thereby surrender any rights which might have been encroached thereby.
2. When a person drives in state, he consents to a blood-alcohol test if required by a police officer who has some probable cause to believe that he is intoxicated.
3. When a person commits a crime (violation of a criminal or penal code) on the territory of a foreign state and thereby injures the equal rights of fellow sovereigns, they are deemed implicitly consent to a surrender of their own rights. They do not need a domicile or residence on the territory of the sovereign in order to become subject to the criminal laws of that sovereign. This is because every nation, state, or foreign sovereign has an inherent and natural right of self-defense. Implicit in this right is the God-given authority to use whatever force is necessary to prevent an injury to their person, property, or liberty from the malicious or harmful acts of others.
4. When a man sticks his pecker in a hole, he is presumed by voluntarily engaging in such an act to consent to all the obligations arising out of such a “privilege”. This includes implied consent to pay all child support obligations that might accrue in the future by virtue of such an act. Marriage licenses are the state’s vain attempt to protect the owner of the hole from being injured by either irresponsible visitors or their poor discretion in choosing or allowing visitors, and not a whole lot more. In this context, as in nearly all other contexts, the government offers a privilege or “license” which essentially amounts to a form of “liability insurance”. You can only benefit from the insurance program by voluntarily “signing up” when you make application to procure the license.
5. When a person avails themselves of a benefit or “privilege” offered by the government, they implicitly consent to be bound by all the obligations arising out of it.
Below are some examples of “benefits” that might fit this description, all of which amount to the equivalent of private insurance offered by what amounts to a for profit, government-owned corporation :
5.1. Social Security.
5.3. Unemployment insurance.
5.4. Federal employment. Anyone who exercises their right to contract in order to procure federal employment implicitly agrees to be bound by all of Title 5 of the United States Code.
5.5. Registering a vehicle. You are not required to register your vehicle in a state. Most people do it to provide added protection of their ownership over the vehicle. When they procure this privilege, they also confer upon the state the right to require those who drive the vehicle to use a license. A vehicle that is not so registered, and especially by a non-domiciled person, can lawfully be driven by such a person without the need for a driver’s license.
5.6. Professional licenses. A “license” is legally defined as permission by the state to do that which is otherwise illegal. A professional licenses is simply an official recognition of a person’s professional status. It is illegal to claim the benefits of that recognition unless you possess the license. The government has moral and legal authority to prevent you only from engaging in criminal and harmful behaviors, not ALL behaviors. Therefore, the only thing they can lawfully “license” are potentially harmful activities, such as manufacturing or selling alcohol, drugs, medical equipment, or toxic substances. Any other type of license, such as an attorney license, is a voluntary privilege that they cannot prosecute you for refusing to engage in.
5.7. Driver’s licenses. All states can only issue or require driver’s licenses of those domiciled in federal areas or territory within the exterior limit of the state. They cannot otherwise regulate the free exercise of a right. Since federal territory or federal areas are the only place where these legal rights do NOT exist, then this is the only place they can lawfully regulate the right to travel.
5.8. Statutory marriage. Most states have outlawed common law marriage. Consequently, the only way you can become subject to the family code in your state is to voluntarily procure a government license to marry.
When a foreign state explicitly (in writing) or implicitly (through their conduct) consents to the jurisdiction of a sister Forum or State, they are deemed to be “present” within that state legally, but not necessarily physically. Here is how the Ninth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals describes this concept:
(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.
Understanding the above concept is the key to unlocking what many freedom lovers instinctively regard as “the fraud of the income tax”. Most freedom lovers understand that the federal government has no territorial jurisdiction within states of the Union, but they simply do not understand where the lawful authority of federal courts derives to treat them as either “residents” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) or “U.S. persons” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30). The key to unraveling this puzzle is to understand that the courts are silently “presuming” that at some time in the past, you voluntarily availed yourself of a commercial federal “privilege” and thereby waived your sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2). An example of how this waiver occurred is by signing up for the Social Security program on an SS-5 form. When you signed up for that program:
1. You made a decision to conduct “commerce” within the legislative jurisdiction of the sovereign.
2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2), you surrendered or “waived” sovereign immunity.
4. You became a legal “resident” who is “present” within the forum. A “resident” is a “res”, which is a legal thing, which is “identified” within the forum. You in essence “procured” a legal identity within the forum that the forum recognizes in the courts, even though you may never have been physically present or domiciled in the federal zone.
5. You made a decision to act in a representative capacity as a “public official” engaged in a “trade or business”. This person is a “trustee” of a Social Security Trust that is domiciled in the District of Columbia. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39), and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d), your effective domicile under the terms of the Social Security Franchise Agreement as an “agent” acting in a representative capacity for the “trust” that it creates then becomes the District of Columbia, regardless of where you physically reside.
6. You consented to the jurisdiction of the federal courts to supervise and administer the benefit for all.
7. You implicitly agreed to waive all rights that might otherwise have been injured in complying with the obligations arising out of the program:
Use of a Social Security Number, in most cases, is all the evidence that the courts will usually need in order to conclude that you “voluntarily consent” to participate in the program. Consequently, either using an SSN or TIN or allowing others to use one against you without objecting constitutes what the courts would say is “prima facie evidence of consent” to be bound by the Social Security Act as well as all the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A. These two “codes” form the essence of a “federal employment agreement” or “contract”, which all who receive government benefits become bound by. In essence, failure to deny evidence of consent creates a presumption of consent. This process is described in the legal field by the following names and you can also find it in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), which says that a failure to deny constitutes an admission for the purposes of meeting the burden of proving a fact:
1. Implied consent.
2. Constructive consent.
3. Tacit procuration.
Notice the above phrase “act or offense of procuring women for lewd purposes”. This describes basically the act of hiring a WHORE, and that is EXACTLY what you become if condone or allow the government do this to you, folks! This fact explains EXACTLY who Babylon the Great Harlot is as described in the Bible Book of Revelations . Babylon the Great Harlot is a symbol or metaphor for all those who are willing to trade their virtue, allegiance, or control over their property or liberty over to a government in exchange for a life of pleasure, ignorance, luxury, and irresponsibility. She is fornicating with “The Beast”, which is described in Revelations 19:19 as “the kings of the earth”, who today are our modern corrupted political rulers.
4. Retraxit by tacit procuration. This is where you withdraw your standing to claim rights in any matter as Plaintiff.
The courts won’t document and will vociferously avoid explaining or justifying these prejudicial presumptions about the use of government identifying numbers because if they did, then you would understand where their jurisdiction derives and withdraw yourself from it and destroy the only source of their jurisdiction. The courts also know that all “presumption” is a violation of due process that is unconstitutional if it undermines your Constitutional rights so they will never call it what it is because it will destroy most of their authority and importance. This is exhaustively explained in the following pamphlet:
Therefore, the above is just something you have to know and practical experience has taught us that this is the truth. If you would like to learn more about how the above process of how social security is used to lawfully deceive and enslave the legally ignorant and unsuspecting American “sheep” public at large, read the following fascinating and very enlightening document:
Courts are not reluctant at all to recognize the principle of sovereign immunity in the context of foreign governments whose existence they officially recognize. They must do this because if they don’t, they won’t get any cooperation from these governments, which they frequently need in dealing with international problems. However, they are frequently much less willing to recognize the equally inherent and divinely inspired sovereignty of natural persons or individuals because they don’t want to interfere with their ability to con these people or entities into volunteering for their commercial insurance, license, franchise, and other scams described above. Earlier courts, however, were much more honorable and therefore willing to recognize this inherent sovereignty of natural persons. Below is one often quoted example used within the freedom community:
Because the courts are self-interestedly engaging in a refusal to recognize the sovereignty and sovereign immunity of We the People as natural persons, sometimes we have to twist their arms by using some of the following principles as the equivalent of “legal rhetoric”, which principles are both rational and indisputable by all but possibly insane or STUPID people:
1. In the United States, ALL sovereignty resides not in the government, but in the people.
2. All powers of the federal and state governments derive from and are delegated by We the People through our state and federal constitutions.
3. Every species of legislative power and authority that the government possesses is therefore explicitly delegated to it by We the People. This concept is called “enumerated powers” by the courts.
4. The People cannot delegate an authority that they themselves do not inherently possess.
5. The method by which people voluntarily delegate their authority is by choosing a domicile within the state or government and thereby nominating a “protector” who now has a legal right to enforce the payment of “tribute” or “protection money” in order to sustain the protection that was asked for.
6. Those who have not nominated a protector by voluntarily choosing a domicile within the state thereby reserve ALL their natural rights.
7. Since governments inherently possess “sovereign immunity”, then We the People must also possess that authority, because the government cannot have any authority that the people did not, but their Constitution and their choice of domicile, delegate to it.
8. The foundation of the Constitution is the notion of equal protection of the law, whereby all are equal under the law. This concept is documented, for instance, in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This notion carries with it the requirement that every “person” has equal rights under the law:
8.1. The only way that rights can be “unequal” within any given population is for you to consensually give up some of them, for instance, by procuring some government “privilege”.
8.2. If the government is treating you differently than someone else, by, for instance, making you pay more money for the same service that someone else is paying for, then it is engaging in unequal protection. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that this service has nothing to do with protection and is a private, for-profit government business not authorized by the Constitution.
If you would like to learn more about the above summation, we enthusiastically endorse the following excellent FREE electronic book which exhaustively and constitutionally analyzes all of these concepts:
The notion of sovereign immunity also provides a way to explain how the principle of federalism works, as we described it in the previous section:
1. States of the Union qualify as “foreign states” and “foreign sovereigns” in relation to the federal government.
2. “Citizens” and municipalities within these foreign states” and “foreign sovereigns” may be described as “instrumentalities of a foreign state”, by virtue of the fact that they directly administer the affairs of the foreign state they occupy as voters and jurists and “taxpayers”.
(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and
(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.
3. The Supreme Court recognized how “citizens” administer the government they created and continue to sustain with their tax dollars and as voters and jurists when they said:
4. When these “foreign states” and “foreign sovereigns” wish to cooperate in achieving a common goal, they may voluntarily band together and under the principles of “comity”, may enact laws prescribing and recognizing these international agreements:
5. Federalism simply describes the principle whereby:
5.1. No one of these co-equal sovereign and foreign states may exercise legislative jurisdiction within the borders of a fellow foreign state.
5.2. When jurisdiction is asserted within one of these states by the federal government, then explicit proof of consent must be produced in some form in order for the courts to enforce the legal rights or activities that it is regulating or administering. This is consistent with item 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(1) within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which says that states may surrender their sovereign immunity by their consent.
5.3. The consent required to be demonstrated under the principles of federalism can be either explicit (in writing or by legislative enactment) or implicit (by their conduct). For example, when a foreign state of the Union engages in interstate commerce, it is “presumed” pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution to have “consented” to the jurisdiction of the federal government to regulate said commerce and to obey all enactments of Congress which might lawfully regulate said commerce. Here is how the U.S. Supreme Court described this concept:
|Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship||Last revision: 8/16/09|
|Home About Contact||This private system is NOT subject to monitoring|